Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the very least, if God is some sort of Creator deity, if we look at the evidence of the creation, we have basically automatic evidence for God unless one can conclusively prove that the way the universe is made is inconsistent with the hand of a deity, that there is some sort of reason why this cannot happen. Given that the universe favors design more than random chance, it appears I am proving that atheism cannot exist, despite all of you claiming otherwise.
Your ignorant of science, maths and logic, therefore a god? And most specifically your god? Who just so happened to create a universe that looked like it was not designed?
The separate question of whether I should BELIEVE in the existence of god, is of course, another matter.
Your hypothesis is that a good disproof shows examples where the claim isn't so ... but then you turn around in the very same breath and say that if god doesn't act it could be a lot of things, like he choses not to or is just cruel. So ... providing such an example will not (dis)prove god's (non)existence, but simply produce more argument.
In any case, it's a fool's errand to prove a negative -- particularly when, as I said above, that's not even my point. I see no valid reason to believe the unsubstantiated, and certainly not the unsubstantiatABLE. I'm setting a VERY low bar here -- I don't need you to prove that god exists, but simply that he's more likely to exist than not.
To cite your own example, there's a non-zero possibility that communism COULD work. You haven't, with your list, proven that it DOESN'T work. You've demonstrated quite well in my view that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY to work, and that even the attempt to make it work is fraught with perils that should give any government great pause, if it actually cares about the welfare of its citizens. That's all I personally am looking for even a whiff of from any theist here: is ANY god more likely to exist than not? Much less yours?
Communism doesn't work, because it's proven WHY it doesn't work. Specifically, it was actually proven why on a simple video on Facebook. They had an experiment where everyone had the same resources (they immediately started grabbing what they could) vs everyone had their own area, and got a penny each turn (they saved up what they had).
If you can prove WHY God doesn't exist, you have proven God doesn't exist.
This is your second fallacy - the other being a claim that atheists have to know or at least believe that something cannot possibly be in order to be atheists.
We don't. And i don't know how often we have to say this - we only need to be given some good reason that something is so to accept it, and for no convincing reason to be produced for us to NOT accept it.
It i this belief in a God existing that makes you think that atheists have to disprove any possibility of it before we can correctly disbelieve. Logically, there is no good reason to believe in a god and it is the believers who have the burden of proof. There seems no more difficult concep for the believer - other than accepting convincing evidence if they don't like it/
The debates are not really about disproving a god, though the believer clearly think they should be; they are about showing that what it presented as convincing evidence for a god is not. And saying 'well it could still be true, for all you know' (or the similar kinds of sayings) may serve for them to reject the unwelcome negative evidence, but it arries no logical or rational weight with atheists, nor should it.
The second, argument from communism, really doesn't work. For one think, Communism is a man -mane political construct, not a natural thing that exists apart from human thought.
One could equally say (and provide evidence of it) that Christianity doesn't work, but itpersists because it draws on this business of Faith which is a human instinct and survive even the most telling evidence that it doesn't actually work.
Communism, one might say, survives in China - and it evidently making a come-back in Russia. Not as Marxist doctrine, but as the one party rule and never mind the doctrine.
The two things really aren't comparable and i fail to see what trying to compare them proves. It just looks to me like more frantic fishing about for anything that even looks like an argument for religious belief - never mind not being sound evidence of anything.
If you can prove WHY God doesn't exist, you have proven God doesn't exist.
We would first need to establish what the attributes of this god that we want to disprove are.
For now let's just say this god created the universe six thousand years ago, as per creationist claims. The universe is 14.7 billion years old and the furthest we can see of it is 14.7 billion light years away and that's not the edge. The fasted that any information can transfer is the speed of light. That makes it impossible for any god of any description to have been able to create the universe in less time than that.
One might argue that we cannot know the age of the universe (actually, we can) but that matters little since the size of the visible universe is known and it's the time it would take to flit around from one edge to the other, creating this humongous universe that makes it impossible. God would still be out there near the outer reaches at this time had he created it.
Also, according to creationists, it is impossible to create something out of nothing. That means God could not have done it.
So if this god exists then he created the universe and since he could not have, he can't exist.
In order to be an atheist, you are taking the less logically defensible position, not that you do not care about religion (agnosticism), but that you know one way or another.
The stronger position you take, the more the requirement to defend your position. God being responsible is not a stretch, because the position that something created the universe. In general, we are aware from experience of basically any humans, anything created comes from a creator (lowercase). You simply cannot expect a piece of artwork to suddenly just show up, it has an author. The only difference this is from basic common sense, is naming the identity of the creator of this universe vs a common object.
Honestly speaking, for all anyone knows, Satan could have created the universe (The Good Place, anyone?) or Cthulhu or space aliens or some kind of fairy. The only difference is that as creators go, I don't feel like being a follower of Satan or Cthulhu.
If you however are declaring that nothing created the universe, you are required to defend this position, because at the very least you must explain how creation ex nihilo with no laws of motion even works. A reality-warping being? Doesn't have to deal with that. No universe, no creator being, is created with the aid of natural laws (without natural laws yet being around), you have to explain your way around this paradox.
Basically, you have to have a universe, in order to create a universe.
Quote:
Also, according to creationists, it is impossible to create something out of nothing. That means God could not have done it.
so if God exists then he created the universe and since he could not have, he can't exist.
It is impossible to create something out of nothing. To prove it, I'm going to order you to bake a cake. But it's a super-ecofriendly recipe. You cannot use any eggs, flour, butter, sugar, salt, yeast/baking soda, baking power, milk, or any substitutions.
If we are talking then about creation, we are definitely not talking about creation ex nihilo. It does not exist, even for God. You cannot create out of nothing. Or to quote science, "matter cannot be created or destroyed." Any creation, divine or otherwise, happened through transmutation not creation from nothing. We are told that the universe used to be a formless void (a big mass of disorganized matter that cannot be seen, in other words, "void/emptiness" but not actually nothing), and God created out of that. Taoism also agrees on this point, it has the Taiji (the Yin/Yang good/evil dichotomy that unlike other religions are not seen as it war with each other) and before that there was the Wuji. "Without boundaries", basically a state where there is complete unity, and stuff does not exist in distinct forms. So, at least two works of theology (from different parts of the globe) agree that there was formless existence (not real nothing), then light/darkness, then distinct things such as sun and moon, earth and sky, water and land. Transmutation. If you also believe in pantheism, such things are also transmuted from the creator's own body.
If you can concede that point, I don't think there is any other logical problem with your points, even if I do not agree.
But since atheists apparently can never seem to concede that point (they think it damages their argument, and ironically choose one that is stupidly unprovable), I'm not holding my breath.
In order to be an atheist, you are taking the less logically defensible position, not that you do not care about religion (agnosticism), but that you know one way or another.
The stronger position you take, the more the requirement to defend your position. God being responsible is not a stretch, because the position that something created the universe. In general, we are aware from experience of basically any humans, anything created comes from a creator (lowercase). You simply cannot expect a piece of artwork to suddenly just show up, it has an author. The only difference this is from basic common sense, is naming the identity of the creator of this universe vs a common object.
Honestly speaking, for all anyone knows, Satan could have created the universe (The Good Place, anyone?) or Cthulhu or space aliens or some kind of fairy. The only difference is that as creators go, I don't feel like being a follower of Satan or Cthulhu.
If you however are declaring that nothing created the universe, you are required to defend this position, because at the very least you must explain how creation ex nihilo with no laws of motion even works. A reality-warping being? Doesn't have to deal with that. No universe, no creator being, is created with the aid of natural laws (without natural laws yet being around), you have to explain your way around this paradox.
Basically, you have to have a universe, in order to create a universe.
It is impossible to create something out of nothing. To prove it, I'm going to order you to bake a cake. But it's a super-ecofriendly recipe. You cannot use any eggs, flour, butter, sugar, salt, yeast/baking soda, baking power, milk, or any substitutions.
If we are talking then about creation, we are definitely not talking about creation ex nihilo. It does not exist, even for God. You cannot create out of nothing. Or to quote science, "matter cannot be created or destroyed." Any creation, divine or otherwise, happened through transmutation not creation from nothing. We are told that the universe used to be a formless void (a big mass of disorganized matter that cannot be seen, in other words, "void/emptiness" but not actually nothing), and God created out of that. Taoism also agrees on this point, it has the Taiji (the Yin/Yang good/evil dichotomy that unlike other religions are not seen as it war with each other) and before that there was the Wuji. "Without boundaries", basically a state where there is complete unity, and stuff does not exist in distinct forms. So, at least two works of theology (from different parts of the globe) agree that there was formless existence (not real nothing), then light/darkness, then distinct things such as sun and moon, earth and sky, water and land. Transmutation. If you also believe in pantheism, such things are also transmuted from the creator's own body.
If you can concede that point, I don't think there is any other logical problem with your points, even if I do not agree.
But since atheists apparently can never seem to concede that point (they think it damages their argument, and ironically choose one that is stupidly unprovable), I'm not holding my breath.
I respect your right to believe as you wish. But if you think that debating logic is going to change any atheistic minds, you're sadly mistaken. I don't care how you want to develop a clever debate, you have no proof that god exists. Period.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but if you wanted me to resume believing in god, he'd have to appear to me in one form or another. I'd have to experience a miracle. If he can talk as a burning bush, he could do it. But he doesn't.
I am reminded of an old movie called The Next Voice You Hear. It was a 1950 film in which God preempts all radio programs for days all over the world. Finally, people who are skeptical begin believing. Corny, yes. But such a simple concept. Maybe god's just not clever enough to think of it. (That's sarcasm, son).
That's not what science says. It says "energy cannot be created or destroyed".
It's all to do with energy and time - space time. Relativity and all that. Matter comes from energy, energy can be 'borrowed' through space time. The sum total of all the energy of the universe is zero. The universe is made of 'nothing', so to speak.
Which solves the problem of something coming from nothing.
You have to realise that bulmapants doesn't actually know what an atheist/atheism is outside of what he has been told by his favourite bible apologist site, who are just as clueless about what it is as him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
That's not what science says. It says "energy cannot be created or destroyed".
Ooooops! Poor old bulmapants has got it wrong again.
Communism doesn't work, because it's proven WHY it doesn't work. Specifically, it was actually proven why on a simple video on Facebook. They had an experiment where everyone had the same resources (they immediately started grabbing what they could) vs everyone had their own area, and got a penny each turn (they saved up what they had).
If you can prove WHY God doesn't exist, you have proven God doesn't exist.
You are still getting it wrong. Communism as a perfect ideal or taken to the illogical extreme might not work, but then what political or social system does? Human beans are awkward cusses and we have to modify the ideals to accommodate them. So communism may not work taken to n extreme, and it didn't work in the end because it was trying to build a world empire when it couldn't make ends meet, and it was trying to shut out the world to maintain a one -party system and the people were getting fed up with it - especially countries in its' empire who had tried to leave and had been suppressed. We all know what happened. Gorbachev tried to make communism part of the world so it could survive at least as a Russian system. Then the discontents got together to overthrow the soviet rule and they had the army behind them - which is always what decides these matters.
That's not much to do with what some video proved to its' own satisfaction, and even less to do with the rationale for atheism.
As for why God doesn't exist - i have given you evidence to make that the better option - the universe and life does not look designed. If we are talking of particular gods rather than some sorta -god of no particular religion, we can debunk that, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
It's not a fallacy if it's true.
In order to be an atheist, you are taking the less logically defensible position, not that you do not care about religion (agnosticism), but that you know one way or another.
The stronger position you take, the more the requirement to defend your position. God being responsible is not a stretch, because the position that something created the universe. In general, we are aware from experience of basically any humans, anything created comes from a creator (lowercase). You simply cannot expect a piece of artwork to suddenly just show up, it has an author. The only difference this is from basic common sense, is naming the identity of the creator of this universe vs a common object.
Honestly speaking, for all anyone knows, Satan could have created the universe (The Good Place, anyone?) or Cthulhu or space aliens or some kind of fairy. The only difference is that as creators go, I don't feel like being a follower of Satan or Cthulhu.
If you however are declaring that nothing created the universe, you are required to defend this position, because at the very least you must explain how creation ex nihilo with no laws of motion even works. A reality-warping being? Doesn't have to deal with that. No universe, no creator being, is created with the aid of natural laws (without natural laws yet being around), you have to explain your way around this paradox.
Basically, you have to have a universe, in order to create a universe.
It is impossible to create something out of nothing. To prove it, I'm going to order you to bake a cake. But it's a super-ecofriendly recipe. You cannot use any eggs, flour, butter, sugar, salt, yeast/baking soda, baking power, milk, or any substitutions.
If we are talking then about creation, we are definitely not talking about creation ex nihilo. It does not exist, even for God. You cannot create out of nothing. Or to quote science, "matter cannot be created or destroyed." Any creation, divine or otherwise, happened through transmutation not creation from nothing. We are told that the universe used to be a formless void (a big mass of disorganized matter that cannot be seen, in other words, "void/emptiness" but not actually nothing), and God created out of that. Taoism also agrees on this point, it has the Taiji (the Yin/Yang good/evil dichotomy that unlike other religions are not seen as it war with each other) and before that there was the Wuji. "Without boundaries", basically a state where there is complete unity, and stuff does not exist in distinct forms. So, at least two works of theology (from different parts of the globe) agree that there was formless existence (not real nothing), then light/darkness, then distinct things such as sun and moon, earth and sky, water and land. Transmutation. If you also believe in pantheism, such things are also transmuted from the creator's own body.
If you can concede that point, I don't think there is any other logical problem with your points, even if I do not agree.
But since atheists apparently can never seem to concede that point (they think it damages their argument, and ironically choose one that is stupidly unprovable), I'm not holding my breath.
You are still getting it wrong.
Your supposedly logical position about atheism fails because it isn't true.
This is because we are not pointy -eared vulcans but human beans, and we are driven by instinct to survive, eat and reproduce, in reverse order of importance.
It may be that the argument fails logically too, but if not it doesn't matter it is in actual fact, wrong.
I'm not sure that the second point was the one being argued...hang on...
Yes, it was about burden of proof, not cosmic origins. but if we must talk about cosmic origins, (and I know you have been beaten on this but still claimed you won) then neither of us know whether it was all created by an intelligence or not. That it seems counter -intuitive to you that it happened without a cosmic mind doing it is understood. That the cosmos does not look designed, nor does the earth (despite the goldilocks zone) or the evolution of life, but does seem to be by 'chance' as you rather inaccurately put it - there are physical laws not random banging together of particles to produce organisms.
So not only is the burden of proof on you to show that there is an intelligence behind it (and the recitation of the mantra that something cannot come from nothing is wrong (1) and indeed there is evidence for you to explain away (the universe does not look designed) before you can even get to logical parity with 'Neither of us know".
You are losing ground on this debate every time to try to have it.
(1) 1 because that may apply in everyday life, but we not know that it applies in the cosmos everywhere or every when. And there is always the possibility that something does come from nothing, even where we are. There are rumbles about virtual particles. Indications that - as I have suspected for some time - that eveything IS made of nothing, givi a very convincing impression of being solid.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-10-2018 at 08:43 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
