... Therefore God does not exist.

[Mr. President]

When man first looked up at the sun and wondered, "How does it move by itself?", he had no telescopes or advanced optical instruments to to tell him what was happening. So the idea of a god that rode across the sky in a flaming chariot was feasible.

Today it is the same thing. We still seek miraculous explanations for the wonders of the world, only now we call them science. To believe blindly in science is no different that believing blindly in religion. They do the same things: fudge the basic questions, demonize those who do not agree, change the rules whenever it suits them ("Weee-elll, I'll say that there's a particle called a tachyon that moves faster than light and backwards in time, and whose properties are just so that they satisfy my observations . . .).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MacTBone
How pray tell, do you get anything from nothing?

If it is nothing, by definition, there isn't anything there. It's not like you have an empty banl account, you don't have a bank account at all.

Well actually, I would say there is no such thing as nothingness. We define (any)things by their attributes, and in order for something to be nothing(ness) it must not have any attributes. That very fact is an attribute in and of itself.

Put another way, nothingness is nothing in no dimensions which is still by definition something, as represented in the mathematical statement: 0⁰ =1

[mactbone]

Ahhh, but how do you define 0/0 or 1/0, it's not the same as 0/1.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Mr. President
When man first looked up at the sun and wondered, "How does it move by itself?", he had no telescopes or advanced optical instruments to to tell him what was happening. So the idea of a god that rode across the sky in a flaming chariot was feasible.

Today it is the same thing. We still seek miraculous explanations for the wonders of the world, only now we call them science. To believe blindly in science is no different that believing blindly in religion. They do the same things: fudge the basic questions, demonize those who do not agree, change the rules whenever it suits them ("Weee-elll, I'll say that there's a particle called a tachyon that moves faster than light and backwards in time, and whose properties are just so that they satisfy my observations . . .).

Bullcrap. People used to look to deities and spirits to explain the world around them. But as a species we have accrued a lot of experience over the millennia and now we have something called the 'scientific method', a doctrine whereby which a human can rationalise the universe around him, study it and play with it, and try and get some real answers, thus dispensing of the emotional and psychological need for a higher divine force.

[Goingonit]

God could exist or could not, I'm not sure. However, if God's existence is impossible to discern from logic and sensual perception then God does not influence our world. Therefore, whether or not God exists is irrelevant to us.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Ahhh, but how do you define 0/0 or 1/0, it's not the same as 0/1.

1/0 is undefined, while 0/0 is indeterminate. You can make 0/0 equal anything you want.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Today it is the same thing. We still seek miraculous explanations for the wonders of the world, only now we call them science. To believe blindly in science is no different that believing blindly in religion.

Scientific laws are experimentally verified. Religion defies verification. So no, science and religion are by no means identical; religion is mystical, science is not.

If someone says "This object will fall at approximately 9.8 meters per second squared when I drop it from the top of a tower," and you say "Prove it!", then voila, they proceed to drop the object and measure its descent, and have once again reaffirmed Newton's laws of motion. If someone says "This bread is actually the body of Christ," or maybe "You're going to Hell when you die," and I say "Prove it!", they cannot experimentally reaffirm their statement.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Oh yes I can, lots and lot's of times.
In fact, usually it is much easier to find proof of not existence than of existence.

Oh really? Here's a small test. Prove that there crows with white feathers do not exist.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Oh but I have evidence! Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in.

That's not evidence. Just because you have chosen to believe that the earth is flat, or the sun goes around the earth, doesn't mean they are true.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Evidence that comes from the testimony given on the words and actions of one Man that coherently demonstrated the He could be the Son of God.

If there were such testimonies, why didn't Paul use them?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
I also have evidence on the words and actions of those who followed Him, particularly after His death, when no particular rational reason can explain why they would keep, follow and proclaim the words and actions of someone that suffered the most humiliating death in the Roman Empire.

The funny thing about that is, if Jesus of Nazareth did exist and he was found guity of blasphemy, why was he punished by Roman laws, while he was only guity of Jewish laws? Care to explain that?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Of course, I believe those men and women, and those who wrote their testimonies were honest. Therefore I believe them.

Even with such quotes such as,

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that ye might have life through his name."(John 20:31)

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Atheists, however choose not to regard those testimonies as truthfull. I don't understand why.

Maybe because there's no external evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
If there is no need for God, why are so many of our questions still answered based upon His existence?

Such questions are either rhetorical due to cultural bias (you'll see no such questions in, say, India or China), or raised by those who think the Christian god does exist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think more relevant questions go along the lines of "Why is nature the way it is?"

I am sure you know that science does not deal with the "why's," just the "how's." Why are rubies red? Why do people walk on their feet, not their hands?

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
If the ultimate axiomatic answer is "just because", it is as unsatisfactory an answer as saying "because God made it that way". All you do is replace "God" with "Science".

If you posit a god, all you have accomplished is to push the whole thing one step further, as in, "Why is there a god?"

[Urban Ranger]

Re: ... Therefore God does not exist.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
The chalenge I pose here to all atheists is to try and prove, through reason, logic and known facts that God does not exist.

Anyone care to give it a try?

The question itself is vague.

If the challenge is to refute the existence of the orthodox Christianity god, with a clearly defined set of characteristics, it has been done before.

If the challenge is to refute a more nebulous god who is just some vague notion, the answer is no.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Oh really? Here's a small test. Prove that there crows with white feathers do not exist.

Let's see...
Facts:
1. I never saw one, therefore, as far as I know, there is no strong evidence of it's existence;
2. There is no need for it's existence.
Therefore, by the use of Okhams Razor, it doesn't exist.
I believe that puts the burden of proof on your side.
Unless you show me evidence of its existence, I can be fairlly sure that my reasoning disproved its existence.

Easy, no?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's not evidence. Just because you have chosen to believe that the earth is flat, or the sun goes around the earth, doesn't mean they are true.

Your right. The only problem is that there is strong empirical evidence of those facts.
Curious enough is to try and apply Okham's Razor prior to Magellan's Expedition or Galilleo Discouvery. You surelly agree with me that it will leed to the conclusion that they could not proclaim that the world was round or that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If there were such testimonies, why didn't Paul use them?

Whould you care to elaborate on that?
I can't figure out what you mean when you say that a converted person does not uses the testimonies that contributed to his conversion.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The funny thing about that is, if Jesus of Nazareth did exist and he was found guity of blasphemy, why was he punished by Roman laws, while he was only guity of Jewish laws? Care to explain that?

Jesus alleged crimes:
- Under the Jewish court: Blasphemy
- Under the Roman court: Sedicion (said to proclaim Himself as the King of Jews).
I think that much is explained.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Even with such quotes such as,

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that ye might have life through his name."(John 20:31)

Which, I gather, automatically means they are lying, right.
More or less like nowadays newspapers: they describe what happen so that you understand what happen. As the survival of a newspaper lies on it's credibility, I must deduce, from your logic that all news are lies, right?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Maybe because there's no external evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

The appearance of many Christian Comunities is an external evidence of the following facts:

- After the death of Jesus, a bunch of guys that had never left there homes prior to knowing Jesus started to proclame His words and actions, not only near there homes but in far, unknown places. That, even though the person Whose words and actions they were proclaiming had been condemned by both Jewish and Roman courts to the most humiliating of deaths.

- In far away communities, some people that had never heared of Jesus believed in them, without any shred of factual proof, not a single written external record... nothing. In those places many people did the so called "miracles" so why would they believe in these guys that also performed those "stunts"? Maybe because the message was different, because they actually were coherent with that message and the Apostles took no personal advantage of proclaiming the message (Peter and Paul, for instance, were condemned/killed for it).

This facts do not point to clear evidence on the fact that a God exists and particularly that Christians have some leads on How is this God. But it should make us ponder.

And one interesting test about miracles is the one suggested by Hume in the link Zyu offers in this thread. It says that a miracle can only be proved if it's disproval is more miracoulous than that.
For me, it strickes as much more miracoulous that men such as Peter, Paul and the other Apostles decided to waste their lives defending the most wonderfull values Humankind as yet reached in one single attempt and doing that under totally wrong and mistakened basis. However, that's my interpretation of the facts

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Such questions are either rhetorical due to cultural bias (you'll see no such questions in, say, India or China), or raised by those who think the Christian god does exist.

That is a matter of opinion.
However, cultural bias derives from diferent knowledge of things and different ways of interpreting the things we know.
Usually, cultural bias allows to different and equally important questions, that, after being answered or in the attempt of answering them contribute to the general good.
So I don't think we can disregard questions out of cultural bias.

[Ecowiz Returns]

It's a known fact that the Human concept of the existence of something that allows the explanation of all we currently don't know is driven by our need to fit all things togheter and explains why most of us (I would risk all of us) place something in a role of Ultimate Explanation (God or superior entity) or Ultimate Explanation Tool (Science).

This means that this discussion between theists and atheists will never end, because we will never understand all. Even know, with current Humankind's expanded knowledge, some people don't trust some of the scientific findings just because they cannot fit them in their own partial knowledge of things and how they construct their understanding of the world based on that knowledge. So even Science is bound to be questioned on it's eficacy, particularly every other Science in every other area of knowledge.

Also Science and Religion aren't incompatible. Because there is still something to better understand and to discouver, a religious person can always have an open mind about science as iluminating the path on the works of God. And he can do that, because there will still be something that Science still can't answer.

So trying to reason on the existence of God is, in my opinion, an interesting, maybe usefull is some sort but surelly unfinished task.
The main reason we believe in God?
- This belief help us answer unanswered questions.
Does this mean that God actually exists?
- Not at all.
Does the answer to the prior question justify the assertation of the non-Existence of God?
- Actually... no. God may exist, so I can believe He exists not by reason but by Faith.
Is the belief in God construtive to Humankind?
- In my opinion, the body of what we currently defend as Human Values is indebted to religion if not for his origin that for being the most effective mechanism to proclaim and spread them.
Was in any occasion the belief in God destructive?
- Unfortunatelly, yes. But in every of those ocasions it is possible to demonstrate that the first thing that was atacked were the defining values of the religions that are responsible for those errors (particularly the Christian religion).

So religion derives from Human need and it is actually beneficial to individual and social Human existence.

So why to try and substitute that for a equally difficult to prove theory: claiming that God does not exist and that all derived from Chaos?

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by MacTBone
See, one of the problems with the NT, is that they were written after Jesus died. How do we know they didn't embellish the truth? If they embillished the truth, how hard is it to think that they may have added false things?

Noone can ever be 100% sure of that. It is even likelly that some things where.
But the question is, although it is a dearing task to prove all to be truth, what justifies the conclusion that it is all a lie?
The testimony was not only what was written, and in fact, during some time not even that was needed for people to believe.
The Gospels were not written as a story but as a record, to prevent that the memories where lost. Ok, everybody knows what happens to memories - they tend to get fuzzy and usually only the essential or the things that hasd the most impact remain more or less intact. But what atheists proclaim is that all were lies.
How could so blatant lies got so many followers? Because those that presented the message were credible, I suppose. But how could they credibly present such dificult notions as love you enemy, don't deny help to noone, do not try to be rich for the poor are blessed... without practiving that, themselves? And how could con men die deaths like those of many of the Apostles and other Jesus' followers without ever gaining something in return or even being whoshiped themselves?

Originally posted by MacTBone
Also, none of those miracles have been recreated. If you can claim that they have happened, then I may as well claim I can see ghosts, only, noone can be around while I do it.

I confess, I don't buid my Faith over miracles (not the mediatic ones that is) other than Ressurection. And that one (conveniently you might add) I actually do not expect to be recreated.

Originally posted by MacTBone
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. God created a good world (being all together good, he couldn't do anything but)

3.a God gave us free will

Originally posted by MacTBone
4. There is evil

or alternately

Originally posted by MacTBone
1. In the beggining there was only God (and nothing)
2. God created the world out of nothing
3. You cannot get anything from nothing
4. God does not exist

Now, you mean the God couldn't also have created something out of Himself, right?

- Oh... wait... He can't because He is said to be Perfect and something out of Himself must be Perfect also!!!

Not really! An Omnipotent God is, by concept, able to do more than whatever pre-determined Human restraints we may conceive.

[Keygen]

Re: ... Therefore God does not exist.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
The chalenge I pose here to all atheists is to try and prove, through reason, logic and known facts that God does not exist.

Anyone care to give it a try?

Why should I try to prove or not something that I have never seen in my life yet some claim he's everywere.

I cannot prove he exists but I cannot prove he does not exist either.
Let the scientists do their job who have proven almost anything they have said so far and when they unlock the secrets of creation and completely comprehend how the Universe works then I will have my final conclusion (I will probably not be alive by then ).

In the meanwhile permit me to reject the existance of god at list in the way religion present him and beleive on what I see and conclude after studing well tested and multiple proved scientific theories and personal speculations

BTW, many things that major religions refer in their scripts I found them very wise and the world would be much better if their followers would apply them in their daily life

[Ecowiz Returns]

Keygen

Originally posted by Keygen
BTW, many things that major religions refer in their scripts I found them very wise and the world would be much better if their followers would apply them in their daily life

I second that, Keygen!!!
The world would be much better if all of us did, whether believing or not on their devine or plain human origin, just for the goodness in them.