... Therefore God does not exist.

[Ecowiz Returns]

It was funny to read all the possible justifications an atheist can find in a theist argument about the existence of God.

Off course, most of them are only funny elaborations without any shred of reality, but some of them are indeed used.

It was enlightening to see how easy they can be ridiculed by those who do not believe in the existence of God.

I've always been thought that God exists, i've in many occasions tried to understand wheter or not I could reason His existence. It is part of the dominant culture in my country, my parents believe in it, but i've, in many ocasions tried to understand how could I explain something assuming that God does not exist.

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?

[Eli]

Civnation exists.
Therefore God does not exist.

[DinoDoc]

Eli: Sid is God.
Therefore God must exist.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

The main argument is that gos is like a pink unicorn living on the dark side off the moon, you cannot prove his existance nor disapprove it, as his is so huge a term that there is no point in doing so where he exists or not - the term god is out of our reality and we cannot use any means available to us to prove him or dissaprove him. The @theory of everything@ still does not exist therefore God might exist, but if he is for all purposes in life as elusive as the pink unicorn than he might just as well not exist.vAt least modern science does not need god for any of its axioms. Therefore atheists think that God indeed might not exist. They might be wrong however, but that is not the issue, you cannot see any works of god on this earth that cannot be explained conventionally (or at least to be beieved to be outside present scope of understanding) is the normally the idea that is believed in nowdays in the west.

[BeBMan]

Bananas exist

[OneFootInTheGrave]

how do you know that?

you can eat a banana

[Zopperoni]

Originally posted by BeBro
Bananas exist

Next thread:

Logical Realist with "The Solipsist's Banana"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zopperoni
Next thread:

Logical Realist with "The Solipsist's Banana"

I might actually read that one.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

If a banana who has grown on banana tree unnoticed, then falls on the soil because getting too spoiled (still unnoticed) and finally turn to dust and oblivions (always unnoticed).

Has those Banana really existed ?

[Gibsie]

Don't be an idiot- you cannot argue the existance of banana by using the presumption of his existance

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Ifd we want to refute the existance of Bananas we have to prove that their existence are absurd !



How to begin ?

[Ecowiz Returns]

OneFoot in the Grave:

I agree with you.
In what science is concerned, questions should not be answered in the ways so many times defended by the once dominant Catholic Church:

How does it work?
It works like this:... (then stating what was establish, usually by tradition and not by any clear biblical writing or whatever. certainly not by science)

Why?
Because God wanted to, and one should not question God's ways.

There is no theological reason why we should not investigate further God's Creation. If in the process we find out that Adam and Eve is just an story with a message, thank God for that. Of course this is current doctrine, not always followed, by the way.

For me, it is just as dificult to prove with all certainty that God exists as it is that God doesn't exist. What I really dislike is that, by failing to present a satisfying proof of Gods existence, those that believe in God have to endure the mockery of those that do not believe it. Even if when they haven't themselves a solid proof or reasoning that clears all doubt about their argument.
I mean, we are all equally rationally-capable individuals. If there was such a clear reason we would be most likelly to proclaim it.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

For me those who "Believe" and does who not "Believe" are generally at the same level.
When a member laught at the members of the other groups, that is just that isn't really convinced to believe in the right things.
Those who have the truth Faith don't care about those puny rethorical fights.

[Wraith]

--"Anyone care to give it a try?"

No. You can't prove a negative. Asking people to try is just silly at best (if you don't know exactly what you're asking), or petty and childish (if you do know).

The burden of proof is on those who claim he does exist, not on those who claim he doesn't. If he doesn't interact with our reality in any way, then for all intents and purposes, he does not exist (that pink unicorn theory that's already been mentioned).

If he does interact, then surely you've got evidence...

In the end this, for me, comes down to Ockham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity) and Rand's Razor (which changes entities to concepts and adds nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity). Until I see evidence to the contrary, the simpler explanation is that there is not a god, and it is the more likely case.

Wraith
"Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the Creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying."
-- Dr Pepper

[Jack the Bodiless]

For me, it is just as dificult to prove with all certainty that God exists as it is that God doesn't exist. What I really dislike is that, by failing to present a satisfying proof of Gods existence, those that believe in God have to endure the mockery of those that do not believe it. Even if when they haven't themselves a solid proof or reasoning that clears all doubt about their argument.
I mean, we are all equally rationally-capable individuals. If there was such a clear reason we would be most likelly to proclaim it.

I wouldn't claim that all Christians use arguments like those on Therefore, God exists. Most don't really try to promote or construct a logical argument, they "just believe".

But, when attempts to actually construct an argument keep going awry: well, it certainly suggests there's a fundamental obstacle to all such proofs, and the nonexistence of God is a very good example of such an obstacle.

One of the arguments against the existence of God is the Problem of Nonbelief: if there is an omnipotent God who wants us to accept and worship him, why is this not obvious? Why are there "unbelievers"? Superman is a fictional example of a non-omnipotent but fairly powerful being who has no difficulty convincing people that he exists: why can't God do that?

Possible answers:

1. God is incapable of demonstrating his existence to all.
2. God is unwilling to demonstrate his existence to all.
3. God does not exist.

In the case of the Biblical God, there are Biblical verses which indicate that God has both the power and the desire to reveal his existence to all. Therefore these indicate the nonexistence of the Biblical God.

Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief