Can the non-existence of God be proven? Can you who do not believe in God prove that He does not exist?

Just a question...

....that has been beaten to dead-horse status by several threads in this forum, many of which are on the front page.

Prove to me that leprachauns do not exist and I will give you $50.

or that god does exist, and I will give you $20 000.

That's the point. Religion is set up in such a way that it is impossible to prove for or agianst god, which makes the whole idea of arguing one way or the other a huge waste of time.

Now, a better question would be, what do you think the probability of god existing is, and, what is your evidence for making such an estimation.

My guess is that a god outlined in various religions is virtually nonexistant. I would give him a 0.000001% chance of actually existing. Some reasons are:
1) he hasn't made his present known in the past few thousand years. no burning bush, no second coming, nothing like that.
2) the only "evidence" that he does exist is a book that was written thousands of years ago, that is filled with contradictions and flaws.
3) it is extremely unlikely that an all-knowing being acts with the spitefulness that he shows in the bible.
4) the whole idea that he preconditions humans to behave a certain way, demands that they act another way, all the while knowing that most can't/won't. and his bizarre reward/punishment scheme set up in this framework.

probably not, at least in any manner that both sides would agree upon.

but i think it's nice that we still have things to wonder about in this world. makes for a more interesting existence, methinks.

rant much?

To the OP, that's why religion is awesome. It can't be proved or disproved. That's why I suggest that everyone on this board goes out right now, and starts their own religion. You've got to sell it though, I mean, really sell it. If you do a good job, you might get billions of weak-minded people to join, and you'll be the richest person in the world (bc religions are tax-exempt.)

I ranting as well.

The second coming- you make that a basis for not believing- if the second coming happens then it's to late!! That's like saying you most definitely cannot contract hiv while having unprotected sex with an hiv postive person because it hasn't happened..... yet. God wants it his way and his way only- one mans spite is another mans justice. The Bible is not flawed, it's just unacceptable to YOU- which is fine, God tells us you will be around, to persecute and I will be blessed for dealing with it.

You are preconditioned to do absolutely nothing- we all have the ability to tell ourselves no and there is nothing that he requires that is not mentally good for you- in fact, they very opposite is true. And for the first one, he said he would not show himself anymore, until the second coming- and, he ahsn't. What's the problem? I will tell you.... you. That's it. The only reason you cannot accept is because you fall short- many have fallen short, so you are not alone.





I could, but I wouldn't do it. I couldn't live with myself. In my mind, leaders of false religion are the worst kind of criminal.

Are you serious? I give a list of things, and you pick out one on a technicality to try and smear my argument. ****ing brilliant.

Oh right. He said he wouldn't show himself any more. That ties itself up nicely. Another reason you can't argue against such a sound theory. Tell me, why does god create the universe, put a son on earth 2000 years ago, gets some guys to write a book with many contradictions (maybe he never got them to write it, but he knew they would), never edited that book, hasn't said a word since, and wants us to believe in it when he knows all the while that most logical people will think it's nothing more than a fancy tale?

And don't give me that lame *** "his master plan" defense. Jesus Christ.

Hey, I just heard of this new religion. Apparently, eveyrhting in the bible was written by god as a test. Those that blindly follow it, will be deemed clueless sheep and sent to the slaughter (hell) after they die. Those that question it, and actually use their brains to think for themselves, will spend an enternity in eutopia with god, because an all-knowing being wants people at least semi-intelligent to converse with.

If you can't prove it wrong, it must be right.



Wow. Really? False religion? What do you mean by that? Can't be the one with the guy with the funny hat...

Seriously though, I'd like to know what you mean. Are you saying that all people who believe in religions other than yours are the worst kind of criminals? Because if so, wow.

If you cannot prove that God does NOT exist, then it is impossible, as a non-Christian, to be sure of anything. You cannot be sure that ANY decision you are making is right, because it may be that you are living your life in opposition to your Creator. If you consistently reject the God of the Bible while not being able to prove that He does not exist, then it is possible, even within your worldview, that you may die and go to hell. It is possible that you don't know all the facts. It is possible that God does exist and that you are accountable to Him. Hence, how can you be sure that anything you do is good or right if you cannot be for sure that the God of the Bible does not exist?

I think it was a gambler, or someone who worked with probabilities that said you are better off believing in god no matter how unrealistic it seems, just because if you don't and you're wrong, than the consequcnes are pretty dire, whereas if you do, and you're wrong, there are no real consequences.

Makes sense. But, I believe that the probability of a christian god is so low, that it is worth risking spending an enternity in hell over it. Also, I think that you do give up a little in this life if you try to follow the bible to a tee.

Now, you say that if you constantly reject the god of the bible, that you may die and go to hell, but that's only if you that god exists. What if your faith is wrong, and it's really another religions god who is the true creator? Aren't you taking a risk by not believing in that god? Does that mean one should try to follow all religions?

Also, you give the same tired arguement that no one can prove that god does not exist. Of course not. No one argues against that. Religion is set up in such a way to make it impossible, just as you can't prove to me that god is not, in fact, the sun. If you are trying to argue for religion, than saying things like "You can't prove god doesn't exist", only weakens your position as a person capable of carrying out an intelligent discussion.

Again, it is not on the skeptics to disprove any idea. It is on the ideas founders to prove it. And it has been repeated to death on these forums all the holes in religion.

Who are you, Descartes? Do we really have to go through all this again? Okay, here it goes:

You can't prove anything 100% in the world, be it God, the fact that the sky is blue, etc. There's always a chance that things are wrong or that the world is conspiring against you or that some malicious demon is messing with your brain, tricking you all your life. However, as smart people, we can consider the probabilities (roughly) that certain things are true. More importantly, we can reason that the only way a person could really go about his everyday life without going insane is by taking for "truth" what is most likely so and what we can gather from our senses to be actual.

Yes, it may turn out that my whole life consisted of my brain being in a jar and Zeus was stimulating my neurons with lightning bolts and now I won't go to Valhalla because I didn't worship Odin enough (apparently Odin and Zeus are good friends and have a poker game going on the weekends). But I'll take my chances, accept the sky is blue because it is and not because Quetzalcoatl wants me to think so (yeah, he's in the game too, though he prefers to play Bridge).

Seriously, you can say same thing about any god or about anything for that matter. Believe me, you’re lucky I got here first. Someone’s going to come in and talk about spaghetti monsters, and no one wants that. Mmmm, Spaghetti monsters. What was I saying?





It's called "Pascal's Wager" by a guy named Blaise Pascal who was a mathematician and a philosopher back in the 1600's. His real goal behind the wager was to show people that considering the existence of God is a meaningful discussion, though many misapply his idea and use it to support faith in God for fear of Hell. There are flaws behind this reasoning.

Yeah, there's a lot of them, many more than you'd care to admit though. Or maybe just one more.

ive always thought that was sort of ironic.

the religious argue that 9999 religions are false.

the atheists and agnostics say that 10000 religions are false.

yet the religious act as if there is a tremendous gap between the
2 sides.

(the 10000 number is of course arbritrary. you can have as few as 2 religions(god/no god) or
one for every person who has ever lived, depending on your definition of religion.)

Actually, I gave you answers to all your issues- if you read the whole reply instead of just reacting to the first sentence you would know that. Read, and then speak.

I am saying that the leaders, the guys behind the screen pulling the strings are the worst kind of criminals because they do exactly what you claim they do- take advantage of weakminded people who have a need for God and feed them smooth lies with one goal in mind- money. No church that I have ever been affiliated with has ever been after my money- it's not what God intended.

The thing is, they know that they are liars, which is why we have so many versions of the Bible. What do you do when what you teach contradicts God's word? Easy- make a new, better translation that better explains what YOU think it should say. Man, it's so blatant that some religions don't even bother to change it- they just put actual lines through scriptures that they don't agree with. The manipulation of people through pseudo versions of God's word is just a travesty, but a travesty that was to be expected- heck, it started in the Bible when the people told the apostles, "Preach unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits." NOBODY can be lied to unless they want it, so in some ways it's the individuals own fault, but I stand by my statement on religion as a whole.





All of them except one.

I did read the rest.

The Bible is not flawed, it's just unacceptable to YOU- which is fine, God tells us you will be around, to persecute and I will be blessed for dealing with it.

You are preconditioned to do absolutely nothing- we all have the ability to tell ourselves no and there is nothing that he requires that is not mentally good for you- in fact, they very opposite is true. And for the first one, he said he would not show himself anymore, until the second coming- and, he ahsn't. What's the problem? I will tell you.... you. That's it. The only reason you cannot accept is because you fall short- many have fallen short, so you are not alone.

Summary:
You say I will be persecuted and you will be blessed. I can deal with that. The odds IMO are pretty low that that will happen. But if the longshot comes in, I guess you win.
You offer some more random words, that don't make any point (maybe I'm too dumb to pick up on it), then say the reason we haven't seen god is because he said he wouldn't show himself until it's too late.

Ok. Hard to argue with that. Religion is tied up pretty nicely, huh? Whoever wrote that book was smart enough to try and make sure it would be impossible for any one to call him out on it. But there were a few things he couldn't forsee. Like how technology would advance far enough that we could prove the earth is much older than 5000 years old.



Well put. We agree again.



Interesting. So you're saying that some of the stuff in the bible has been manipulated by people trying to earn a buck, and that this is the cause for inconsistencies? That's a valid arguement.

Or are you saying it's a particular religion(s), that do this, and that your religion has the true message? Also, if you don't mind me asking, what religion is yours?

Also, what do you think about my new religion?

I did not argue Pascal' Wager, as if it is better for you to just believe in God since He may exist. I did, however, ask how it is you know know anything at all for sure since you don't even know the answer to the question, "Does God exist?" Non-Christians criticize Christians for not "proving" that He does exist, while all the while they cannot prove that He doesn't. The problem is for unbelievers is that if they cannot prove for certain that He does not exist, then everything they do in life may be wrong and in opposition to God. Hence, you cannot do one thing without having to wonder if you are in opposition to God in doing so. So, how do you know anything at all for sure? Can you make an absolute statement about anything?




LongLiveYorke,

If nothing can be known at all for sure, then what gives you the right to "consider the probabilities that certain things are true"? Probability presupposes the uniformity of nature, so how can you trust that the future is going to be like the past? Language itself presupposes the uniformity of nature, so if you answer and argue that you don't presuppose the uniformity of nature, you have already begged the question.

You basically said a person cannot consistently be a skeptic and not go insane. Correct? If so, you are saying the same thing I am. Skepticism is self-refuting. To say, "You can't prove anything 100% in the world" is a self-refuting statement, because that statement itself cannot be proven either, as nothing you said can. However, I think you must have to be skeptical unless you can prove that God does not exist. If God exists, you have an obligation to conform your thoughts and life to His standard, and as an unbeliever, no one does that. Hence, if you say you don't know if God exists or not, then you cannot know if you are living your whole life in opposition to your Creator. If you could prove He does not exist, then you are fine, but if you cannot, then you cannot know anything you are doing is good or right, since you maybe opposing your Creator in what you are doing.

there is a huge difference between disproof for a generic creator (not possible even for practical purposes), and disproof for anything close to a literal view of the biblical christian god. the existence of the latter definitely has been disproved for practical purposes because it contradicts everything we know about logic in the natural world. while it's true that you can't disprove anything absolutely, it's also true that belief in the latter is simply impractical and pointless - no different than believing in santa claus.

Explain.

And I never said I knew for sure. Anything is possible. All I said was that I was near 100% certain he doesn't exist. Logic and evidence (or lack thereof) are all I need to make such an assertion. But obviously no one can say for certain whether he does or does not exist.



That's how logic works. Suppose I propose a theory that the reason the earth rotates on it's axis is because of a giant hampster running in a giant wheel at the center of the earth. Now, can you tell me that this is in fact untrue, with 100% certainty? Of course not. But if I were to try and get my idea to be taken seriously, I would have to offer up some proof. I simply couldn't say "this idea should be taken seriously because no one can prove that I'm wrong".

Religion is much the same way, only it is far stronger because of it's strength in numbers. The reason it has these numbers is not because of evidence supporting it, but because it's an ancient idea which plays off human's desire to be secure and uncover the unknown (ie, gives them hope for the afterlife).



I weigh the probabilites. Nothing is certain in life, but things can be very near certain. I take the chance that I am going to hell, because the probability of that happening is virtually non-existent (in the same way I would gamble my soul that there is no hampster in the center of the earth). But, if I mindlessly followed church dogma, I would miss out on a lot of things, such as freedom and sunday mornings.

Honestly, I do everything without wondering if I'm in opposition to god, again, because of such a low weight I give to all that being real. It's like me asking you, "when you walk down the road, do you give any thought to the fact that a meteorite travelling at a zillion miles per hour might strike you in the head?" Of course not. And that's what you believers don't really understand. You think that nonbelievers are just in denial, and deep down, really think the way you do. Trust me, we don't.

Now, let's switch things up a bit. Can you say for sure that this god you believe in exists? How sure are you? What evidence do you have to support this probability?

What if your whole life was spent worshipping something that doesn't exist? Following strict rules in fear of the afterlife? Or even worse, what if the god you believe in is the wrong one, and you pay for an enternity because of it?

Can you make an absolute statement about anything?

Are you trying to tell me that leprachauns don't exist??? How could you?

Let me clarify. I'm 99% sure that nothing can be known for sure. I also don't really care because I don't allow the slightest bits of doubt to get in the way of my everyday life. I live my life based on what I can convince myself of with 99% certainty (to be sure, when I say 99% certainty, I'm only using that as an example. Obviously, the certainty with which one knows something can rarely be quantified). Here's an example:

Right now I am looking with my eyes at a mountain. I am 99% sure that I am actually seeing a mountain because I know what one is and I know what one looks like and I trust my eyesight and I trust my brain's ability to interpret my eyes. But there is a possibility that I am not in fact seeing a mountain. I could, instead, just be seeing an image that somebody maliciously is projecting through my window. Or, I could just be a brain in a jar that is being electrically stimulated to interpret "mountain."

So, because these possibilities and many (infinite) others have non-zero probabilities of being so, I can not be certain that I am actually seeing a mountain. But I am in fact so sure that I will live my day to day life as if there actually is a mountain there. I will not fly a plane in that direction under the assumption that I am being tricked and really there is no mountain there.

This same logic applies to everything else in life that I observe. I, like all people, are forced to make certain assumptions about life and have a certain amount of trust with our senses and with other people. (Now, this does not mean that skepticism is bad, obviously, when taken in certain doses. I am quite skeptical of UFO encounters, for example, though I can't prove for sure that they never happened).

Now, applying this to the question at hand:



Again, I admit that there is a chance that there indeed is a God. I will also admit that there is a chance that this God, if there is one, is the God that is described in the Judeo-Christian bible. Obviously, the probability that there is a God and it is the Christian God is less than the probability that there is a God. So, here are my conclusions:

The probability that there is a God and it is the Christian God is extremely small. This is one of those 99% things I was talking about. So, I don't live my day to day life in fear that an infinitesimal probability could occur.

Also, if there is a God, there is no way of being sure that the God is indeed the Christian God, or any other God. There would be no way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt what the "proper" way to act would be in order to go to Heaven or Valhalla or wherever. Even among devout Christians, the way to get into heaven is argued. So how could I ever be even remotely sure that there is one way worth bending my life around?

Also, about the whole probability of the Christian God existing: I have decided based on my own criteria and my own ability to analyze evidence and the evidence that I have analyzed that I find the probability of the Christian God existing to be very low. The evidence for or against a Christian God is a totally different argument, and one that has argued on these forums before. I think it is only tangential to what I am discussing here.

Anyway, I hope this answers your questions. If you'd like more clarification, I'd be happy to give it, just let me know what you would like me to go into more detail about.

I appreciate the detailed explanation of your mindset, very much.

LongLiveYork sounds so much like me it's creepy. Except for being a vegan, we're probably the same person, 99% sure.

Unconfirmed though.


I like probability talk, but since you've got nothing to support your estimations, I'd just leave it on the backburner.

LOL, just because I support the ideas of Vegetarianism doesn't mean I'm not a hypocrite enough to not be one. I great Steak is one of life's pleasures. Nobody's perfect, I guess.




No problem, sir.

Is there a God?

How would you recognize him?
There are two ways: Experience of Him as He is and how He is. (Note: “He” is being used for lack of a better term. It is a limitation of the language.) The second way, is by His knowledge.

Why His Knowledge?
Humans have been searching for answers to many questions such as: Who am I? , What is reality? How everything started? What happens after death? Why is there suffering? Is there free will? Etc. None of the current religions can answer these questions in a rational, logical manner.
God is the only one who can give us his own accurate introduction AND He gives us His knowledge which will explain the beginning, middle and end of this “creation.” Thus ignorance can be dispelled from our intellect which has been polluted by traditions and ideas which lack complete rational background.

Ok, I haven’t had the experience, so what is His knowledge?
His knowledge is very deep, but since many don’t have time to understand its depth and just want to know everything in a rush, here it goes:

1) God is a soul. A eternal infinitesimal point of light. Everything that exists has a name and a form. Our physical senses cannot perceive such a subtle reality, thus science is worthless when dealing with something different than the physical reality.
2) We, human beings are souls too. However, we have the deception of believing that we are bodies.
3) Time exists in the physical world. Time is not linear as many in the Western civilization believe. Time is Cyclical. Time is repetitive. Here, for those who want to know more about this important, very important concept, here is a link with details in a rational explanation: http://www.godhascome.org/images/Time.htm
4) Matter and energy as defined by physics (what physics means by matter and energy) are eternal. As the first law of thermodynamics states, matter and energy cannot be created neither destroyed, they only transform (in time.) Therefore, God did not create this creation. It has always existed but it changes in time. Since time is cyclical, it becomes what it has been. This point is powerful, because all religions which talk about a creator which creates from “nothing” are wrong. Nothingness does not exist.
5) The physical world changes from two seemingly opposite stages known as “ying-yang” by Taoists which have observed nature. These stages are known as “entropy” which is the second law of thermodynamics which applies to matter/energy. Thus something which is “new “must become “old”, if there is day, there must be night. If there is Paradise, there must be Hell. Since time is cyclical the “new world” or “Paradise” becomes “old” or “hell” which will become new again. Remember: This is an eternal repetitive cycle. This degradation of matter becomes the full range of our experiences which we, souls have in this physical realm. Therefore, we souls take bodies. Once the lifetime of one body is over, we take another body. But, since Time is cyclical, there is a guaranteed that we will take our same bodies one more time, to do exactly the same actions. Thus History and Geography repeat identically. Any belief in millions of millions of years of linear time…. Is completely wrong.
6) Finally: God needs to come at this time because the world will change. From old to new one more time. When there is utmost suffering and irreligiousness, when the night is about to turn into daylight, He needs to come.
7) We, humans will destroy our planet. We have the means to do it now. There are some signs of this already. Natural disasters will increase in force around the globe, water will soon become scarce, wars and conflicts will thrive and there is nothing we can do about it. Our technology “know how” have created the atomic bomb. Many countries have them. The bombs will be used.

There is more information about it, but for now explore this. It is important to have the “time” to explore this information. You will, if you really care about God. Otherwise, this will just become a topic to discuss about. What God has to do with this? You may wonder. This is God’s knowledge. This is not my knowledge. I couldn’t come up with it myself. It took me nearly 3 years to understand it. I had to give up all the false teachings and traditions learned throughout my lifetime in order to have a fresh look at it. Old traditions are comfortable, but for me the truth is more important.

The truth is a paradox. This knowledge requires a different way of thinking to be able to grasp it completely.



www.godhascome.org

some thoughts on your comments.

i dont think you can know god without experiencing god. knowledge about god
just sounds dumb to a nonbeliever, as shown below.

1 and 2- soul is a meaningless term, therefore these statements are meaningless.
3-time is strange, but the argument on your linked page is completely incoherent.
i couldnt even figure out what was really being said. and not because ive never heard of thermodynamics, entropy, and the time arrow problem.
4-great. but even if we accept that matter/energy is eternal, i dont think it has
any significant implications about god or our universe.
5-this sounds like a mangled argument for reincarnation, and it is also false. the
statements dont follow, even if you accept the initial premises.
6-absolutely zero support to this statement- nothing to even argue against.
7-even when granted that we are messing up the planet, there is no way to
prove that we wont eventually turn things around, and definitely no way to
say we will use the atomic bombs we have.

really, your statements are so poorly supported it is hardly worth the bother to
refute them, but i was bored.

i just want some of what he is smoking

Are you sure that are you almost 100% sure that He doesn't exist then?

You are right that logic and evidence is what is needed to make an assertion; without logic and rationality, there is no intelligibility. Do you think that the laws of logic are universal and immaterial?



Could you prove the statement: "The reason it has these numbers is not because of evidence supporting it, but because it's an ancient idea which plays off human's desire to be secure and uncover the unknown (ie, gives them hope for the afterlife)."

You said nothing in life is certain. Is that statement itself certain? How do you know for sure that things can be very near certain? How do you know that the probability of you going to hell is "virtually non-existent"?



The problem is you have admitted uncertainty regarding everything so you don't know that you there is "such a low weight" of God not being real. However, you ACT and LIVE as though there is absolutely no possibility of God being real. Hence, your words and your actions are contradictory.

BTW, why should I "trust" you when you can't know anything for certain?



The Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes sense of reality, morality, logic and rationality, etc. There are only two worldviews: the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview, because the Christian worldview is unlike any other worldview when it comes to God, Christ, and salvation. However, I only find the Christian worldview able to make sense of intelligibility and the universe. Hence, my proof for the Christian worldview is the impossibility of the contrary. You admit your worldview leaves you with nothing but skepticism, which is ultimately self-contradictory and self-refuting. Every atheistic worldview I have seen leads to skepticism. Skepticism has been refuted by non-Christian philosophers without Christian philosophers having to even say anything at all. God provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibilty, which I find no other worldview providing. Hence, without the Christian worldview, nothing can make sense.

I can make absolute statements about things because God is all-knowing. Everything I know is what it is because of God's plan. God knows the relation of everything to the relation of everything else, and all things have their meaning in relation to God. Hence, my knowledge, in so far as I am thinking God's thoughts after Him is true knowledge, without me having to be all-knowing myself. It is obvious that you are going to criticise and reject my worldview; indeed, you must based upon your own presuppositions, because they will not allow you to accept my worldview. The problem is that you have nothing to offer in place of my worldview that does not result in skepticism. Hence, anytime you make an absolute statement, you are borrowing from my worldview in order to make sense of the world. Indeed, by debating this issue, you are assuming principles from my worldview that would be contradictory to your own presuppositions.

The ironic thing is that you are arguing against the God of the Bible, while at the same time you are doing and acting in the exact way the Bible declares that unbelievers live and act, constantly supressing the truth about God.

the possiblity of the christian god being real is so low that for practical purposes it is the equivelant of zero. if you are going to argue that any uncertainty no matter how small is significant you'd better join every known religion to cover all your bases.



christians are the only ones who think that.



so you are a prejudiced elitist then. nice christian example you're setting lol.



i guess you believe in the easter bunny then.



you aren't making any sense. if atheistic philosophers refuted atheistic skepticism they would be theists.



what is intelligibility? are you saying the ability to reason implies a creator? if so what are you basing that on?



you are the only one making abolute statements.

crowTrobot,

You might have to refresh this convo, but I figured I would reply even if it took me 6 days.



On what basis do you know that the "possibility of the christian god being real so low that for practical purposes it is the equivalent of zero"? Atheists make claims like this, but I see no way, given that you admit that the Christian God may possibily exist, how you can say that this possibility is next to nothing. If the Christian God does in fact exist, you are simply ignoring and supressing the truth about God in your conscience and around you so that you will NOT admit that He exists. You say that God's existence is hardly even a possibility while at the same time doing the things that the Bible says sinners do. In your actions you do not even allow for the possibility of God.



Is this supposed to be an insight? Obviously, Christians are the only ones who believe that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes sense of reality, morality, logic and rationality, etc. That is basically saying that Christians are the only ones who truly hold the Christian worldview.



How so? I would be prejudiced and arrogant if I myself made claims about Christianity being the only way. However, within the Christian worldview, it is not Christians who originally made the claim; it was Christ Himself who claimed this. Also, if it is in fact true that the Christian God exists, then you must say to believe the truth is to be a prejudiced elitist.



How does it follow that I believe in the easter bunny then? The easter bunny cannot make sense of the world. You have obviously admitted and have no problem being a skeptic. My point was simply that skepticism is ultimately self-refuting and self-contradictory.



How does refuting skepticism make you a theist? My point was simply that skepticism has been refuted by non-Christian philosophers. It doesn't even take the Christian worldview to show that skepticism is absurd. You are either admitting that all atheism leads to skepticism or you believe that if you are not a Christian you must ultimately be a skeptic.



I am not saying that the ability to reason implies "a" creator or just a "god." I would have to say that without the Christian God, you cannot make sense out of reality. In asking questions you are assuming the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the senses, laws of morality, etc. Those things do not make sense outside a Christian worldview. You may deceive yourself into believing that they do, but I would say you are simply being inconsistent with your own worldview by presupposing those things to be true.

If one asks, "What conditions must exist in order to make sense of the world?" the ultimate answer that I see is that the Christian God must exist by necessity in order to have an intelligible universe. If you remove God, then you are left with absurdity and inconsistency.



So then you admit that you don't really know if I am the only one making "absolute statements"? If you do know that I am the only one making absolute statements, then explain how that statement itself is not an absolute statement. Without absolutes, you must admit skepticism in all things, because you then cannot be sure about anything at all in the universe. The problem is that you and I both know that you or no other atheists lives his/her life in that kind of skeptical worldview. Hence, you say one thing while living a life that can only be lived by assuming Christian presuppositions.

BTW, I do not reply or post here to argue with you or anyone else. I love to debate these issues, and it causes me to understand or seek to understand my position as well as others. Hopefully you do the same...

You are making the assumption that we as humans are capable of making sense of the world.

In it's entirety we aren't, but our basic instincts require us too.

Enter <insert deity name here> to explain the unexplainable.


If you add the Christian God you create absurdity and inconsistency.

If you didn't, the word faith would not be required.

because the bible is self-contradictory, full of obvious fiction in the OT, and the NT history of jesus is of dubious origin. also the christian concept of sin and plan of salvation make no sense by any definition of logic.



no, i said for practical purposes it IS impossible that the christian god exists. that there's no way to absolutely disprove that he exists (as well as that there's no way to absolutely disprove the possibility that monkeys might fly out of my butt) is just an impractical philosphical technicality.



what actions? deciding he doesn't exist based on empirical evidence?



yes, but you missed it. any cult or religion says their worldview is the only one that makes sense. a christian saying that about christianity means nothing to a non christian.



you lumped all non-christians into one worldview. that's elitist.



if skepticism is self-refuting how can you possible not believe anything? i hope it's just your terminology that's confused, because philosophically you sound like a crazy person.



what does that even mean? i would be pretty hard for an atheist to refute skepticism in theism and remain an atheist



yes i can. if we are just cogs who happen to be self-aware in an infinite machine-like universe that makes perfect sense to me. good luck disproving that possibility. our apparent ability to reason proves nothing either way. if anything the apparently *physical* nature of our ability to reason is solid evidence against reason being something metaphysical.

also christianity is NOT the only religion that attempts to make sense of our ability to reason. there is nothing special about it in that sense. you should study other religions more, particularly eastern.



why? what exactly is absurd and inconsistent without god? (other than your insecurity and ego not being appeased)



yup. i am skeptical of all things. so what? that doesn't mean i can't decide that empirical evidence is the most practical thing on which to base my views, and then objectively conclude that all empirical evidence contradicts christianity.

crowTrobot,

You said:



Everything you just said is pure nonsense then. There is no point in me even responding to it, because you must be skeptical of everything you have just said to me, otherwise, you are inconsistent. In fact, you must be skeptical of the supposed fact that you are skeptical of everything. Skepticism is self-refuting and self-contradictory. Until you can show me how being skeptical about all things is not self-contradictory, then everything you say or have said or will say is simply nonsense. There is no point in even debating, because you are obviously skeptical of every conclusion you or I come to or any proposition or claim that you make. The fact that you continue to make claims and come to supposed conclusions shows that you are not really skeptical of all things.

as an agnostic i am skeptical of the notion that we can feel confident about any *absolute* belief or truth.

however i am NOT skeptical of the notion of truth/belief FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES based on the best available evidence of what is most likely to be true - allowing for revisions and not pointlessly resorting to absolutes.

you apparently don't understand the difference between the two. othwerise you wouldn't be spouting simplistic philosophical circular nonsense about skepticism being self-refuting. all you're doing with that is contradicting your own (absolute) beief.

Ever think of it as a test?

Ever think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe but isn't revealing Himself to us as a test?

Ate at Carrabas yesterday and feasted on the flying spaghetti monster. He is not, contrary to popular belief, all powerful. He is mostly just flower and water.

Blasphemy.

Just realized I incorrectly spelled flour. Suprised nobody pointed that out.

Another glass of champagne? Don't mind if I do.

Logic, morality, and reliability of the senses don't make sense outside of the Christian worldview. Why don't they? What if I were to say they don't make sense outside of an Islamic worldview. What is the difference? Why should I accept Christianity as a religeon over Buddhism? Why are the holy books of Christians more worthy of my attention than those of Hindus?



And BTW it is impossible to prove a negative argument. The burden of proof is always on the proposer of an idea. That is not to discount your proposition, only to say that it is your job to prove to me that god DOES exist.

Here is a link on the logical fallacy you are employing.

My own point of view on this is this- most of the world believes in some type of God. The overwhelming majority, in fact, believe in God or various God's. For a long time, too. Majority rules on this one- it's on the unbeliever to prove non- existance, which you cannot do, which is what is so upsetting and causes this argument in the first place which then makes me think how redundant it is and wonder what the point is? Why argue a point that I believe without a shadow of a doubt, again and again and again? I, for one, have decided that this particular argument is now a waste of time, and not worth teh cyberspace it takes up.

i guess that means the earth was flat for thousands of years.



to you sure, but not to someone who is undecided. these arguments here and everywhere else aren't for the benefit of those arguing, they are for the enlightenment of others that might be objectively interested.

Gotta admit, thats a good arguement.

Why? The minority had to prove themselves with that as well. That actually helps me out.

obviously the moral is what the majority believes is meaningless without looking at the evidence, so it's pointless to fall back on that.

anyway the existence of the christian god as described in the bible has already been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. it's just not widely accepted (yet).

Majority rules has always bothered me

Shouldn't it be "Intelligence rules" or "Stupidity loses" or something along those lines?

Some intelligent people believed everything was made up of 4 elements. And some intelligent people thought all Jews should have been killed.

Did I win a round yet?

I guess it depends on how you define intelligence. If Stephen Hawking said we should kill all Christians I wouldn't call him an intelligent guy. I would say he's a dumbass that happens to be good at physics.

Haha, never! You just don't win.

I agree that not all things intelligent people believe are true, as almost nothing we know now will be true in 1000 years (even though they won't be true, most will be the foundations on which the new truths have refined). However, intelligence ideas are usually more correct than "majority" ideas, even though majority is sometimes right, and intillegent is sometimes wrong.