Atheists: What's your evidence God doesn't exist? (choice, rejecting, mass)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

When backed into a corner, you become quite Mystic-al for sure. People's curiosity has, for some time now, been successfully satiated by the use of a rather simple methodology called Science. In and of itself it is only that, not the evil demon that so many IDT types claim it to be. (because, of course, they frantically fear it's consequences...).
That simple and defensible methodology has routinely and consistently dis-proved most all of the basic and required tenets of fundamentalist Christian dogma, ranging from the age of this Earth, to the motions of planets, to proving that supposed Ark remnants and clay figurines in Mexico are all both impossible or fakery. Recent advances in the new "science" of DNA genome mapping, coupled with Dr. Lenski's excellent 22 yr long experiment likewise, once and for all, proved that Evolution, not SUPERNATURAL Insta-Poof, is the source of the bio-diversity on Earth.

Yes, yes, yes . . . you believe the Christian fundamentalists are complete morons, etc. etc . . and I need you to educate me about science . . . right! Your irrational emotionality and disregard of my ACTUAL positions to pursue your winnable anti-fundamentalist absurdities diatribe is now understandable to me, at least. Supernatural . . . pathetic.

That pretty much only leaves abiogenesis and the possibilites of the origins of our Universe as yet undefined completely and irrefutibly. Who says it has to have "origined" at all? Maybe, logically, it was just an unassembled Lego™ or Mechano™ set. And, BTW, that uber-logical Scientific Tool box is being relentlessly applied somewhere to those remnant questions, as you sleep tonight. Answers will posted here, and soon. (And, predictably, ignored or rejected).

Nothing HAS to be . . . except what we have validated to be . . . that doesn't mean you and everyone else can't have their preferred beliefs about any additional attributes. The rest of your ad hominem tirade looks more and more like just more emotional abreaction to a perceived threat to your intellectual prowess and perceived admiration from your mate and others (or given your belief in it . . . I suppose it could be a SUPERNATURAL possession)

Only to you. Even if God is, let's say, the Intelligent Designer, there's even lots of logical argument that, if so, he must have been having an "off say" when he designed us. If we really are "in his image", one then must of needs assume he also has lower back pain, kidney stones, neck tension headaches, and all those other problems that, in fact, are the direct result of our too-fast evolution from chimp ancestors who, by their more mechanically correct design, do not suffer from these typical humanoid problems.

::sigh:: Typical focus on the physicality and materiality . . . we are spiritual factories . . . the physical attributes have little to do with that.

But, I digressed. Evolution and an ancient Earth are all facts, and yet the biblical authors tell us in no uncertain terms that He did it all despite the logical flaws in that argument. Bio- and geo-science alone have categorically disproved God's SUPERNATURAL participation, by simple, logical investigations of Nature.

You insist on arguing against your preferred adversaries rather than me . . . there is nothing supernatural, period.

Bovine solidified excretia. There's the relentless progression of logical neutral investigation about our natural world, absent the taint of Christianity, Islam or, say, the devout beliefs of the NorthWest Haida indians regarding their origins, as just a few examples. All those belief systems, and thousands more, borne of man's innate fear of the unknown, fly in the logical face of scientifically managed curiosity.

They all require a SUPERNATURAL component (see & read again that definition above) else we'll have to concede that Brother Raven, fighting with the Ancient Bear, is what causes thunderstorms. Or that Noah spent 75 years building a mechanically improbable boat, and then got a mere 70 million species that we now know to exists, minimum, on board absent the necessary food & water, much less space. (70 million is the minimum number necessary just to have two of each now-known [but not then...] species, but which, even then, would not have allowed successful re-colonization. That's simple reproductive ecology. Logic, if you will... By those requirements, we'd have to have had, oh let's conservatively say, 250 million organisms on that strained wooden tub. Sound SUPERNATURAL to you?).

Default position indeed! It's not a "default" position; it's an outright rejection based on the evidence you claim clearly and irrefutibly points in 180˚ to a necessarily SUPERNATURAL god.

You choose to argue against supernatural which I reject primarily because you can reject it too. All I can say to this misdirected diatribe is . . . So what? There are idiots in the world who believe ridiculous things about it . . . your point is? What could that possibly have to do with what ACTUALLY is? How could ANY of that possibly justify your rejection of any source as the default?

The more I/we examine your particular "logic" and so-called philosophical strength of argument, the less apparent & the more weak it appears, and the more hopelessly mired in your own "default" logic you become. It's indefensible, and your saying simply otherwise in no way makes it so.

What "solidified bovine excrement" . . . you have yet to even scratch the surface and attempt a real examination of my philosophical position. All you have done is rant and rave against the nonexistent supernatural and the many erroneous fundamentalist beliefs extant (your favorite . . . and apparently ONLY adversaries you will acknowledge).

[rifleman]

Well then, since you put it that way... I choose now to no longer escalate this, or waste my time on what is obviously a fruitless pursuit for both of us. I'll choose to "de-escalate" things.

I have learned through many exchanges here on C-D, in particular, to look for certain key indicators. You do have a right to your own determinations & philosophies, which, of course you have taken as seriously as the rest of us. Just possibly as serious as I took my evaluations. We just came to different conclusions, and apparently with equal veracity.

The differences? You choose to conclude there's a need for intervention by a higher being. I choose not to, and both of us are apparently completely convinced. My mind just resonates better (I know, how scientific is that?) with my beliefs. Your ideas do require an un-natural intervention (under whatever name you choose to utilize, "supernatural" not being allowed) fall dead-flat with me. No way around that. So.....

Philosophically speaking.... Have a good one!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Your ideas do require an un-natural intervention (under whatever name you choose to utilize, "supernatural" not being allowed) fall dead-flat with me. No way around that. So.....

I'll be sure to tell God to add that requirement to the "laws" of the universe . . . i wasn't even aware of it, obviously. Somehow I doubt it will be added, though . . . since there is no such thing as un-natural either.

Philosophically speaking.... Have a good one!

Peace.

[kb09]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Wouldn't think of it . . . but I ask the same courtesy from you...

I have been showing you the courtesy that has not been present in your post; you know the whole, telling people what they think even though they've already stated how they feel about the subject thing. Yea, that. Another sign of common courtesy is to have proper grammar and syntax. Read: please stop with the ellipsis, it's like your zoning out and coming back in every time you type. It get's tiring after a while.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

not some automatic rejection that says I have to prove God exists because YOU don't like the attributes I assign.

I'm not saying that in the least. You are the one saying God does exist. I'm simply asking you to give your reasons on why you claim so. Now, if it was me saying that God does not exist, the burden of proof lies on my shoulders. If your going to say your God exist then it is your burden of proof to prove it.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You can prefer YOUR attributes . . . but you cannot NEGATE my God by default simply because I choose to accept ALL of your attributes and ADD some of my own.

See that's the thing. I don't give nature human characteristics. You know what that's called? Personification. You on the other hand...different story.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I see ALL the same things but I add consciousness . . . so we believe in the same God but differ on the attributes.

Again, you are trying to heave your beliefs onto me. I don't give nature human qualities and don't attribute human characteristics to it. I observe and make conclusions based upon what I see. To put God in there somewhere implies the supernatural (things you cannot observe) and that is the opposite of what I am doing.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You want to negate the entire existence of God as the default while retaining only your set of attributes. That's bullsh*t.

No it's real. Would you negate the existence of Spiderman as the default? The bogeyman? Superman? Gnomes? Leprechauns? The seven dwarf's? You want for the existence of your God to be the default and for us non believers to prove that one does not exist. You make the claim, therefore it is your burden of proof to prove it.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You keep your attributes . . . I'll also add mine . . . but you don't get to ask me to prove God exists just because I add more attributes than you do.

Right...

So exactly what are these attributes that you say I give to nature? Let me get this clear first. Because since you have been in my brain all along, you might have picked up something I missed.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Once you NEGATE God you need more than your God nature "just is."

Wrong.

Stop pinning this nature as God thing on me. I already told you, I reject nature as God because I don't believe in a God or deity. I repeat; I DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD OR DEITY. Need it one more time?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am not saying atheists subconsciously believe in my God . . . clearly they don't.

Yes, you are. By saying that we need something more than 'just is' is essentially saying that we need some sort of supernatural being to look up to.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

But they believe in A God . . . and call it nature with the attributes of indifference and purposelessness . . . so they treat it with the same indifference and just ignore it as . . ."it just is."

Dude...

You gotta stop skewing words to twist them into what you want. I wonder, do you even know the meaning of the word atheist? I'd say you don't because if you did you wouldn't put atheist, believe, and God in the same sentence without 'dis' or 'don't' somewhere in there.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Then so is your God nature . . . which you clearly do not believe . . . so stop using comparatives that are NOT comparable.

Stop putting words in my mouth and saying I believe in something when I've clearly (and repeatedly) said I don't.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You clearly know nothing about MY Christian God and you are free to return the favor of indifference to your indifferent God nature . . . that doesn't change anything since it is the same God as mine . . . minus a few attributes.

You. Are. So. Far. Gone.

Period.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

When backed into a corner . . . resort to semantics.

If you want to hijack a word to mean something completely different, that's you. Just expect to be ridiculed when we call you on it.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by kb09

If you want to hijack a word to mean something completely different, that's you. Just expect to be ridiculed when we call you on it.

I seek to impose nothing on you. Believe as you will . . . but do not impose your artificial separation on me as the default . . . AS IF there were some scientific justification for it. I use the elipsis for clarity because my sentences can involve many aspects. Get over it. I will simply repeat what I said to Logic . . . science hijacked the concept of God and renamed it nature because of the arrogance, ignorance and tyranny of earlier religious authorities. They maintain it for the same reasons . . . even though the tyranny has been removed in this country.

There is ONLY one side . . . the division between God and nature was artificially created by science after their horrible schism with the religious fanatics and nutjobs insisting on dominating their efforts. Prior to that there was no separate nature. Separating God from nature is the symptom . . . and abhorrence of the ridiculous assertions of religious types is the primary fuel for maintaining it as the default . . . as we see here with the reactions to my attempt to unify it once again. There is no need to accept ANY particular version of added attributes to nature (my God) to abandon the artificial separation created by the schism. Blame the autocratic religious fanatics for the schism . . . but let's heal it. Leave them in their ignorance and rejection of reality. Each version of additional attributes can be rejected on their own (including mine . . . if you cannot confirm it for yourself) . . . without rejecting the source.

[Boxcar Overkill]

If one asked the creator of the original question, I'm sure he meant "Atheist, what's your evidence that a supernatural God doesn't exist." He meant why do people believe there is not an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural God. I doubt he meant "what's your evidence that there's no laws of nature."

Because that's the debate between atheist and theist. No one doubts that there exist laws of nature. The question is, does their exist a being capable of violating the laws of nature?

So the issue gets side tracked when you introduced a non-conventional definition of God, A definition that for most purposes means a non-God.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

If one asked the creator of the original question, I'm sure he meant "Atheist, what's your evidence that a supernatural God doesn't exist." He meant why do people believe there is not an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural God. I doubt he meant "what's your evidence that there's no laws of nature."

Because that's the debate between atheist and theist. No one doubts that there exist laws of nature. The question is, does their exist a being capable of violating the laws of nature?

So the issue gets side tracked when you introduced a non-conventional definition of God, A definition that for most purposes means a non-God.

Sorry . . . you don't get to co-opt the existence of nature as non-God . . . we have first right of refusal since God was the preferred name for millennia before science even existed.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Sorry . . . you don't get to co-opt the existence of nature as non-God . . . we have first right of refusal since God was the preferred name for millennia before science even existed.

But to communicate, it helps to have common definition of words. If you pick a personally definition of a word that means the exact opposite of how it's understood by common convention, you have to expect communication problems.

I bet that not many people in this thread are interested in the semantic argument of whether atheist should describe the laws of nature as "God". What the OP wanted, and what the people in this thread appear to want, is a lively debate about the basis for disbelieving in a supernatural, omnipotent being.

Your answer to the "is there a God" question is, "Yes, if...", when what you really mean is, "No, but...". That just causes confusion.

[Starcomet]

Originally Posted by Marodi

There are 4 theories.

1) God is infinite
2) Time/Universe is infinite
3) Time/Universe is definate
4) There is no such thing as time.

It's just which one you want to choose and why. Each side can claim that there are holes in the theory, but it's really up to the "believer" to decide which is most probable/likeable

I agree.

[Starcomet]

In the end neither side can prove 100% anything at all about God, because we do not know enough about such a being. In the end all we can do for now is think, believe, and speculate. Anyone who claims otherwise I ask them to provide me with reasons as to WHY they know without a doubt it does or does not exist.