Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Victor Galis]

I wouldn't call it gut feeling, though I suppose I see what you mean. I'm a little disturbed that some people do not question the existance of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being of which we have no evidence.

[Giancarlo]

Well for me when coming up to the conclusion that I should be atheist was purely based on gut feeling. But I also brought logic into my beliefs.

[Robert]

Quick reply:

UR:
'my' God is indeed incomprehensible in the meaning that we cannot understand his being. I believe though that he contacted us. Thus: eventhough he is incomprehensible to us, we are not to him.

And yes, the concept of omnipotence is flawed if you take it to the letter.

Sure, a baby can't remember anything before it develops a memory, but he can later ask. There is lies the crucial difference.

no, the difference is that people saw the baby being born. And we still see babies being born.

You refuse to open your eyes.

and if you visit trueorigins it comes with coutner arguments. And talkorigins has counter arguments to those counter arguments and trueorigins has counter arguments to the count.......... etc. etc. etc.

The problem is the change of opinion about micro and macro evolution. I don't think we can ever agree on that.

Matter has no origin and neither does energy. As far as we can tell they have always been existing.

infinity........
is that really a scientific acceptable answer?

Why are you calling evolutionists "believers?" Is your intellect so awesomely superior to the combined intelligence of all the evolutionists past present and future, that the overwhelming amount of evidence that is present means nothing to you?

I know that all scientists of all ages allways thought they knew all the secrets. And I know that centuries later their knowledge appeared to be mostly wrong.

And I know that scientists are human.
If I look at evolutionism, I can't see no difference between any religion and those people who 'believe' in evolution.

Do you believe in gravity? Do you think that, once you stop believing in gravity, it stops working?

I can observe gravity myself by dropping an apple.
I cannot observe the evolution from a fish into a mammal.

My question is, since your god is incomprehensible, how can you tell anything about your god?

because he revealed it.

Do you understand about what you are talking?

you say we can recreate it? the first seconds of the universe?

Theories can be tested, your faith cannot.

some theories can't be tested. We can never test in anyway if the big-bang theory is right. We can make guesses, but we can never test it, neither can we be sure. (unless we can travel back in time)

It has, AFAIK.

first you say mass has always been there, and now it pops out of nothing........

At this point, my only conclusion I can drawn about you is that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking.

do you understand what I am saying?
Do you deny that there is no social control among scientists? Do you deny that people with different opinions are outcast among scientists?

On the other hand, you have let your imagination to distort your perception of reality. You speak of this vast conspiracy. Where is the evidence?

pherhaps you have your imagination........
oh, now I remember, such a discussion will lead nowhere.

There is no evidence, but there is logica.

thanks, Rogan Josh :rolleyes

Loinburger:

What's time, then?

mass changes, if you put all the changes after each other, we call the order of mass-transformation 'time'.

Yes. Space is defined by an x, y, and z axis, each of which is perpendicular to the other two axes. It isn't defined in terms of masses.

if x has no width and y has no height and z has no depth....... would there still be space?

Which is why I said that there is no reason to assume that our ideas of cause-and-effect apply to the origin of mass.

yes, we can see that mass does not appear from nothing under our circumstanses.
But there is mass, thus it must have ever appeared out of nothing, thus other circumstanses must have been there. Circumstanses that do not happen in our universe.

when any metaphysical explanation is just as valid as any other metaphysical explanation.

that's not true.
there's only one valid explanation. Pherhaps we don't know it, but it's not right that all explanations are valid.

The form of atheism I ascribe to is best defined as "no metaphysical belief," not "there is no god or higher power." In this form, atheism isn't a belief at all.

that's not atheism.

but how is "belief in a higher power of which there is no supporting evidence" more logical than "lack of any metaphysical belief given the lack of supporting evidence for any and all metaphysical beliefs"?

I at least provide a possible asnwer.

Fez:

You have proven time and time again you fail to grasp any concept of respect towards any fellow posters especially me.

I'm sorry, but I think you miss my point.
I do not want to show disrespect. I thought I putted that down clearly, but pherhaps I did not.

But I am sure about my sake. I can be sure, can't I?
I will not push my believe as being the truth into your throath. If you will not agree with me, so be it. Butin a discussion, we can talk, can't we?

Thus for that reason again: I do respect you, and everyone. I see no reason to do different since it would make no sence, it won't change anything and it won't be any better.

But we talk about pherhaps the most important thing of live, and I'm happy that I am certain about it. Please let me be certain. Don't requier me to put my life on something I'm not certain about.

What? Work on coherent sentence structure please. I am thinking you are attempting to say that atheism is not true... but you are wrong... because you cannot prove it either way. Some of us just to choose to believe differently.

I try the opposite.
I try not to prove atheism to be wrong, I morely try to show how atheism is just an opion. Pherhaps a very common opinion these days.......

CyberShy: Is the person who's highly educated in lies someone we should look up to?

Fez: Meaning in my honest opinion, you. You are the one trying to tell people they are wrong. Quite lying to yourself and this forum.

well, I think in this thread we all tell each other. That's why we have a discussion.
And read my line again, I just try to make clear that an education system MIGHT fail. If all people are educated in lies, the lie will become common.

Imagine that situation. I do not make a claim that it happens, I try to picture a situation where education and research is not that good.

They do not. They criticize your beliefs for at time being arbitrary but they do not put you on an inferior level saying you must die because you are an infidel to the truth. We may be criticizing but we are not extremist.

neither am I. I never said anybody should die, or is an inferior infidel. Don't put those words in my mouth.

Pherhaps Urban Ranger wants to confirm that.

And you my enemy, cannot claim any belief system is wrong.

that's right, I cannot declare a belief system to be wrong.
but that doesn't make my statement wrong. a belief system that is wrong is inferior. But it's not up to me to declare anything to be inferior. But don't think that in the end it doesn't matter, and we will all be right.

And honestly you do not know what you are doing.

I copied the style of argumentation.
And it's funny to see how atheists handle their own style of argumentation.

Atheists believe in what is logical

no, atheists believe in no deities. And they believe that is logical. But so do I believe that my belief is logical.

And you refuse to accept you are following one of the greatest fallicies in history. Religion and the belief in god. You I will defend my ground against religious nuts like you.

who's sounding like the religious nut in this case?
Is it up to you to declare my religion to be inferior, and a fallacy?

A few lines ago you became angry at me because you THOUGHT I said things like that, but I did not.
Now you do say those things you became angry about against me.

do you see what I mean with copying an argumentation style? Pherhaps with the difference that I only fake the style, since I would never say extremistic things like you just did.

That is the most hypocritical thought I have heard from you all day.

you can't see it, can you?
How I try to picture it in front of your eyes how modern atheistic 'logic' is no different thatn ancient christian believe...........! You call it hypocritical........ that's because I picture you what you think about me in front of your eyes........

can you see it?
You think you are different than me, but you are not.
I know we are not different. I know I have a believe, I know I follow it because I was teached it from my youth. ButI doubt if you know...........

and if I picture it in your mind, you won't see it but name me a hypocrit. I am no hypocrit because I admit the wrongs that the church has done. I admit it all. But you don't. you think you are right, and logic is on your side. atheism is the default, and everybody else is a nutcase and an extremist.................

[Ned]

If god exists, he is either perfect or imperfect. If he is imperfect, he is powerful, but not all powerful. He therefor is simply another being like you an me.

If however, he is perfect, then he does not change. Change implies imperfection.

However, he is alleged to have created the universe.

This is change.

So a god that created the universe is imperfect and just another being - albeit, extremely powerful.

By force of logic, there is no God, albeit, there still could be a very powerful being who created the universe.

[Giancarlo]

I will keep my response short and simple as I want to seal this discussion soon as I have little time...

Originally posted by CyberShy
Fez:
But I am sure about my sake. I can be sure, can't I?
I will not push my believe as being the truth into your throath. If you will not agree with me, so be it. Butin a discussion, we can talk, can't we?

Fine. Then don't put it down my throat I found you were previously in this debate.

But we talk about pherhaps the most important thing of live, and I'm happy that I am certain about it. Please let me be certain. Don't requier me to put my life on something I'm not certain about.

Fine.

I try the opposite.
I try not to prove atheism to be wrong, I morely try to show how atheism is just an opion. Pherhaps a very common opinion these days.......

And religion is also an opinion.

Imagine that situation. I do not make a claim that it happens, I try to picture a situation where education and research is not that good.

Education and Research is always good but a lot of the times they have nothing to do with trying to disprove any religion but rather are trying to explain why things happen.

but that doesn't make my statement wrong. a belief system that is wrong is inferior.

How can a belief system be wrong if you cannot disprove it?

I copied the style of argumentation.
And it's funny to see how atheists handle their own style of argumentation.

And it is funny to see how religious nuts like you counter argue with others. You just throw more words not explaining anything. Put away those words and explain it simply because you will never get your point across.

no, atheists believe in no deities. And they believe that is logical. But so do I believe that my belief is logical.

As you can see I am atheist and I believe it is logical.

who's sounding like the religious nut in this case?
Is it up to you to declare my religion to be inferior, and a fallacy?

It is rather my opinion

Now you do say those things you became angry about against me.

Ugh! I cannot respond to the rest of this because it is not understandable... put more work into your posts so I can understand them please and then I will respond to them.

[Bosh]

Btw, Okham's (spelling?) razor is not "God". It is overrated. Just because a simple explanation is more likely in theory doesn't make it automatically true in practice.

Weeeee time for another hume-inspired tirade

Nothing makes ANYTHING "automatically true" (unless you assume a set of axioms to be true) there is no such thing as absolute proof, so all you've got for anything is varying likelihoods (sp?) that are determined by the evidence at hand. This Occam's Razor is not over-rated at all, since it does the most that it could possibly be capable of, ie indicate where the greater probability tends to lie...

If we can do all that with our imagination, why would a god not be capable to do that?

Because there's a difference between dreams and reality?

But you do have a point the hole "stone so heavy he can't lift it" is a pretty poor atheistic arguement that doesn't have much too it besides semantic hair-splitting.

But we don't see universes being born all the time.

We don't see gods being born either.

Neither do we see macro-evolution happen.

There is no real difference between macro/micro evolution, they're just terms made up to confuse matters by creationist. To the extent that macro-evolution happens its just "micro evolution that piles up over a damn long time."

atheism is not the default.

atheism is the default, aghostism is the default aeverything is the default until there's good reason to believe otherwise

It's been the default since forever, since every civilization always worshipped gods.

Logical fallacy, argumentum ad populus (sp?). And in any case many cultures don't really worship gods (like say, shinto which has kami that aren't really gods at all. You could say that humans have a consistent record of believing in the supernatural, but that doesn't prove much).

their origination through self-appearance.

What?

We imagine gods and heros all the time. All fairy tales contain higher powers.

Yup, human psychology is a strange and wonderful thing.

It has not been observed.

Yes it has. The Casimir Effect for example.

We know that mass needs a cause.

No, not really...

We have never observed any mass that appeared without a cause.

Yes we have. Virtual particles.

We can't apply the law of "We need blue and yellow" on green, but that doesn't mean that same law counts for blue.

Even if all you said above was the case, baldly asserting that god is the equivalent of a primary color doesn't get you much of anywhere...

[quopte]That's as abserd as if you say that a monkey will type a book like shakespear did if you put him long enough after a typewriter.[/quote]
Comparison doesn't work, evolution isn't random...

why would those monkeys transformate into thinking beings by accident if they can't even write a book by accident?

Because smarter monkies get eaten by leopards less, shakespeare-writing monkies failed to share this good fortune

Can we observe monkeys becoming people?

There's an extensive fossil record.

We can not even be sure if the stars are on the distance we think they are.

We do more or less thanks to triangulation and the doppler effect.

life is special. I give it no change to occur by accident.

Why?

[Victor Galis]

atheism is not the default.

-So we are born believing in at least one God? I find that hard to believe.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
mass changes, if you put all the changes after each other, we call the order of mass-transformation 'time'.

How is this different than saying that time is a dimension?

if x has no width and y has no height and z has no depth....... would there still be space?

No, there would be a point, not space. I fail to see what this has to do with your incorrect assertion that space cannot exist without mass, though.

when any metaphysical explanation is just as valid as any other metaphysical explanation.

that's not true.
there's only one valid explanation. Pherhaps we don't know it, but it's not right that all explanations are valid.

There is no objective decision process that can be used to determine which metaphysical explanations are valid or invalid, therefore all metaphysical explanations are equivalent for us since they are equally indeterminate/undefined. Provide me with an objective decision process, and I will take metaphysics seriously. Until then, metaphysics is a fun time and nothing more--if it is impossible to judge which metaphysical assertions are right or wrong, then metaphysical assertions can have absolutely no bearing on real life.

The form of atheism I ascribe to is best defined as "no metaphysical belief," not "there is no god or higher power." In this form, atheism isn't a belief at all.

that's not atheism.

Theism is the belief in god(s), therefore atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). How about you read a bit about atheism, since you've clearly got a flawed understanding of it.

but how is "belief in a higher power of which there is no supporting evidence" more logical than "lack of any metaphysical belief given the lack of supporting evidence for any and all metaphysical beliefs"?

I at least provide a possible asnwer.

Delusion is nothing to be proud of. You want me to join your club? Fine. "I believe that a race of pink twelve-headed androgenous unicorns created time and space and life and all that, and these unicorns have commanded that I pay homage to Snoggo the Wonder Rainbow thrice per year by striking myself about the testicles with a fluffy pillow." Now that I've provided a possible answer, I suppose that we're on equal footing. After all, "belief in something, no matter how implausible" is apparently better than "acknowledgment that belief without a shred of evidence doesn't get you anywhere in a hurry."

[MosesPresley]

God who?

[Az]

For God's sake Cybershy, leave it alone. You are giving religion a bad name...

Yes, cybershy, don't destroy the clear reputation that religion has masterfully created for itself during the years. .

A rather interesting debate, esp. considering the amount of times this topic has been chewed over.

*lurks*

[Bereta_Eder]

_Do you believe in God?

_It depends on the day.

[Guynemer]

Oh Christ on a crutch, not another one of these.

It's simple people. The existence or nonexistence of any given deity CAN NOT BE PROVEN, short of said deity spontaneously appearing before the eyes of every human being and saying, "Here I am, you hairless gorilla!"

Any attempt to prove the existence or nonexistence of a deity amounts to a rather disappointing session of intellectual masturbation. At least with the real thing, you have a little something to show for it afterwards.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
'my' God is indeed incomprehensible in the meaning that we cannot understand his being.

Does that include whether your God exists or not?

Originally posted by CyberShy
I believe though that he contacted us.

Is this from your own religious experience? I have no doubt that you could have some kind of mythical experience. The big sticking point lies in the interpretation.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Thus: eventhough he is incomprehensible to us, we are not to him.

This doesn't make any difference to us though. If you are positing that there is some kind of infinite, personal entity that forever lies outside of our sphere of knowledge, what sense does it make to talk about this being?

Originally posted by CyberShy
And yes, the concept of omnipotence is flawed if you take it to the letter.

To the letter? What do you mean?

Originally posted by CyberShy

Sure, a baby can't remember anything before it develops a memory, but he can later ask. There is lies the crucial difference.

no, the difference is that people saw the baby being born. And we still see babies being born.

Sure, but that's not my point. My point is natural events can be verified. This verification can be direct or indirect.

Originally posted by CyberShy
and if you visit trueorigins it comes with coutner arguments. And talkorigins has counter arguments to those counter arguments and trueorigins has counter arguments to the count.......... etc. etc. etc.

We are not talking about arguments. We are talking about actual observations. Facts. You can't argue away facts.

Originally posted by CyberShy
The problem is the change of opinion about micro and macro evolution. I don't think we can ever agree on that.

Macro-evolution is the same as speciation. It is what Creationists can't accept. However, scpeciations has been observed. That is a fact. You can't argue away facts.

Originally posted by CyberShy

Matter has no origin and neither does energy. As far as we can tell they have always been existing.

infinity........
is that really a scientific acceptable answer?

It's only infinity if you accept a static universe. Even if it is infinity, how is it not scientific?

Originally posted by CyberShy
I know that all scientists of all ages allways thought they knew all the secrets. And I know that centuries later their knowledge appeared to be mostly wrong.

It appears you are just like the scientists you so alleged. I know of no scientist past or present who asserted he or she has (had) all the answers. It is widely acknowledged that scientific knowledge is incomplete. Now if you stop pulling such fabrications out from your appendix, it'll behoove all of us.

Originally posted by CyberShy
And I know that scientists are human.
If I look at evolutionism, I can't see no difference between any religion and those people who 'believe' in evolution.

First of all, I know of no "evolutionism." If such a word exists it is something coined by Creationists to further their lies. Somebody else - I think it's Lemmy, have responded to the rest.

Originally posted by CyberShy

Do you believe in gravity? Do you think that, once you stop believing in gravity, it stops working?

I can observe gravity myself by dropping an apple.
I cannot observe the evolution from a fish into a mammal.

You can observe an apple falling down to the ground, but how do you tell it is gravity? Do you not have to take the words of scientists at face value that it is indeed something called "gravity" that caused the apple to fall?

So why is this parity between evolution and gravity?

The fact that Creationism is not even a scientific theory should tip anybody off about its real nature.

Originally posted by CyberShy

My question is, since your god is incomprehensible, how can you tell anything about your god?

because he revealed it.

That doesn't work.

If something is unknowable, it is. Furthurmore, you do not have any framework to interpret any mythical experience that you might have.

Originally posted by CyberShy

Do you understand about what you are talking?

you say we can recreate it? the first seconds of the universe?

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that you do not understand the Big Bang cosmology.

Theories can be tested, your faith cannot.

Originally posted by CyberShy
some theories can't be tested. We can never test in anyway if the big-bang theory is right. We can make guesses, but we can never test it, neither can we be sure. (unless we can travel back in time)

Of course it can. We can derive the consequences of Big Bang, then check it against astronomical observations.

We can't test gravity either. Apples falling is just a consequence of gravity.

Originally posted by CyberShy

It has, AFAIK.

first you say mass has always been there, and now it pops out of nothing........

Because energy is converted into mass in these situations. How could you not know about this basic stuff before you start asking questions?

Originally posted by CyberShy

At this point, my only conclusion I can drawn about you is that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking.

do you understand what I am saying?
Do you deny that there is no social control among scientists? Do you deny that people with different opinions are outcast among scientists?

I understand what you are saying. You do not understand the dynamics of the scientific community. Do you have any concrete examples of said "outcastings?"

Originally posted by CyberShy

On the other hand, you have let your imagination to distort your perception of reality. You speak of this vast conspiracy. Where is the evidence?

pherhaps you have your imagination........
oh, now I remember, such a discussion will lead nowhere.

There is no evidence, but there is logica.

"Garbage in, garbage out."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Any attempt to prove the existence or nonexistence of a deity amounts to a rather disappointing session of intellectual masturbation. At least with the real thing, you have a little something to show for it afterwards.

I got CyberShy to concede that atheism is the default state. Which is something to show

[Docfeelgood]

Have not seen a person die yet that has not talked to GOD before departing this life


All you so called non-believers can fool yourself but you cannot fool me.