Atheists: What's your evidence God doesn't exist? (prayer, create, about)

[the theoretical scientist]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

What does the big bang have to do with atheism?
I'll repeat this again because you apparently missed it the first dozen times it was stated: atheists don't believe in a god thing. Nothing more, nothing less.
Feel free to start a thread on the big bang, I'm sure it will be popular.

Plenty. If the Big Bang was created, then obviously there is a God. If it wasn't, then it can fairly reasonably be assumed that there isn't. Of course, there are other questions of similar nature that would then have to be answered...

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

Of course, there are other questions of similar nature that would then have to be answered...

Why?
It is not necessary for my survival to know if the big bang is created or not.
Heck, it probably wouldn't even matter if it was answered.

[arod0331]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

Assuming that God had to be created is a mistake. It's applying the natural laws of physics to a supernatural being. Firstly, according to physics, you can't get something out of nothing, but you can't make that assumption with God, as he is outside the laws of physics. Also, saying something is created invokes the idea of time, which also doesn't work, as God would be outside of time... Think about it.

If your god was once a man (therefore bound to the same laws of physics that we all are) why is he suddenly one day able to break them? Either the laws or your god is flawed.

[arod0331]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

How could an explosion create a perfectly ordered universe

Perfectly ordered universe? Hardly.
If this were a perfect universe then disease, hunger, and war would not exist. Natural selection has allowed us to adapt to the environment, not vice versa.


side rant: I find it laughable when others claim that things like rainbows, sunshine, and puppies are "proof" that everything is a "perfect creation" seems they forget about earthquakes, mold, and stink beetles in this "wonderfully perfect creation"

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, which is a mistake I have seen way too many people make.

It becomes a really big problem to say anything then. For all we know god was created by a meta-god who was created by a meta-meta-god who ends the link there. There could be a line of 100 meta gods, there could be no gods or just 1 god of even 103546787654321. It could even go into infinity.

What I do know to be 100% true though is that within our imaginations we can believe what we want, I can fly to the moon without having to worry about gravity or lack of air. I can build whatever I want and make it work without even knowing whats supposed to be inside. I can even make it so that I never die. Some of these types of attributes are given to the deity which immediately makes me think that the deity came from a particularly active mind

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

Assuming that God had to be created is a mistake. It's applying the natural laws of physics to a supernatural being. Firstly, according to physics, you can't get something out of nothing, but you can't make that assumption with God, as he is outside the laws of physics. Also, saying something is created invokes the idea of time, which also doesn't work, as God would be outside of time... Think about it.

It's not just applying the natural laws of physics. It's applying natural laws in entirety. So, my question is this:

Can you describe God without using naturalistic terms? Can you describe heaven? Or futhermore, can you describe a supernatural state? What does supernatural mean?

The impression that I get of "God" is something akin to a person watching an ant farm. The universe/world being the ant farm, the ants being the humans, and the God outside the farm watching all of the things happening. That is the typical impression I get. But, there are a few fundamental flaws in logic for me. For one, once we "reach" supernaturalism it means that science cannot explain it which also means that nothing at all can explain it. Not even words or descriptions because it wouldn't be properly suited.

Yet, how is a supernatural realm explained? We are talking about a realm, so therefore we are implying a state of existence, something that is basically constituted of something. However, to imply that this is still supernatural seems to be a pitfall in logic. If it is constituted of something, than it must be able to be explainable by science EVEN if it may be so incredibly advanced that we can't yet fathom that science.

So, my position is this:

We cannot define a supernatural realm. We cannot seek to explain it with science or evidence. What people go by in seeking this is faith. For me though, I am under the impression that if there is a God, a deity, a higher power, that it must be entirely explainable by naturalistic means (science). For even if there is another dimension (as some things like String Theory suggest) it is still natural. Therefore, to me, if there is this "power" watching us like we might watch an ant farm, and he is controlling things, than he too must also be the product of something inherently natural and thus the infinite regression stops at that which is natural.

To merely suggest that a state of being, existence if you will, being constituted of something, does not need an explanation than that is bad thinking - to me. Yet, in order to explain something we have to use science and therefore, to me, the question of whether or not God exists is a scientific one and not one dependent on faith.

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

Plenty. If the Big Bang was created, then obviously there is a God. If it wasn't, then it can fairly reasonably be assumed that there isn't. Of course, there are other questions of similar nature that would then have to be answered...

There is no such thing as "obviously" there that a god thing exists. Prove it. It is not fairly reasonable to assume that your myth is real. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Prove it. I'm waiting.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

It's not just applying the natural laws of physics. It's applying natural laws in entirety. So, my question is this:

Can you describe God without using naturalistic terms? Can you describe heaven? Or futhermore, can you describe a supernatural state? What does supernatural mean?

The impression that I get of "God" is something akin to a person watching an ant farm. The universe/world being the ant farm, the ants being the humans, and the God outside the farm watching all of the things happening. That is the typical impression I get. But, there are a few fundamental flaws in logic for me. For one, once we "reach" supernaturalism it means that science cannot explain it which also means that nothing at all can explain it. Not even words or descriptions because it wouldn't be properly suited.

Yet, how is a supernatural realm explained? We are talking about a realm, so therefore we are implying a state of existence, something that is basically constituted of something. However, to imply that this is still supernatural seems to be a pitfall in logic. If it is constituted of something, than it must be able to be explainable by science EVEN if it may be so incredibly advanced that we can't yet fathom that science.

So, my position is this:

We cannot define a supernatural realm. We cannot seek to explain it with science or evidence. What people go by in seeking this is faith. For me though, I am under the impression that if there is a God, a deity, a higher power, that it must be entirely explainable by naturalistic means (science). For even if there is another dimension (as some things like String Theory suggest) it is still natural. Therefore, to me, if there is this "power" watching us like we might watch an ant farm, and he is controlling things, than he too must also be the product of something inherently natural and thus the infinite regression stops at that which is natural.

To merely suggest that a state of being, existence if you will, being constituted of something, does not need an explanation than that is bad thinking - to me. Yet, in order to explain something we have to use science and therefore, to me, the question of whether or not God exists is a scientific one and not one dependent on faith.

Wouldn't one of the postulates in relativity make god useless?

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

Plenty. If the Big Bang was created, then obviously there is a God.

The ekpyrotic model (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/) is just one of several natural possible causes of the big bang.

[agnostic soldier]

[quotethe theoretical scientist;3961865]
Plenty. If the Big Bang was created, then obviously there is a God.quote]

I find this argument to be very subjective and speculative. For one, if someone pretends that Creation ex Nihilo is correct, then how did god, pop something out of nothing? You also can't make something from nothing. It's not like some wizard took out a bunch of fairy dust then blew the universe and everything in it into existence. Also, something can't exist in nothing either. Something existing in nothing would cease to exist. The contents of the universe also existed before the universe was actually created so there's no need to assume there's a need for a neccessary being, although even if the universe did come from nothing, the idea that some divine hand had a part in designing the universe is highly suspicious.