Its a fact that god does not exist

Seer Travis Truman · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Well these two are more Christian ideas and all religions

do not believe in this. Even all groups of Christians don't,

Yes. Of course, as I stated in the OP, this thread will concentrate on the christian version of the god myth. Although there are cosmetic differences between the various christian god myths, they are all the same.

as some see the 8 days as a symbol for a longer period.

The stretch is way too far. It does not make sense. That is so obviously a back-pedalling by christians. In the days of the bible being formulated and refined by societal leaders, they knew how long a day was. There is no way that any supposed god creature could have gotten it so wrong, nor is there any way they would mis-interpret the lengths of time involved by such a scale.

You are wrong here. Not only if the "big bang" also not proven, but even within the theory, there is a lot of ambiguity and the question of who or what caused the big bang or what was there before still stand. This could potentially be attributed to a god.

Incorrect. The big-bang is clearly the current and most logical explanation, and has many proofs supporting it. perhaps it is not absolutely proven, but it is 'proof-ed', unlike the insane god myth.

There can be no causation of the big bang. Why? Because causation requires time (before and after) and time did not exist before the big bang. Therefore, there need not be a causal event that created the big bang.

There was nothing before the big bang. There is not even a before the big bang. Why? Because "before" is an aspect of time - you cannot have before and after without time. So, there cannot be a before the big bang, because that would mean "before time".

The question of "who created everything" always remains and the answer could be God.

No it could not. There is no god creature. God does not exist, there is no evidence at all to support this delusional claim.

The idea of God is not illogical- it is simply a way to give meaning to what we might never be able to understand. Even if one doesn't believe in Gods such as those found in religious texts, they may believe in a God that exists in the universe around us. Einstein, after all, believed in just that- Spinoza's God.

These are just further deranged delusional constructs. The belief that there even MIGHT be a god creature is not only completely illogical but it is false.

There is no evidence, not a single shred, to so much suggest that a god creature exists. Of course, that point is beyond your comprehension.

Dirk said:
This has really become pretty exhausted now. It's become pretty damned circular. However provocatively worded it has been by STT, it is not the place of the sceptic to prove a negative.

It's stupid, to be honest. I'm sorry, but it's late and it gets on my nerves. If i told you to prove i don't have any bread in my house, you can't look for "no bread", you have to look for bread. You cannot search for an absence of something.

Well put. That is how a normal, sane and functioning brain thinks about this 'problem'.

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Dirk said:
It's stupid, to be honest. I'm sorry, but it's late and it gets on my nerves. If i told you to prove i don't have any bread in my house, you can't look for "no bread", you have to look for bread. You cannot search for an absence of something.

This is why when scientists argue for something, they argue from a position of scepticism. They don't go, "well, i COULD be *insert example here*, but prove that i'm NOT - aaaahhh." They demonstrate why it is.

Except when there is something that so little is known about- such as the origins of the universe, the dimensions, or time, scientists start off by hypothesizing and by creating possible scenarios based upon what they know. Considering we know very little about some of these things, God could be a hypothesis. Science and God do not have to be two separate things- there can be a point where the two meet and support one another.

Dirk · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Except when there is something that so little is known about- such as the origins of the universe, the dimensions, or time, scientists start off by hypothesizing and by creating possible scenarios based upon what they know. Considering we know very little about some of these things, God could be a hypothesis. Science and God do not have to be two separate things- there can be a point where the two meet and support one another.

Well, i shouldn't think so. A scientist does not start with a superstition and try to prove it. You work from the bottom up. You look at the reality, then make deductions from this basis.

I can't work from a probably-false premise. And consider how incredibly unlikely a god is.

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Dirk said:
Well, i shouldn't think so. A scientist does not start with a superstition and try to prove it. You work from the bottom up. You look at the reality, then make deductions from this basis.

I can't work from a probably-false premise. And consider how incredibly unlikely a god is.

This largely depends on your definition of God as well. A God that is exactly as described in religious texts is different than a God that was behind the laws that run the universe. There are even many scientists, including those who do work with things such as the "big bang" and string theory who believe that there could be a supernatural force behind it all.

Comrade Communist · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
This largely depends on your definition of God as well. A God that is exactly as described in religious texts is different than a God that was behind the laws that run the universe. There are even many scientists, including those who do work with things such as the "big bang" and string theory who believe that there could be a supernatural force behind it all.

Once you start defining a god outside the theist perspective what is the point in calling it god anymore?

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Comrade Communist said:
Once you start defining a god outside the theist perspective what is the point in calling it god anymore?

Well if you bring up that point, then it is just semantics. Depends on how you define God. The definition of God created by organized religion is not the only one that exists though.

Dirk · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Well if you bring up that point, then it is just semantics. Depends on how you define God. The definition of God created by organized religion is not the only one that exists though.

Would a deist god really be a god, do you reckon?

Comrade Communist · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Well if you bring up that point, then it is just semantics. Depends on how you define God. The definition of God created by organized religion is not the only one that exists though.

You accept, then, that a theist god is a ridiculous idea?

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Comrade Communist said:
You accept, then, that a theist god is a ridiculous idea?

It really depends on what religion and maybe more importantly, what interpretation of that religion we take. There is no doubt that modern organized religions have all gone through some sort of manipulation, political or otherwise, over history. Not only that, but different people read into things differently.

Personally, I am not a big believer in particular rituals, etc. as a lot of them do have links to historical manipulation and I do not believe that God, even under a theist's definition would want some of those practices to continue, especially when they cause hardship for families or lead to wars. I do believe in a God however and being someone who is of a science background (as a college biology major,) I think that both God and science are one and the same and that a God does exist within the science, laws, and organization of the universe we see before us. I do believe there is a higher force behind the universe and the dimensions and I do believe in God.

Whether or not my God is the definition of God you had in mind, that's another matter.

Seer Travis Truman · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Except when there is something that so little is known about- such as the origins of the universe, the dimensions, or time,

That is illogical. The universe is nothing to do with it. There is no legitimate reason what-so-ever to invent a god creature because there is a universe.

At this point I must say you have ignored and ducked My previous post about the big-bang. You have refused to face up to the Truths it contained.

scientists start off by hypothesizing and by creating possible scenarios based upon what they know.

In this case scientists were nothing to do with it, and it was NOT based on what we know. There is and never was a single shred of legitimate evidence to suggest that there might be a god creature.

Considering we know very little about some of these things, God could be a hypothesis.

Wrong. God is not associated with the universe, he does not exist.

Science and God do not have to be two separate things- there can be a point where the two meet and support one another.

No there cannot be. God is an utterly non-scientific and illogical delusion. There is no legitimate philosophical or scientific basis for a god creature existing.

myp said:
This largely depends on your definition of God as well. A God that is exactly as described in religious texts is different than a God that was behind the laws that run the universe.

There is just no evidence to point in that direction. Its just a delusional construct humans have invented to deny the Truth.

There are even many scientists, including those who do work with things such as the "big bang" and string theory who believe that there could be a supernatural force behind it all.

That is simply because these scientists are infected with the god myth mental disorder. Its that simple. There is no scientific basis, rational basis, or philosophical basis whatsoever to these insane claims.

Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that everything they say is science based.

Comrade Communist said:
Once you start defining a god outside the theist perspective what is the point in calling it god anymore?

Exactly. The god-addicts always try to make point for the god creature that are nothing to do with their claims in the hope others will not notice their slight of hand. They do this because they have no valid argument whatsoever for their delusion, yet at the same time they cannot accept their delusion as false.

myp said:
I do believe in a God however

This is just a delusion you cling to because you cannot face the Truths of life and/or the Truth of your inevitable death.

and being someone who is of a science background (as a college biology major,) I think that both God and science are one and the same and that a God does exist within the science, laws, and organization of the universe we see before us.

Then you need to go back to school. God is a delusional construct that has zero science basis, zero rational basis, and zero basis in Truth and sanity.

I do believe there is a higher force behind the universe and the dimensions and I do believe in God.

That is hardly a convincing argument.

Whether or not my God is the definition of God you had in mind, that's another matter.

Come off it. You are just trying to make a rather flexible and foggy claim regarding the god myth in the hopes that you can chop and change it and avoid facing how utterly false and ridiculous your belief actually is.

Its easy for Me, ALL god-myth claims are false. Your claim is false. There is simply not a single shred of legitimate evidence to support your delusion.

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Seer Travis Truman, it is fine that you disagree with me, but in debating a point you can not use your viewpoint as fact- that just defeats the purpose of debate and in turn hurts your ethos. For debate you have to give evidence for your point or rationalize it. You can't just say God doesn't exist and leave it at that, as you have often done in the post above. We are debating whether or not God exists, so you can not use the claim that "God does not exist" as an argument. No matter how strongly you feel you are right, you must realize that that is not a valid argument.

Dirk · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
You can't just say God doesn't exist and leave it at that,

Ahem:

If i told you to prove i don't have any bread in my house, you can't look for "no bread", you have to look for bread. You cannot search for an absence of something.

-filler-

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Dirk said:
Ahem:
-filler-

But, when I make an argument that does support the idea of God (or in your case it would be for bread

) you can't simply respond by saying "God does not exist" or "bread does not exist in my house." I did make what I felt was a valid argument for the existence of God and as such, even if you still feel you are right, shouldn't you explain to be how my argument (which in a way does serve as some form of rational or proof) is false and that your claim is still right?

For example, as per the bread example, if you say there is no bread in the house, yet I find some crumbs, shouldn't you say something other than "there is no bread." Even if you are sure of it, you should explain why I am wrong- whether the crumbs are of something else or whatever. That is just how debate works and if one has already made up his/her mind before debating and refuses to listen to others, then what is the point of even discussing the matter? People who refuse to respond to opposing arguments will simply keep claiming that what they think is right is right and the other side will obviously not be budged when no evidence is given. In that case, the firm believer will not budge because he knows he is right and he won't make any counterpoints to the opposition, so they won't budge either. No one will accept the others ideas and both sides will keep saying the same thing over and over again.

Seer Travis Truman · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Seer Travis Truman, it is fine that you disagree with me, but in debating a point you can not use your viewpoint as fact-

It is not My viewpoint, it is a Truth. Its 100% factually accurate.

that just defeats the purpose of debate and in turn hurts your ethos.

No, that makes debate possible. We need to look at the facts.
To suggest that to tell the Truth and refuse to pander to god-addicts hurts My ethos is utterly ridiculous.

For debate you have to give evidence for your point or rationalize it.

I do that. It is you and your fellow god-addicts that never rationalize or give evidence to support your ludicrous claims.

You can't just say God doesn't exist and leave it at that, as you have often done in the post above. We are debating whether or not God exists, so you can not use the claim that "God does not exist" as an argument.

Yes I can. It is the affirmative claimee that needs to have evidence to support his claims. Although I have given you many other arguments such as why the big bang cannot be caused (which you refuse to even acknowledge) I need no evidence. My argument that there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that a god creature might exist immediately invalidates your false claim.

No matter how strongly you feel you are right, you must realize that that is not a valid argument.

That would apply to you and what you are doing. It is you who will not give any legitimate evidence or argument.

Seer Travis Truman · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
But, when I make an argument that does support the idea of God (or in your case it would be for bread )

you are yet to make a single valid argument for you case. All you do is ask for impossible negative proof. Thats a backhanded negation and completely lie-based.

you can't simply respond by saying "God does not exist" or "bread does not exist in my house."

He can if you cannot produce any evidence to support your claim.

I did make what I felt was a valid argument for the existence of God and as such, even if you still feel you are right, shouldn't you explain to be how my argument (which in a way does serve as some form of rational or proof) is false and that your claim is still right?

You made no valid arguments. I did explain how your arguments were wrong.

For example, as per the bread example, if you say there is no bread in the house, yet I find some crumbs, shouldn't you say something other than "there is no bread."

But you did not find any evidence. I keep telling you that there is not a single shred of legitimate evidence to support your claim. Your analogy is so obviously false that it is ridiculous.

That is just how debate works and if one has already made up his/her mind before debating and refuses to listen to others, then what is the point of even discussing the matter? People who refuse to respond to opposing arguments will simply keep claiming that what they think is right is right and the other side will obviously not be budged when no evidence is given.

But the problem is this is precisely what you are doing.

myp · Feb 26, 2010

The FACT that there are laws in the universe that everything follow, brings up the questions of why are those laws there, how did they come to existence, and what is the purpose of those laws. Any of these could bring up the idea of God. If you do not want to accept it as truth, then you should at least accept it as theory because that is how most scientific facts begin any way. If you do not have an opposing theory that explains these questions that you can prove, then you have to accept the fact that my theory might just be right. If you don't want to believe the theory fine, but don't tell others it is wrong.

At one time people believed the Earth was flat. Those who may not have believed in that did not go around saying "it is impossible- the burden of proof is with you and you only." When people made arguments for why the Earth is flat, the opposition could not just say, "it is not flat." Scientists do not act in the way you think they do- they look to reason and when no proof is there yet, there are theories, which some may believer and others not. But no one says, "that theory is for sure wrong" until they too either have a theory of their own that conflicts with the existing theory or until they can disprove it.

And just to be clear, I do not think the idea of God is a theory (although I am fine if others do), as I do accept it and believe it is the truth. Until you can give me a better explanation, I will choose to keep my faith.

Dirk · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
But, when I make an argument that does support the idea of God (or in your case it would be for bread ) you can't simply respond by saying "God does not exist" or "bread does not exist in my house."

I can't give evidence for a negative, though. Saying there is bread in my house (there actually IS, but that's beside the point) requires evidence - for example, crumbs. I might suggest it was actually from a cake i made earlier, and prove that by tasting it and affirming the taste. But when there are no crumbs, we're not in business.

:giggle:

I did make what I felt was a valid argument for the existence of God and as such, even if you still feel you are right, shouldn't you explain to be how my argument (which in a way does serve as some form of rational or proof) is false and that your claim is still right?

Oh, i must have missed it! Would you mind quoting your crumbs again, please?

myp · Feb 26, 2010

Dirk said:
Oh, i must have missed it! Would you mind quoting your crumbs again, please?

Lol, maybe what I see as crumbs, don't look like crumbs to you. Check out my last post (the one before your last response) for the "crumbs" on universal laws.

Seer Travis Truman · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
The FACT that there are laws in the universe that everything follow, brings up the questions of why are those laws there,

Illogical reasoning. You need to show direct Truth of your claim, not questions, speculations regarding other matters.

This is not evidence of a god creature.

I must point out that you presume that there is a "why", because "why" supposes that someone had reason or motive to create the universe. Circular reasoning.

I'd argue that the laws are that way in the same way that the Anthropic principle explain why the conditions of life are just right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

how did they come to existence, and what is the purpose of those laws.

Again.

Any of these could bring up the idea of God.

Not to a sane, rational life form. These things had nothing to do with your claim. You were asked for evidence of your claim, not to speculate on other claims.

If you do not want to accept it as truth, then you should at least accept it as theory because that is how most scientific facts begin any way. If you do not have an opposing theory that explains these questions that you can prove, then you have to accept the fact that my theory might just be right.

False dilemma logical fallacy.

If you don't want to believe the theory fine, but don't tell others it is wrong.

It is wrong, and dont tell Me what to tell you.

At one time people believed the Earth was flat. Those who may not have believed in that did not go around saying "it is impossible- the burden of proof is with you and you only."

They had evidence. They could see the earth. Thats the rational way it was to them.

When people made arguments for why the Earth is flat, the opposition could not just say, "it is not flat."

Because of prior evidence, not some wild speculation about the laws of physics. Evidence. Something you completely lack, and refuse to acknowledge.

We already covered this. You need some evidence to show for your claim that god exists, such as a recording of the god creature, a piece of clothing that is not of this universe that the creature gave you. Something.

Dirk · Feb 26, 2010

myp said:
Lol, maybe what I see as crumbs, don't look like crumbs to you. Check out my last post (the one before your last response) for the "crumbs" on universal laws.

Ah, yes. How are you defining universal laws - the laws of physics, or what?

I can't say i'm a physicist - i'm more into biology. But gravity, for one thing, is relative to mass. I think the idea is like a suspended stretched-out net. If you put objects on the net, they create a dent and objects with smaller mass will be drawn toward it. Does that help any?

In what way do you think that a god is involved, and in what way are we defining this god?

In regards to flat earth theory, i don't really think the two are comparable. Scientists made a positive contrary claim - that the Earth is globular - and were persecuted for this thoughtcrime. They had evidence to support the hypothesis (i forget exactly what it was - common sense isn't evidence, by the way) and it was eventually proven for the layman. The planet was circumnavigated.

Its a fact that god does not exist

Similar threads