How can anyone say "God doesn't exist" ?

[devildog 0]

Bolas

***An atheist has faith that God does not exist.

Umm no. An atheist uses the lack of any FACTS or EVIDENCE of the existence of any deity as the basis for their logical decision, not faith.

The other major difference is were there actual proof of a deity, atheists and agnostics would be open to it, whereas as the religious would dispute any facts, such as they do evolution, the age of the earth, etc.

This is all a logic fallacy as the question should not have ever been "Prove (insert deity name here) does not exist" but should be "Prove (insert deity name here) does exist."

When you get right down to it (and you can look at lots of debates of notable atheists vs notable theists), almost all the arguments against God are usually morally centered, not evidence or lack thereof. They usually take the form of "This happened and God--if He existed--wouldn't allow that, therefore He doesn't exist."

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 3,008]

>Materialism and Naive Realism are not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

Of course they are. Both the materialism and realism are entirely compatible with physics. (Note that "I don't understand QM" is not a sufficient argument to demonstrate that it is incompatible with materialism.)

However, agree that anything "naive" is generally incompatible with physics.

[winsor 236]

lawrocket

To say God doesn't exist requires omniscience. Just like saying God does exist requires omniscience.

Of course, omniscience requires one to be a deity in a monotheistic Universe. Which means that either an atheist is thinking he's an omniscient God, which is a fallacy. Or, that a religious person thinks he's God, which is blasphemy.

It's quite an interesting thought problem.

You overthink it.

Given that nuclear chain reaction is well described as a stochastic process, there is a finite possibility that the chair on which I am sitting will undergo a spontaneous chain reaction and go supercritical at any time. The possibility of this event happening is so remote, however, that the likelihood works out to be zero to anything resembling significant digits.

Similarly, the likelihood that anybody's definition of a 'god' has anything resembling a physical manifestation is vanishingly small. As a prime mover of the universe, let us list just some of the characteristics that were favored by my Bronze Age forebears and see how they stack up.

Undetectable.

Is anthropomorphic.

Orders of magnitude more massive, powerful and complex than the entirety of the known universe.

Given to actions for undiscernable motivations - variously described as mysterious, arbitrary or capricious, depending on who you ask.

Is greatly concerned with the granular and nuanced details of events on this particular planet.

Knows when we're naughty and when we're nice. What's naughty and what's nice depends entirely on who you ask.

Has a propensity for warehousing at least one species of the entities of this planet ad infinitum (depending on whether they've been naughty or nice).

And so on and so forth.

Saying that any of that nonsense is as likely as my chair spontaneously undergoing a nuclear chain reaction is beyond generous. We are talking 10^-n where n -> infinity. This is to say nil, nada, zilch, zippo, squat for likelihood. This is a finite possibility so small that if it were any smaller it would be negative.

Is it possible? Only for the sake of argument. If one thinks it is at all likely from a practical standpoint, thinking is not their long suit.


BSBD,

Winsor

[RonD1120 62]

maadmax

Materialism and Naive Realism are not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. Consciousness/observation determines reality. The existence of our individual consciousness on a Quantum level is in turn validated/created by the observation of a cosmic consciousness (God).
Observations, individual and collective(God), forms reality out of the universal Quantum wave function. To say that the world functions on a "scientific" materialistic basis is just another faith based exercise.


...

"You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH4fMJj9Gq0

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Croc 0]

You have contradicted yourself. Anyone who would conclude that
"I do not know X, therefore X does not exist" is not thinking logically but simply believes his thoughts about the matter, which is exactly my point. Science would never jump to such conclusions. Check your dictionary. Atheism is a doctrine; agnosticism is not.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[mikempb 0]

Great video ! I love learning new apologetic evidence , thanks for posting

[hcsvader 1]

This makes a lot of sense, especially after heavy use of DMT.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[Bolas 5]

Croc

You have contradicted yourself. Anyone who would conclude that
"I do not know X, therefore X does not exist" is not thinking logically but simply believes his thoughts about the matter, which is exactly my point. Science would never jump to such conclusions. Check your dictionary. Atheism is a doctrine; agnosticism is not.

winsor

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Christopher Hitchens

It's not a matter of one not knowing as there's no proof to know.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Croc 0]

Proof is not necessary for knowledge. Some knowledge is self evident, e.g. "I am conscious." Possibly everything else we "know" is simple faith. An atheist has faith that he is right on the matter of Divinity. No logic or proof is involved.

Please prove that you exist.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Bolas 5]

Which do you think is easier, more comforting, and requires less thought?

* God made and does all. If I'm good I go to heaven, bad people go to hell. It's okay to do bad things though, just ask for God for forgiveness.

* There's no proof of any deity, no proof of any afterlife. There are so many conflicting deities and religious texts, sometimes within the same religion. Ergo, there's no master plan, life is what we make of it, and when you die, you simply cease to exist.

Atheism is not about faith, but the lack of it. Faith is easy. Just "surrender."

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[hcsvader 1]

Your confusing the idea of god with religious beliefs.

in the OP it summed in saying that basically our collective consciousness = god, or we are all part of the oneness that is god. Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God.

This is a discussion I would really like to have if we could keep the religious sentiment out of it.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[Croc 0]

Why did you reply to me? I am not taking a stand on this issue.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

in the OP it summed in saying that basically our collective consciousness = god, or we are all part of the oneness that is god. Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God.

The logical problem with this, at least from the perspective of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, lies in the assertion that God created the Universe, and specifically created humans. If God is an "emergent property" of the universe, or of our collective consciousness, then the universe (or we) created God and not vice versa. If our collective conciousness = God then prior to human evolution (or another self-aware entities) God could not exist.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]If God is an "emergent property" of the universe, or of our collective consciousness, then the universe (or we) created God and not vice versa.

[Bolas 5]

lawrocket

[Reply]“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

I like this. I also like Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The issue becomes the null hypothesis. Take, for example, "God doesn't exist." This means God doesn't exist unless proven otherwise.

Then there's the other side: God exists unless proven otherwise.

Each comes from subjective belief. I see no use trying to convince anyone otherwise. Most have pretty much made up their minds. Each side calls the other ignorant. Etc.

[Croc 0]

Law rocket is correct; both are subjective beliefs, having nothing to do with logic.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[RonD1120 62]

I just observed and I am not a physicist but that video explanation fits my reality.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Croc 0]

This is a technically correct logical syllogism:

If it is raining, God exists.
It is raining;
therefore God exists.

The conclusion is correct only if the premises are correct. And the premises are beyond the scope of logic.


This is a thread about the existence of God. Existence cannot be "proven" by any means. A logical proof could be constructed that reaches a particular conclusion, but it would be as useless as the above.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Bolas 5]

Croc

Law rocket is correct; both are subjective beliefs, having nothing to do with logic.

This is a subjective belief having nothing to do with logic?

Under bed monsters don't exist unless proven otherwise.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Croc 0]

Yup. As I have said, logic is a system of thinking whose truth depends on the validity of the premises. And the premises are beyond the scope of logic. Monsters under your bed or not? Perhaps you cannot perceive what is actually there?

You are confusing "logic" with "reasonable assumption." It may not matter with what's under your bed, but we live our lives as if we always perceive the Truth, but how can that be true with so many different views on the same subjects? All are merely opinions except the man who admits that he does not, and, probably, cannot know.

Again, before trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, try to prove or disprove that Bolas exists.

We cannot put on our pants in the morning without making hundreds of reasonable assumptions. The problem is that we make assumptions about everything. Ever put on your pants in a dream? You thought that was real, too, but when you awoke you realized that it was not real. Logic will not help us out of this situation. Like Einstein's two trains in the railway station where we cannot know which one is moving because our powers of perception deceive us, we cannot answer the question of Divinity because our powers of perception are too weak.

Nothing personal, it is the human condition.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[lawrocket 3]

Correct.

[Url]http://citybugs.tamu.edu/files/2010/06/dustmite-with-feathered-edge.jpg[/url]

Millions of these are under the bed. Does this count?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Bolas 5]

lawrocket

Correct.

[Url]http://citybugs.tamu.edu/files/2010/06/dustmite-with-feathered-edge.jpg[/url]

Millions of these are under the bed. Does this count?

Ok. I'll go with this.
You've produced a tangible piece of testable evidence that can be used to dispute the statement.

Now some may disagree if those bugs meet the definition of monster, which could lead to a whole different debate of what the definition of monsterous beneethus beddus is.
Until a tangible piece of testable evidence is produced that can be used to dispute the statement of non existence of a higher power other than "just have faith" or "you have to believe" the statement is logic and reason based, not subjective.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 2,030]

lawrocket

Then there's the other side: God exists unless proven otherwise.

That, of course, leads to meaninglessness since it can be applied to any imaginary friend.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

lawrocket

[Reply]If God is an "emergent property" of the universe, or of our collective consciousness, then the universe (or we) created God and not vice versa.

The idea of god or gods seems to be something that is species-wide. Throughout the globe, humans indepenndently and in isolation have developed religions and concepts of gods, the afterlife, etc.

Is religion something innate in human consciousness? Something that may be appreciated by some societies (like human propensity to violence) or something that we train people out of (like humann propensity to violence?).

Do e have an innate belief in God that some overcome? Or do we have an innate disbelief that is formed by the particular society or culture we are in? I tend to think the former, because everywhere there are people (down to the Yanomamo snorting ebene powder and chanting the hekura) there are religions. Only the details are different.