Non-existence of God, does not need any proof, just like non-existence of the Santa-Claus. Who brought God concept? Believers did! Can they prove it? No! Therefore it does not exist!
rockyg, you are the one claiming all unprovable claims are equal, so if you don't think the claim that santa exists is comparable to the claim that he doesn't then it's you who has to explain why. I have simply extended your logic to demonstrate how little sense it makes, how you don't actually believe the very things you are claiming and to demonstrate that again people like you want to afford the claim that god exists special concessions not afforded to other baseless assertions of a positive. could you actually respond to what i have said instead of the usual predictable ranting and rhetoric please.
Actually he broke down Chaos Travias response pretty well and I have never seen a PHD get taken to town like that, plus its actually true that scientists have no facts about the origin of the universe. Im just glad that when scientists come out with books that they almost always put in footnotes and citations unlike the incoherent ramblings of one of atheism's prime leaders. I just think that we men of Faith (both religious and atheists like you) should bury the hatchet and come to an agreement that we should basically rerspect each others beliefs and stop the spreading of false information on websites. This is why I dont have any childish websites putting down atheists, because there are actually some atheists that really do use common sense but I have found a alot here dont.
you did not leave my phD aside, which I mentioned also because you asked me to "ask any scientist" and does not play any role in any argument I made. On the other hand, my knowledge of history, natural and social sciences, does. Another post of your is revolving around me, and not about anything I said. How about trying to re-explain the counter example you've given in an attempt to make it look less foolish? I am very sorry in the name of your intellect if you really believe what you have written. Actually, i summed my reasoning just a paragraph below, which you conveniently ignored, again. The tendency to ignore some evidence and over-exaggerate in other, more convenient evidence, is the mechanism that allows religion to survive. You tend to ignore my main points, and stick to foolish, subtle, usually personal stuff. This re-confirms my suspicion, that you actually have no new angle of view, a philosophocal scenario, or anything meaningful to which you can draw our attention. Is the main purpose of all your posts is just to argue? to convince us that atheists are "believers" just as the religious people are? I was innocently hoping that there is actually a meaningful argument, something with substance, that you are trying to deliver. Seems like I was wrong. I will hence withdraw from participating further in this thread until you make your first argument one can debate upon. I actually do think that you believe that god exists. No need to ashamed of it. Tell us about more about it. Let me see how I can help you. Apart from mocking the very miserable counter example of yours (I couldn't hold myself) I will not engage further in personal fire-exchange that is the core of every post you make, the only thing probably that you are capable of doing. Teach us something new. Convince me that I'm going to hell. Or you're too afraid to read my response on the "issue" and prefer a "gossip" level discussion? Maybe you are feeling inferior? Start with the own quote from above (3rd time I quote myself on important, totally ignored, statements of mine). Give us your best reasoning. make it interesting. I am past the age and intellectual level of childish insult exchange. God bless
You haven't made an argument. You've continually posted something along the lines 'your phD' and spending 'EVERYDAY thinking' since you left high school. I've yet to see you post anything rejecting my assertion that a theory without proof is simply a belief - and amounts to nothing based on scientific fact. Atheism of the form 'God does not exist' and religion of the form 'God does exist' are both therefore simply beliefs. And that was my original statement. Quiet how you can take issue with that is beyond me. Are you saying an unproven theory constitutes scientific fact? If you'd care to argue otherwise please do so. Just spare us any more demented postings about your knowledge, phD and your lab friends.It makes not a whit of difference to the point I made. I was pointing out the absurdity of you attempting to argue a point based on your knowledge, whilst at the same time providing nothing of substance. Please provide substance to your argument, rather than insisting that your undisclosed knowledge should suffice. This argument is proceeding as such Me: Unproven theories are simply beliefs. Therefore the arguments God does not exist, and God exist are both simply beliefs on a scientific basis. You: Not true. I have a phD. Can you not see how shallow that is? yes, because it was yet more ramblings about yourself rather than anything of substance. Telling us repeatedly about your knowledge amounts to nothing. Its like Einstein trying to prove relativity by announcing he knows about apples. I've simply said that atheism in the form of 'God does not exist' and religion in the form of 'God exists' are both equal in the eyes of science. There is no scientific evidence of either. If you wish to dispute that by all means - just spare us the argument based on 'your knowledge.' I've never met anyone that thought that displaying the phD, or what they've studied in the past amounted to an argument! It was my first post in this thread, and you choose to attempt to discredit it. The sum total of your argument thus far has been 'I have a phD'. You've provided nothing of substance to discredit my point. Quiet why you believe stating you have a phD and rambling on about your studies would refute a point is something you'll have to figure out for yourself. Its absurd. I simply made a statement in my first post in this thread. I've told you before you were jumping to conclusions about me and yet you insisted on rambling on about issues I never disputed. Your long posts about the difference between science and religion were your own choice. I never said otherwise. You long posts about evolution were your own choice. I never said otherwise nor even disputed them. They are common known facts! Your posts about the Church were your own choice. I never even mentioned the church. Or Christians. Or scientists! They were all your own additions. The issue of what I believe or do not believe was not the point I made. The point I made (this must be the umpteenth time I'm posting this for you) is that "In the absence of proof, the statement 'God exists' and the statement 'God does not exist' are both simply beliefs." If you actually want to dispute that, rather than rambling off on things you would like to think I said, by all means. And again, you jump to more conclusions. Would you ever go back and read my first post in this thread? And then go on to read your own post. You'll see you jumped to conclusions immediately. I have no interest in arguing the point of whether God exists or does not exist with you. If you are incapable of understand that statements without proofs are simply beliefs, I shudder to think at what I'd have to explain on the substantive issue.
Because Santa is in no way comparable to God. Your attempted argument runs something like this: I'll make up a character. You cannot prove he exists. Ergo God does not exist. OR: I'll make up a character. You cannot prove he does not exist! Ergo Santa exists! Meanwhile back in the real world, you completely ignore that the common concept of God involves the alpha and omega - beginning and end. The very notion of the origin of all things is central to the concept of God. You (again) attempt to take the leg of a chair, compare it to the leg of a table, and attempt to ask me are they same because they both have similar legs! In other words, your attempting to equate the claim of Santa and God on the basis of one attribute(the lack of proof - i.e. the table and chair leg). Its why you its crucial you define 'Santa' first. Surely thats not an unreasonable request?
What do you have to say about this? (asked for the 4th time) Do you think that it is likely that god exists? Do you agree with me that it is unlikely? Or do you have no opinion what so ever that is related with the topic or this thread and you just enjoy having blank conversations?
I think it is better you define God first, so we can see what is the difference between God and Santa. Is your God the God of Christianity and other religions or some unknown force that has no effect on our lives?
Gworld I think we need the extremist atheists like you to first admit that there is a possibility that god does exist. Lets first start with the all powerful force that even most physicists believe in. If you can admit there is a possibility that he does exist then we can move to the god of christianity . Watch as gworld comes back with a question instead of being brave enough to take my challenge? I would try with stox but he follow authors that dont document proof and write sloppy book sthat are easy to debunk lol.
There is the possibility that Santa, wolf man, ..... exist or there is possibility that you get laid by Angelina Jolie but all these are highly unlikely, the same as your God. Now that I have answered your question, do you want to answer mine?
Originally Posted by chaostrivia based on my knowledge of the natural world, close acquaintance with the creature driven by fear and ape instincts also called "humans", knowledge of history, and of everything else I know, I sum everything up and I end with something like 1000 "con" arguments, and maybe 1 or 2 "pro" arguments. Hence, god is unlikely to exist. I've previously said 'your knowledge' counts for nothing. If you like to extract a fact from that knowledge and post it, by all means. Then you might have an argument to make. As you've made the point above, its simply an opinion - a belief. There's no scientific merit in it whatsoever. You might as well be concluding God exists - on the basis of fact you've achieved absolutely diddly squat.
Stupid comparasion if ever there was one. But merely your opinion or belief in any case. No scientific merit in your statement whatsoever. In any case, here's your definition if you really really really want one. God, the source of all things, the Alpha and Omega.
How is it, considering you stated all unprovable claims are equal, not comperable? According to your logic, not only is it comperable, it's identicle. Or are you again affording the claim that god exists special considerations not afforded to other unsupported claims for no good reason?
Actually no one makes bigger mistakes than john hitchens one of the leaders of the brash, new atheism movement . No wonder why some atheists are being lead astray in their belief that god doesnt exist. When you follow a guy that writes a book that a 5 year can document better what do you expect from his followers. and just when I asked Gworld about the possibility that god exists through the indirect evidence such as the order and symmetry of the universe. The more they change subjects without answering the question, the more they flip flop, the weaker their case becomes. Ill say it again, most theoretical physicists believe in the existence of god because of the the order and beauty of the universe and the fact that you can put most great formulas on a piece of paper. These are footprints that tell them that a grand design has been made. You can either admit that this is a very logical way of thought(dont even debate it with me, debate it with such brilliant people as Michio Kaku).heck the way some of these FAITH BELIEFS that hav ebeen pointed out by some of the atheists in here, you might as well have Hitchens come in here and talk about when because he never presents documented facts either lololol. With a leader like that you have to feel bad for the extreme atheist movement. Notice i said extreme atheists not mainstream atheists who have a healthy respect for all people and their beliefs.
This source of all things that you call God, how do you define it? Is this an intelligent being that controls humans life? Do you think this God will care if ping has sex or just je*k off before marriage? Is this the same God as Christian and other religions God? Is this God an almighty creature that controls every aspect of what happens in universe? Since Micho kaku has shown that bible is just BS and you agree with him then we can draw the conclusion that according to you bible is just BS. Great, now you can have sex and enjoy life with out burning in hell for it.
That's exactly what he is saying. His whole god, the alpha and omega vs santa being unequal is based on a tautology. His point is, basically, that the two are not comparable, because one is a man made concept, while the other is, well, god, the alpha and omega. The conclusion of his argument(that the two cannot be compared) is reached through "parameter massaging" which is itself what leads to the conclusion. And this is the guy who was earlier stressing the point of things being equal through the eyes of science.
Gworld there you go again. Skipping to the second part without agreeing with the first part. Its a talent my brother used to have when he was 4 and asking for ice cream even though he knew he had to have dinner first, and he kept asking for ice cream anyways. Hitchens should really start writing books that are less sloppy or else you guys might lose FAITH in him alltogether. I really would encourage more people to read his book on mother teresa . It will probably bring in more converts to theism then to atheism.
I never said all unproven claims are equal. I said all unproven theories are simply beliefs. On the basis of science, there's a case to be made for treating all theories of item A as equal in the absence of proof. That is not to say that a theory on item A is equal to a theory on item B (what you're attempting to do) The absurdity of that should be obvious. But they can both be labelled as beliefs in the absense of proof. For instance, you attempt to define item A equal to item B simply because we can class them both as beliefs. You wrongly assume that the concept of God is equal to the concept of Santa. Even a five year old could point out the differences. What you are yet again doing, is taking two different concepts, applying one attribute of each and attempting to claim they are equal. You're attempting to say a chair is equal to a table, given they both have legs. If you cannot see the absurdity of that..... As I've said, I've no problem pointing out the fallacy of your argument, if you'll simply define santa. You asked for my definition of God and I gave it - and yet you refuse to adhere to the same request. Are you afraid of defining Santa lest once again your argument be proven false?