Prove God is not real
Offline Sup yall my name is Desmond and I am 17, new here I heard about this stuff on tv. Now I am a christian and have been one for like all my life. I've met alot of ppl of different faiths and beliefs but this atheist thing has gotten to me today.I am gonna say this, I am no perfect christian as no one is but I know God exists and I know Christ is God for certain. You hear about people saying you can't see em you can't smell em and you can't touch him so he's not real but let me ask you this can you see the planet Mars? Can you touch the planet mars? and lastly can you smell the planet? All these questions would be answered no. You may say you seen pictures well same thing with God I can say I heard him talk to me doesn't make it false or true. To say there's no God is saying that without reason why? Because let me ask you this? Do you know anyone or anything that was created from nothing? If you do I'd love to see it, it seems illogical to think that all this we have happened by chance. You may say with all the bad things in the world how can God allow it? Well he's not your babysitter, He's not gonna save everyone from certain doom. Life will go on and He will not stop it. I would like to hear anything from you guys if you would want to say somethin about how God does not exist and I will try my best to answer you. I am starting my own group against this atheist rising. Wanna be rational... let's get rational 
Technorati Tags: Freethinkers Debate
Offline Yes, eloquently spoken.
Weird, I do not get any hate mail and I do not know anyone in person who does
(This is just a first, as I never really considered that people would have the time to write hate mail to people who are not celebrities or in high profile... I mean now that I think about it, I think that people would... it just never dawned on me)
But yeah, hate mail is a waste of time...
Offline God cannot exist becuase he would contridict himself. If he is omnipotent and omniscient I see no motive behind creating anything or doing anything. I also have have I list of 27 fallacies against God:
I. Omnipotence v.s. Omniscience.
1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?
Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.
II. Omnipotence v.s. Limits.
Can God become more powerful?
Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.
III. Omnipotence & Omniscience v.s. Omnibenevolence & Free Will.
1. God is Omnipotent, Omnisciencent, and Omnibenevolence.
2. God knows if your going to hell or not before your born.
#2 is false.- God is not Omnisciencent
#2 is true.- God is not Omnibenevolent
IV. Occam's Razor.
1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.
V. Transcendence v.s. Creation.
1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.
VI. Wants.
1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.
VII. The Quick Fix.
1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.
VIII. The Disproportionate Hell.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.
IX. Perfection.
1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.
X. Hume's Dictum.
1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.
XI. God, the Dictator.
1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.
XII. Excepting of Christ.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.
XIII. The Unremarkable Planet.
1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?
XIV. The Sadomasochistic God.
1. Jesus (God) died on the cross for our sins.
2. See VII.
3. God is Sadomasochistic
XV. Picking and Chosing.
Some people accept parts of the bible as true and other parts needing for a modern day addaption. Why though can't they adapt the Virgin Birth or the death of Jesus? How do they choose what to adapt?
XVI. Telephone.
The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?
XVII. Tech v.s. Religion.
The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.
XVII. The Myth Cycle.
Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?
XIX. The Burden of Proof.
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.
XX. Can God Guess?
1. To guess you have to have little or no knowledge of a subject.
Can God Guess?
Yes- Then he is not Omniscience.
No- Then he is not Omnipotent.
XXI. Can God violate his Omnibenevolence?
Yes- He is not Omnibenevolent.
No- He is not Omnipotent.
XXII. Pain in Heaven.
Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.
XXIII. Skyhook.
Where did God come from?
1. He was always here.
2. He made himself.
If he made himself then who made the one that made himself make himself.
2. Results in an infinite chain devoid of any sense. An infinite God making God.
Besides God is a scientific asumption and should be treated as such. The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable.
XIV. The Soul?
A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
B. Occam's Razor
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
C. The Pyramid
Choices and behavior is controlled by psychology. But what is that controlled by?
Choices and behavior
Psychology
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Math
Math, is an exact science. It cannot be changed(2+2 will never equal 5) If our choices are mere branches of math, then they cannot change, we are mechanical animals, advanced computers.
D. Dissection
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
If its transparent shouldn't it float away, or is it anchored to the body. Yet, if it is anchored to the body, what releases it at death?
E. Transcendence v.s. Control
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
F. The Universes Eternal Memory
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?
XV. The Grand Unified Theory.
The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.
XVI. A Cyclic Universe
The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.
XVII. The Demolition.
Pascal's Wager- Is absurd as there are infinite possible Gods.
All the Gold in China- Is absurd. Have you searched the universe to determine there is no unicorns, or no Thor?
Because the Bible Says So- If that was true I could write a book saying I'm God. And I would be God.
After these ideas have been eliminated there leaves only one theistic argument left. "You've Just Gotta Have Faith."
Point one.- While I could just have faith in God. Atheism is an equally appealing thing to have faith in. What makes yours more worthy to have faith in?
Point two- Your going to trust possibly the most important thing ever, where we came from and will go, not to science and reason, but to faith?!
Point three- Gods existence is equal to the existence of a rhino in a shoe box. You do not know for sure if there's a rhino in your unopened shoe box or not, but you'd have to be insane to believe that there is. With all the small space and scarcity of rhinos in a shoe box, its hard to believe in it. What makes God any different? His twenty six other fallacies are even greater than the ones of a rhino in a shoe box. The chance that a rhino is in fact in a shoe box is higher than the chance that God exists. So believing in him is like believing there is in fact a rhino in your shoe box.
The less validity an idea has is equal to its number of fallacys. With 27 fallacys against God and two (size and scaricity of a rhino) against the idea of a shino in a shoebox we can determine it is more plausible to find a rhino in your next shoe box than god existing. As all fallacys are imposibilitys and one idea cannot be more impossible than another, though you cannot disprove God per se, you can reduce his probability of existance to almost nothing.
Offline Good list, I could disagree with some on grounds that not all religions believe that god is ______ and I personally believe in freewill, but not a god or a soul
I have thought of a majority of those (although I never put them in points or wrote them down)
I had an arguemtn with my seminary teacher about the god is all knowing and all powerful/ we have freewill.
He essentially told me that we have freewill because god does not tell us our future (yeah... wtf?!) and he told me that god's actions could be bad, but never would because he is perfectly good so he could see the future, but it would always show him doing good.
So I asked what would happen if god did a choice that was neither good nor evil and he told me that all decisions were good or evil. I asked if god was not plannign to be seen that day and he saw himself picking out a red shirt, could he pick out a green shirt? And then he told me to go home a pray about it.
Haha, looking back on it he must have thought I was mockin him... I honestly wanted an answer and I thought that he could provide me with a satasfactory one.
(BTW, mormons have diffrent rules for god then other christians (and much more contradictions))
Offline LOL did i really type prove that the bible is real? LOLOLOLOL
Offline Yeah, but I understood... It was more of a joke on my part hehe
Offline Weird, I do not get any hate mail and I do not know anyone in person who does
(This is just a first, as I never really considered that people would have the time to write hate mail to people who are not celebrities or in high profile... I mean now that I think about it, I think that people would... it just never dawned on me)
But yeah, hate mail is a waste of time...
I really wondered, how much of a loser can you be to seek random people out to send them hae mail when you don't know anything about them other than their religious beliefs. I used to take each one personally, and respond in a logical format, but you only get more emotion in repsonse. It's a waste of time, so now I just click and delete. But maybe the reason I get more is my email address and screenname for everything is agnosticatheist followed by a number
Offline I cant stand when theist come here and stay "Oh, prove God isnt real". If you love and pray to your God so much, you shouldnt have to come an ATHESIST site to make us deconvert you. Your post is no what so ever rational. We dont have to disprove Gods exsistence, you prove he is real instead.
1. Yes, I can see Mars, in matter of fact my telescope makes me see it better. But I cant see God in space though, can you point to me where he lives?
2. I never seen a picture of God before, can you give me one? And who's the artist?
3. So you say God doesnt care about us,
4.
Offline Hitler had chariots of iron and he wouldn't take frogs, locusts, and firstborn children seriously...
Good luck, The republicans got first dibs
Offline Lmao. Chariots of Iron.
Offline *chuckles* fine... Panzer tanks... but the similarities are still there
Offline Well, we were on Nightline, we now have lots of publicity(that's why the servers were down). I actually think it's a good thing that we have lots of differing opinions here. Idle minds grow complacent. Yes, this is a predominantly atheist group, but really it is about the free exchange of knowledge and ideas, and we shouldn't shut people down for having different views. HOWEVER, should they not provide evidence, respect for their views is unnecessary. So I agree w/ the bulk of your post, just not this one part.
Offline No, PDunn is right. The burdan of proof lies on whoever makes the initial assertion.
If someone comes to me and says God does not exist, then I' going to ask them to prove it. If they can I assume they are just blowing smoke. One the other hand if I tell someone God does exist, I expect that they will ask me to prove it.
So, yea the burdan of proof can be on either side, depending on the situation. Although this being a predominently athiest board I would say the burdan of proof is generally with us here.
Offline Hmm, I do believe that the inital assertion was one of a deiety - i assume that since apes have no god, that when we evolved it took some time before we asserted that there was one (of course your vewpoint on the original assertion would fall on the side of atheism)
Judging things by inital assertion is not as good of a way to progress as is trying to prove the positive. (now I just thought of this... so it is proabably wrong) But the point of a negative assurtion is to disprove a positive assurtion, as a negative cannot be proven it is a statement challenging the proof of a positive statement. If that positive statement cannot hold up, then we dismiss it.
But only challenging positive statements will help to cut away the wrong ones, before we have to deal with them. (so in the majority of cases, the inital statement is positive... but not in all)
Essentially, we should not accept any positive statement unless there is proof or if it seems plausiable and there is no information to the contrary (and we need to make a decision ...)
Offline Here is a whammy. please, think about this.
NOBODY HAS ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF!
So why should I waste any time assuming a conclusion?
Offline Because you are scared of dying? - For a "just in case" policy?
other than that.. i can't really think of a reason
Offline You miss my point. I really want to know why I should care. It is called the Statement of Case, and belongs in the intro paragraph of all argument papers. Only then could you possibly convince me.
Offline Well, we were on Nightline, we now have lots of publicity(that's why the servers were down). I actually think it's a good thing that we have lots of differing opinions here. Idle minds grow complacent. Yes, this is a predominantly atheist group, but really it is about the free exchange of knowledge and ideas, and we shouldn't shut people down for having different views. HOWEVER, should they not provide evidence, respect for their views is unnecessary. So I agree w/ the bulk of your post, just not this one part.
Understood. Sometimes I get angry and write whatever and not check what I wrote.
Offline I really don't have an answer for you, I think that believing in a religion could make some people happy but i really don't know
Offline most religious people would "crash" w/out it. They base their whole life around it.
Offline I wouldn't say most... A couple would, I wonder (and this is just a thought) - Would many people become violent if we did find some proof that god did not exist? I mean just hypothetically if humankind found proof that god did exist... well then we would have a bunch of stupid looking atheists and (as far as I know...) we would all bow our heads in submission and accept (that is if there was extreme undeniable proof)
But if we found proof to the contrary... if we found proof to convert any theist (I know that it is impossible... but just for the sake of argument) that god is not real...
would it cause violence as religious people abandoned their beliefs as well as their morality? As far as I know, most atheists have a moral system to guide their actions... but many religions have said that we cannot be moral without a belief in god (obviously the current atheist population can) but what would happen to the middle east conflict? I doubt it would cease as they realized that they were fighting for silly relics...
I don't mean to be insulting or demeaning, but if we did find proof of no god... would violence increase among the religious fundamentalists? would they abandon their moral system?
Offline heh, we can see mars... and if we were close enough we could smell it too .... But anyhoo. I believe that it could perhaps be better for some people to remain believers. For many people they are too... poisoned(for lack of better term) to recover. Their religion is all that they run by. Sometimes in my down time I would find myself envious of how much happiness theists feel. How they have that false feeling that after they die they can ascend into something greater. Ha, that would be amazing. But its also entirely irrational. It's like wishing for cheese to fall from the sky. Not going to happen. Or rather, chances are slim. (cargo plane full of cheese could always drop some...). but regardless... Sometimes it is better for some people to remain theists in my opinion. If you would prefer them to be happy. Many people can't handle the blunt reality of nothingness after death.
Offline fine then. The intial assertion must have been that there was a god. Someone could not deny the existence of gods before somebody had come up with the concept of a god.
Offline Patches,
1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?
Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.
Premise 2 revolves around the assumption that the future can be known. As an open theist, I disagree.
Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.
This is an incoherent question. To ask if someone that is all-powerful already to become more powerful is a self-contradictory request, and therefore, this argument fails.
1. God is Omnipotent, Omnisciencent, and Omnibenevolence.
2. God knows if your going to hell or not before your born.
#2 is false.- God is not Omnisciencent
#2 is true.- God is not Omnibenevolent
See I.
1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.
Of course, premise one seriously begs the question.
Without God, the Big Bang is an explosion out of nothing for no reason. Naturalistic chemical and macroevolution all go back to flimsy theories of abiogenesis, which is life sponteously appearing from nonlife, hundreds of proteins sequencing themselves, etc. The odds are so against this that it has prompted scientists to invent theories out of thin air saying that aliens did it. You're telling me this somehow eliminates the need for God?
1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.
Wait, wait, wait. Premise 3 does not logically follow from 2, and therefore the conclusion is false. You're going to first have to demonstrate how not having a physical existence somehow prohibits something from creating.
1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.
I disagree with two. You're telling me that something that is perfect cannot do something, and that makes no sense at all.
1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.
First, tell me what your standard is in defining "evil." Is evil...oh, I don't know, pain like you get when you stub your toe? Is evil calling someone a name? Is evil punching someone? Is evil stabbing someone?
Second, tell me how you came to the conclusion that something is "evil" or "good." If you believe in objective morality, explain how this is possible without God. If you don't believe in objective morality, explain why I should care about what your definition of "evil" is, and why you have a problem with me doing any of these things I've mentioned above to you.
Thirdly, please explain how God could stop any of those without affecting free will.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.
I disagree with three and four.
If you are naming Hell as a fiery inferno where you burn for all eternity, I reject that hyperliteral interpretation. Hell is merely a state of seperation.
With four, all your giving me is your own opinion. Why should I care?
1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.
Of course, a dishwasher doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not he wants to limit his creation.
If we were "perfect" then we would be equal to God. Do you understand the problem with God wanting to create creatures that equal him? God is infinite, and there cannot be two infinite beings simultaneous.
1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.
Is Hume's Dictum a physical thing?
1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.
Premise One is a severe oversimplification. He doesn't punish someone for not following him...He punishes them for sin. If you're going to complain that God punishes unjustly, you're going to have to demonstrate it.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.
You seem to forget that if Christians were all doing our jobs, Premise Three would not be true. Jesus told us all to go out into the world and witness, and because we don't, there are consequences. God isn't going to come down and clean up our messes. That doesn't make him non-omnibenevolent.
Premise Four is debateable. Some disagree.
1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Firstly, you have no evidence for Premise One. If, in fact, there is intelligent life out there as you say in Two, what's to say that God hasn't shown himself to them?
Secondly, you seem to assume that length of time = value. This is a very hasty assumption.
1. Jesus (God) died on the cross for our sins.
2. See VII.
3. God is Sadomasochistic
........No.
Some people accept parts of the bible as true and other parts needing for a modern day addaption. Why though can't they adapt the Virgin Birth or the death of Jesus? How do they choose what to adapt?
Did you actually mean for this to be an argument?
The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?
Patches, have you ever read anything about how the Bible was transmitted? I mean seriously. Do you really believe that it was just like telephone, or were you just using that example to make your terrible point less terrible?
We have 24,000 manuscripts dating within 100 years of the authorship of the New Testament to compare. We see that these manuscripts are largely the same as the ones we have now. In fact, the percent reliability in transmission is 99.5%, and none of the .5% error affects any critical doctrine of Christianity. Most of the discrepancies are typos between manuscripts.
The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.
Demonstrate, please.
Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?
Well, lots of things.
First, what do you mean by "myth?" Secondly, can you give me an example of one being "scientifically disproven" so I can understand further what you are talking about?
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.
There are arguments from literally hundreds of philosophers from many, many different religions that give evidence for God. I'm sure you've dealt with all of them, right?
1. To guess you have to have little or no knowledge of a subject.
Can God Guess?
Yes- Then he is not Omniscience.
No- Then he is not Omnipotent.
Disregarding open theism for a moment...
See II.
Yes- He is not Omnibenevolent.
No- He is not Omnipotent.
See II.
Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.
In Heaven, there would be no reason to cause anyone else pain. I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but nobody would want to.
Where did God come from?
1. He was always here.
2. He made himself.
If he made himself then who made the one that made himself make himself.
2. Results in an infinite chain devoid of any sense. An infinite God making God.
Besides God is a scientific asumption and should be treated as such. The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable.
I agree with Premise One. But it's interesting that you say that last sentence. You contradict yourself later on.
A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
Hmm. I'm assuming you meant the 1st law, which says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Of course, the soul is a non-physical thing which wouldn't apply to any law of thermodynamics.
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
Because there is more to life than chemicals. If that weren't true, you could throw a bunch of skin and bones together and create a living human. That's not the way things work, though.
Choices and behavior is controlled by psychology. But what is that controlled by?
Choices and behavior
Psychology
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Math
Math, is an exact science. It cannot be changed(2+2 will never equal 5) If our choices are mere branches of math, then they cannot change, we are mechanical animals, advanced computers.
What is your argument here, exactly?
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
Once again, the soul is non-physical.
What's your argument, patches?
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
We cannot see or physically feel the laws of logic, or mathematical laws either, and as you said, 2+2 will never equal 5.
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?
I think that in Heaven, we don't remember our previous life. I'm not exactly sure, though.
The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.
Sorry, I didn't follow any of that. Are you treating the universe as a whole as a concious being that makes decisions?
The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.
I seem to recall you saying: "The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable." The universe is extraordinarily complex. So why are you telling me that the universe always existing is somehow feasible, when God always existing is "unthinkable?" Double standard, huh?
Besides, there are many arguments against an actually infinite universe. For example, there would be no more energy by now, since according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we are constantly losing energy. Also, if there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would be the end of an actually infinite set, and that's impossible. Also, today would have never arrived in the first place, seeing as after each day that passed, there would always be an infinite amount of days after that.
An infinite universe is impossible, and it contradicts all of the evidence that the universe had a beginning. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is cycling or infinite.
Pascal's Wager- Is absurd as there are infinite possible Gods.
Agreed. This is not a fallacy of God, though.
If there was a reasonable amount of evidence for either, and not a lot of evidence against either of those two, then maybe that example would work.
No, not necesarily. I agree that the argument is circular, but you'd first have to provide evidence that you were God if anyone would believe you.
Faith, in the Biblical Greek, means trust based on prior performance, not belief based on lack of evidence. Let's clear that up first.
Because with Christianity, our lives have purpose. With atheism, your life and the lives of every individual on this earth have absolutely no ultimate significance.
As W.L. Craig said, even if the evidence for Christianity and atheism was absolutely equal, the rational one would choose Christianity, merely because it gives purpose to our lives.
What did you use to determine that science and reason were the source of truth?
Please don't say science or reason, as that would be circular.
Absolute nonsense. For one, some of the twenty six "fallacies" weren't even in relation to God, but to the behavior of Christians, or how the soul works, or whatever nonsense you wanted to complain about. For two, most of these fallacies are easily answered and put down.
Patches, you're going to have to try a LOT harder next time.
Offline Why should anyone care about any of this? I think an open theist could agree that organized religion is crap. There may be a God (How on earth could I possibly know?) but I think any rational person can understand that the organizations that control religion are complete and utter bullcrap.
Offline What makes an open theist suddenly more like people who think organized religion is crap?
What does this have to do with the topic at hand, Josh? Do you have anything important to say?
Offline I thought the open was short for open minded. Sorry about the confusion. See, open- minded people would need some good reasons to think such obviously false things are true.
My comment is to point out that the topic is frivolous. It is impossible to prove non-existence. But why should I care? State why your case has value, no matter what you say. My contribution has value because I could save a couple people some time, in case you are wondering.
Offline I think you realized this, but just for further clarification, an "open theist" is someone who believes that God does not know the future of a free being.
I consider myself to be not only an open theist, but an open minded person as well.
Not true. You can prove that there is no such thing as a largest number. You can prove the non-existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns as well. ("Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation. However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist." - Here) Etc.
Save a couple people from what...wasting their lives in pursuit of a deity? How is this a life wasted?
Offline 1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?
Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.
Another example: God knows he will pick a white shirt, can he pick a red instead?
Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.
I understand but in order to become all powerful , one would have to have the ability to become more powerful.
1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.
Of course, premise one seriously begs the question.
1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.
How can something non-physical create something physical?
1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.
A perfect being can do whatever he/she/it want, but why would they have the urge to do so when they have already reached perfection? A perfect being would have no ambition and therefore no need to create or do anything at all.
1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.
Second, tell me how you came to the conclusion that something is "evil" or "good." If you believe in objective morality, explain how this is possible without God. If you don't believe in objective morality, explain why I should care about what your definition of "evil" is, and why you have a problem with me doing any of these things I've mentioned above to you.
Thirdly, please explain how God could stop any of those without affecting free will.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.
If you are naming Hell as a fiery inferno where you burn for all eternity, I reject that hyperliteral interpretation. Hell is merely a state of seperation.
With four, all your giving me is your own opinion. Why should I care?
Would not a state of seperation be considered punishment, like solitary confinment?
1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.
If we were "perfect" then we would be equal to God. Do you understand the problem with God wanting to create creatures that equal him? God is infinite, and there cannot be two infinite beings simultaneous.
1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.
1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.
Premise Four is debateable. Some disagree.
1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?
Firstly, you have no evidence for Premise One. If, in fact, there is intelligent life out there as you say in Two, what's to say that God hasn't shown himself to them?
Secondly, you seem to assume that length of time = value. This is a very hasty assumption.
The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?
We have 24,000 manuscripts dating within 100 years of the authorship of the New Testament to compare. We see that these manuscripts are largely the same as the ones we have now. In fact, the percent reliability in transmission is 99.5%, and none of the .5% error affects any critical doctrine of Christianity. Most of the discrepancies are typos between manuscripts.
Who's to say yopu have all of the transcripts for the bible. Is it not possible that some thing could go wrong during translations?
The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.
Campare the amount of religious people now to the amount during the middle ages. As people become less ignorant they lose religious faith.
Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?
First, what do you mean by "myth?" Secondly, can you give me an example of one being "scientifically disproven" so I can understand further what you are talking about?
Myth is normally portrayed as an explanation of the origin of life and other such things; Greek Mythology. You dismiss the thought of Zuess without a second thought, so what is diferent about you god?
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.
Is there any physical proof?
Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.
I'm sure someone would. There would be disagreements in heaven I'm sure.
A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
Then how could is interact with a physical object.
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
Thats is a bad example. You need living tissue and all the components to sustain human life. And we can create parts of humans; new heart tissue and such
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
Is our soul anchored in our bodies or is it loosly atached to the body, alowing it to float away?
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
But we can put it to practical use.
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?
Well then what would be the point of living in the first place?
The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.
No, just that everything happens in a linear fashion, and all past actions make us make desicions based on that.
The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.
Besides, there are many arguments against an actually infinite universe. For example, there would be no more energy by now, since according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we are constantly losing energy. Also, if there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would be the end of an actually infinite set, and that's impossible. Also, today would have never arrived in the first place, seeing as after each day that passed, there would always be an infinite amount of days after that.
An infinite universe is impossible, and it contradicts all of the evidence that the universe had a beginning. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is cycling or infinite.
As I already said, reality just is.
As W.L. Craig said, even if the evidence for Christianity and atheism was absolutely equal, the rational one would choose Christianity, merely because it gives purpose to our lives.
That is not true. I don't about other atheists but my "ultimate
signifigance" is that someday I may contribute to the betterment of mankind. Is that such and insignificant thing to want to do?
Please don't say science or reason, as that would be circular.
Because all those things can be tested.
Offline 1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?
Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.
Premise 2 revolves around the assumption that the future can be known. As an open theist, I disagree.
God is ALL-knowing, not a " know everything except the future" god. You're placing limits on him.
Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.
This is an incoherent question. To ask if someone that is all-powerful already to become more powerful is a self-contradictory request, and therefore, this argument fails.
God can do anything, which means he can outdo himself also.
1. God is Omnipotent, Omnisciencent, and Omnibenevolence.
2. God knows if your going to hell or not before your born.
#2 is false.- God is not Omnisciencent
#2 is true.- God is not Omnibenevolent
See I.
See my response to I.
1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.
Of course, premise one seriously begs the question.
Without God, the Big Bang is an explosion out of nothing for no reason. Naturalistic chemical and macroevolution all go back to flimsy theories of abiogenesis, which is life sponteously appearing from nonlife, hundreds of proteins sequencing themselves, etc. The odds are so against this that it has prompted scientists to invent theories out of thin air saying that aliens did it. You're telling me this somehow eliminates the need for God?
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion out of nothing. It was an expansion of a singularity. How Life Came About
As for aliens, that idea came about because we have found traces of water (which could possibly mean life) on other planets, not because we can't explain how life started.
1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.
Wait, wait, wait. Premise 3 does not logically follow from 2, and therefore the conclusion is false. You're going to first have to demonstrate how not having a physical existence somehow prohibits something from creating.
Because God is out of this world, supernatural, and so if he existed he could not mess around with this world. He does not exist in the natural world, and so he cannot create this world.
1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.
I disagree with two. You're telling me that something that is perfect cannot do something, and that makes no sense at all.
A perfect being must be completely satisfied and have everything. That's why god cannot have wants.
1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.
First, tell me what your standard is in defining "evil." Is evil...oh, I don't know, pain like you get when you stub your toe? Is evil calling someone a name? Is evil punching someone? Is evil stabbing someone?
Second, tell me how you came to the conclusion that something is "evil" or "good." If you believe in objective morality, explain how this is possible without God. If you don't believe in objective morality, explain why I should care about what your definition of "evil" is, and why you have a problem with me doing any of these things I've mentioned above to you.
We are not defining things as good or evil, we are going by the christian terms to label things. To show you that your premises contradict each other.
I don't have to explain, god is all-powerful. He can do anything, including the impossible.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.
I disagree with three and four.
If you are naming Hell as a fiery inferno where you burn for all eternity, I reject that hyperliteral interpretation. Hell is merely a state of seperation.
Whatever the interpretation is, hell is the same no matter how trivial the crime was. You may choose to see hell as a state of separation, but hell is still eternal punishment even if it is not a fiery inferno.
With four, all your giving me is your own opinion. Why should I care?
Why should I care about what you think of these fallacies?
1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.
Of course, a dishwasher doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not he wants to limit his creation.
If we were "perfect" then we would be equal to God. Do you understand the problem with God wanting to create creatures that equal him? God is infinite, and there cannot be two infinite beings simultaneous.
I'd have to agree, for once. But that doesn't leave out all the other fallacies.
1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.
Is Hume's Dictum a physical thing?
I haven't studied much about this, but I'll get back to you on it later.
1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.
Premise One is a severe oversimplification. He doesn't punish someone for not following him...He punishes them for sin. If you're going to complain that God punishes unjustly, you're going to have to demonstrate it.
I'd like to know why god gave man the potential to sin? You don't need the presence of sin for freewill.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.
You seem to forget that if Christians were all doing our jobs, Premise Three would not be true. Jesus told us all to go out into the world and witness, and because we don't, there are consequences. God isn't going to come down and clean up our messes. That doesn't make him non-omnibenevolent.
God is all-good, not a "I'm-good-only-when-it-suits-the-situation" god.
Do you?
1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Wow, I'm not calling your rebuttals stupid. You need to read the verses in the bible where it preaches humbleness.
I'm not too sure, but the bible doesn't seem to say anything about god creating life on other planets.
The point is that god created us for a (comparatively) short period of time, why?
1. Jesus (God) died on the cross for our sins.
2. See VII.
3. God is Sadomasochistic
........No.
Yes. He can do whatever he wants to solve the problems, yet he chooses this particular way.
Some people accept parts of the bible as true and other parts needing for a modern day addaption. Why though can't they adapt the Virgin Birth or the death of Jesus? How do they choose what to adapt?
Did you actually mean for this to be an argument?
I don't think that's an argument for the non-existence of a god, but the point is that people keep cherry-picking out parts of the bible to adapt or preach at church.
The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?
Patches, have you ever read anything about how the Bible was transmitted? I mean seriously. Do you really believe that it was just like telephone, or were you just using that example to make your terrible point less terrible?
We have 24,000 manuscripts dating within 100 years of the authorship of the New Testament to compare. We see that these manuscripts are largely the same as the ones we have now. In fact, the percent reliability in transmission is 99.5%, and none of the .5% error affects any critical doctrine of Christianity. Most of the discrepancies are typos between manuscripts.
Back that up with a peer-reviewed article.
The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.
Demonstrate, please.
The more secular countries like Japan, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, etc. are amongst the top in standard of living, technology, while most of the poorer ones like most South American countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. have a majority of believers.
IQ and religion for one. I'm not saying that this is a proof against god, but it does show something.
Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?
Well, lots of things.
First, what do you mean by "myth?" Secondly, can you give me an example of one being "scientifically disproven" so I can understand further what you are talking about?
Myths like when people thought lightning came from the gods. Benjamin Franklin later showed that lightning was a natural form of electricity.
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.
There are arguments from literally hundreds of philosophers from many, many different religions that give evidence for God. I'm sure you've dealt with all of them, right?
What about you, have you dealt with every single philosophical argument against the existence of a god? Or what about the arguments for the existence of ghosts?
1. To guess you have to have little or no knowledge of a subject.
Can God Guess?
Yes- Then he is not Omniscience.
No- Then he is not Omnipotent.
Disregarding open theism for a moment...
See II.
I've already shown that open theism does not work, but even then, this proof does not have anything to do with freewill or the future.
Yes- He is not Omnibenevolent.
No- He is not Omnipotent.
See II.
See my response to II.
Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.
In Heaven, there would be no reason to cause anyone else pain. I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but nobody would want to.
Why not?
Where did God come from?
1. He was always here.
2. He made himself.
If he made himself then who made the one that made himself make himself.
2. Results in an infinite chain devoid of any sense. An infinite God making God.
Besides God is a scientific asumption and should be treated as such. The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable.
I agree with Premise One. But it's interesting that you say that last sentence. You contradict yourself later on.
No, this proof assumes the christian theists are right, and then it shows how they are contradictory.
A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
Hmm. I'm assuming you meant the 1st law, which says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Of course, the soul is a non-physical thing which wouldn't apply to any law of thermodynamics.
Prove to me that the supernatural does indeed exist. Or better yet, read about the James Randi challenge.
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
Because there is more to life than chemicals. If that weren't true, you could throw a bunch of skin and bones together and create a living human. That's not the way things work, though.
The difference is that there is no blood flowing through the skin and bones, nor is there an active brain. A living human must start from the sperm and egg cells, which are already alive. (I'm not a biologist, so I might be getting this wrong though.)
Choices and behavior is controlled by psychology. But what is that controlled by?
Choices and behavior
Psychology
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Math
Math, is an exact science. It cannot be changed(2+2 will never equal 5) If our choices are mere branches of math, then they cannot change, we are mechanical animals, advanced computers.
What is your argument here, exactly?
That the christian god wouldn't create these mechanical animals.
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
Once again, the soul is non-physical.
Read the James Randi challenge. (No, that does not actually disprove the supernatural, but it does show something.)
What's your argument, patches?
That the idea of a soul doesn't work that well.
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
We cannot see or physically feel the laws of logic, or mathematical laws either, and as you said, 2+2 will never equal 5.
True. But (assuming it exists) the soul is not like a law of math or logic.
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?
I think that in Heaven, we don't remember our previous life. I'm not exactly sure, though.
How do you explain NDEs then? (again, assuming they are real and not hallucinations) People almost die and have images of heaven in those.
The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.
Sorry, I didn't follow any of that. Are you treating the universe as a whole as a concious being that makes decisions?
No, but I'm not into this sort of physics either.
The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.
I seem to recall you saying: "The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable." The universe is extraordinarily complex. So why are you telling me that the universe always existing is somehow feasible, when God always existing is "unthinkable?" Double standard, huh?
You're the one with the double standard. You are willing to go ahead and jump to the idea that your uncreated god created the world, but you cannot imagine that maybe the universe did not need a creator? I eliminate the god out of the equation because of Occam's Razor. It's simpler to say matter is eternal instead of making it much more complicated by adding in a creator.
An infinite universe is impossible, and it contradicts all of the evidence that the universe had a beginning. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is cycling or infinite.
Funny that you use the laws of thermodynamics, because the first law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This is my point exactly. As for the infinite number of days, I cannot know that for sure, but I would rather let it stay a mystery until there is an answer with scientific evidence.
Pascal's Wager- Is absurd as there are infinite possible Gods.
Agreed. This is not a fallacy of God, though.
Good.
If there was a reasonable amount of evidence for either, and not a lot of evidence against either of those two, then maybe that example would work.
Agreed.
No, not necesarily. I agree that the argument is circular, but you'd first have to provide evidence that you were God if anyone would believe you.
Actually a lot of theists use the argument that the bible is proof of god, which is circular. But just where is that evidence for your god?
Faith, in the Biblical Greek, means trust based on prior performance, not belief based on lack of evidence. Let's clear that up first.
Your bible is two thousand years old, time to get a new source. And besides, what prior performance?
Because with Christianity, our lives have purpose. With atheism, your life and the lives of every individual on this earth have absolutely no ultimate significance.
As W.L. Craig said, even if the evidence for Christianity and atheism was absolutely equal, the rational one would choose Christianity, merely because it gives purpose to our lives.
What about the thousands of other religions that also claim to give purpose to our lives??
I live my life for my goals and purposes. I do my schoolwork because I want to do well on the tests, so that I can get good grades, which means a good college and future. I don't need a greater purpose to clutch on to.
What did you use to determine that science and reason were the source of truth?
Please don't say science or reason, as that would be circular.
I use my common sense to say that science is based on observed facts and analyzing things and that reason works better than faith.
Absolute nonsense. For one, some of the twenty six "fallacies" weren't even in relation to God, but to the behavior of Christians, or how the soul works, or whatever nonsense you wanted to complain about. For two, most of these fallacies are easily answered and put down.
I've rebutted your responses to the fallacies.
P-Dunn, you're gonna have to try a LOT harder next time.
Christfolyfe,
I am a Christian too. But I don't think you're going to get responses that are positive here. It's not exclusively the atheist's job to prove that God is not real. Neither is it exclusively the theist's job to prove God is real. We both have the burden of proof on showing our view of God to be true.
~P-Dunn
That is false PDunn. The positive assertion bears the burden of proof. Also, I can see Mars. All science is based on observed phenomenon.
Hmm, prove that God is not real, that would be like proving ghosts are not real. Now here is a harder one, prove that God and the Bible are real.
Haha, obviously the bible is real - it is not accurate
When big things (not missing socks and weird phenomenon) cannot be explained, our (... well theists and religious people's) first thought is to turn to god. I cannot prove that god does not exist, in the exact same way that you cannot prove that merlin was not magic, or that harry potter does not really exist.
There are two things that I can do. I can show that there is no need for a god to explain phenomina, and I can show that it is plausiable that humans invented the Idea of God.
First, We do not know all of the little nuances of the creation of the universe or of the laws of physics. We do not know everything. Does this prove god? no, it just proves that we can learn new knowledge. Is there any physical evidence for god? No, we have no scientifically verifiable evidence for god. If we did, people would believe in him/her/it/them.
There is no more scientifically verifiable proof of god then there is for invisible gremlins.
We cannot explain everything, but plugging holes of knowledge with logically flawed beings is no way to find knowledge or improve our lives.
The second point was that I can prove that people could have created all gods - that is easy as you would agree that most (99% at least) gods are man made. You claim no belief for Thor, but what makes Thor less plausiable then your god?
You must admit that it is entirely plausible that God was invented as a way of explaining phenominon. If that is so, then it becomes the Job of theists to explain how god exists. As theists do not believe in every thing that could be, but has no physical evidence, it is up to show what sets their god above others and to show why theirs is needed. If they cannot do this, then they will be dismissed. (We have already dismissed countless tribal and major gods - what sets yours apart?)
Yes. Not just pictures. It is visible at various points in our orbit. Approximately 6 years ago was one such time, and I had to write a paper on it
The difference is I COULD do the above. You cannot do thus with 'God'
I have plenty of reasons.
Firstly, when making a statement of the truth of a given proposition, one must provide evidence. I cannot PROVE, beyond any doubt, that there is no generic 'god', namely because the generic 'god' can be fit to almost any definition(the loosest example being Einsteinian 'god', nature). However, by looking at any God Theory with any sort of qualities, I can look at the viability of those qualities. For example, Epicurus' Riddle. Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience are not compatible. The existence of all three are incompatible with our world which has very much easily preventable(or simply non-creatable danger).
Secondly, I see no evidence for God's existence. Each reason a god is needed to explain has fallen to science, and while maybe one day science will lead to the conclusion of God, science and logic are the best methods we have for obtaining truth. At the moment, the world can be explained without appeals to a divine being, and I shall remain on that logical platform. Until positive propositions are put forth, there is no more evidence for a god than for the tooth fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Krishna and Shiva, or the Greek Pantheon.
You're misunderstanding the laws of the universe. To say 'by chance' is to grossly misstate the truth. For example, when you drop a rock, it falls down. Not by chance, it does, and always will do that because that is the way the universe works. Secondly(and I assume you are referring to evolution) Evolution also does not work by chance. Things which are better suited to propagate themselves tend to do just that. Say for example there was a game of basketball. I shall take on Michael Jordan. Obviously, I will not win. Perhaps 1/1000000000 times, I will get extremely lucky, be completely on fire, sink every basket, and rise up from my 5'7" to dunk(I wish). This does not mean it is chance. The same holds true for evolution. A slightly more apt organism, over much time, statistically, will propagate itself better. This does not mean that every animal of the species will, just on average. As statistics tells us, while individuals vary greatly, averages tend to find the mean quite quickly(in fact, a survery of 1500 people is accurate to +/- 3% even if the size of the population it estimates is a trillion(or any number) of people). If on average, the individuals do better, the species will do better(or even not the species, just the subspecies which contains more potent qualities,such as a slightly longer tail. As for the formation of complex organs, gradual additions are good enough to build up from something small, into more complexity. This is seen in eyes. Many animals have light sensitive spots, but cannot 'see' this progresses all the way up(not to our eye) but to the hawks, which can see a bug clearly from hundreds of feet away. The eye is not perfect, however. It has blind spots, it has inefficiencies, and most strangely, it seems to build upon the past eye models. This is most clealry accented in the hands, which across most species, have the same archaic structure, suggesting homology(same ancestry).
On the other hand, I would like to thank you for coming on to this forum and being civil. It's quite refreshing. On average, I get 3 or 4 hate messages from random people weekly, and FAR more emails, and I am not a high-profile atheist. I can only imagine the stress on such people as Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins(or even our own Rook Hawkins or Brian Sapient). This, the earnest discussion of ideas between people of differing values, is part of what the Freethinker movement is about. Perhaps there is a God(although, do not let this mislead you into thinking I think it likely, or even possible in terms of probability), but if there is, we should be led to it through logic and science, not archaic faiths. I would like to make a comment that perhaps your group should not be against the atheist movement. Movements which are anti-movement tend to have little value, instead, a movement about determinin the truth, promoting honest, rational discussion, and an open environment are far more important to the advancement of man and society.