Prove to me the existence of God is a lie!!!

you jump to quite a conclusion there, care to fill in the gaps? I could easily take your words to mean god snapped his fingers(metphoricaly) and matter began, and then washed his hands of the whole lot of it. All religion is false but a "maker" is out there.
everyone would be right.

 

Did you credit me and then assert the existence of a god as a joke?
The point of my post was that you are now asserting there is a god so prove it! no amount of rationale will convince you otherwise, and since the quoted paragraph ignores the possibility of a natural but not explained phenomena, you cannot assert one way or the other the theory of the existence of the universe. In other words, your "creator theory" is merely a hypothesis that the evidence does not support. Since there is no evidence of god you cannot conclude that there is a god. You must prove it, I have the weight of all the evidence so far gathered on my side and all the evidence amounts to is that the continued abscence of god is my proof. I cannot fully deny the existence of god but in the face of their being no evidence, only a fool would assert that there is proof. If religious dogmatists want to show the existence of god let them show infallable proof or let them shut up !
TO JUST HAMMER THE POINT HOME! Atheists dont have to prove anything, the evidence supports the theory that there is no god.
People who believe in god are the ones trying to convince us otherwise. It is for them to show it is true. Until there is proof, "god" is merely the assertion of nutcases and religions poor deluded victims.

 

What evidence? It's logical to say something can come from nothing?

Again, says who?

How about sharing some of it. I'm just curious.

"Atheists don't have to prove anything..." Well, that depends on whether you are starting with the idea that no God can possibly exist. I think atheists have to work a lot harder than others.

As men we know so little. We don't even know the extent of the universe, let alone everything there is to know so do you think it's rational for someone to conclude that God doesn't exist? The evidence favors them? What evidence supports this theory?

 

Hey Rummy!

The only conclusion I jumped to was my closing sentance "That's really dismal isn't it?". That is just my opinion - it doesn't really matter! The rest of it is just an exercise in logic meant for everyone's consideration. If you take away everything; nothing is left, what part of that don't you understand? You can take my words to mean anything you choose, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, if you come to some conclusion - that's your choice. I left "religion" out to simplify the matter - God doesn't need religion, religion needs God. Everyone can't be right; either there is a God/Creator or there isn't!

Hey Columbo!
No joke intended my friend! One can't prove a negotive hypothesis, at least you and I understand that. I was just giving you credit for pointing it out first. To prove that there is or isn't a God/Creator is a moot point. One side has no evidene but has faith that God does exist, while the other side doesn't believe that God exists - they have no evidence either. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!! You don't have any evidence nor do I.
You talk a lot but you don't really say anything!!! You ramble on about all the evidence you have collected and make outrageous claims. What a bunch of bullshit!!! What evidence have you got? Put up or shut up dude! There is no evidence one way or the other - that's my whole point!!!
One could point to some Constant State Theory, "that the universe has just always been here". Do you really think that is any less bizaare than believing that everything must come from somewhere, so the universe must have been created? The bottom line is you don't get something from nothing - that's my logical conclusion. It doesn't prove anything!!!
"the continued abscence of god is my proof" - wait a minute bozo you already already used that one, remember the thimble thingie? I did not find a thimble - therefore there is not a thimble in the house. Now you're using a premise that you have already disproved!!! Which way is it "Mr. I've got the proof"? Get your shit together - I'll be waiting for your explaination!!!
Oh yeah, by the way - I notice that you didn't really respond to my little logic exercise, you just tried to make fun of it. Since you claim to have all the evidence - what is your explaination for getting everything from nothing?

 

Jlpmghrs

did you just choose sentences out of my argument at random or do you really not have any abilities to reason along a logical line.

My point being that you will find no-one in the world who is taken seriously as either a scientist, logic expert, whatever, that will try to prove the non-existence of god - ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST HOW MANY MORE WAYS DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOW YOU THAT.
Its a trick that the USA used against Saddam Hussein (prove the weapons of mass destruction dont exist)

If anyone wants to prove that something exists all they have to do is show us that what they claim exists has existence. If HOWEVER you say prove god does not exist LOL LOL ... well dont you get it do I really have to ram this point home?

Ok You knock at my door and say Your wife just stole $2000 off me and I know its in this house. I just have to say "well if youre so sure, come in and find it". Meanwile you say "no, you prove that you havent got it"
so are we going to wander through the house and at every point you say hey just because we knocked the whole house down and spent 20 years serching through the rubble it dont mean it aint here somewhere.
Meanwhile if you want to prosecute my wife you'd better come up with the cash so tell me where it is !

Dont you get the point that the weight of evidence is ALWAYS in scientific enquiry with those who are sceptical to a positive assertion.
Those who make a positive assertion must provide the evidence -
Those who assert that there is no god will judge the evidence - those who assert there is no god are not making a claim, THEY are making a NEGATIVE CLAIM - YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM (A POSITIVE CLAIM) and because positive claims can be proven or disproven you have to prove it or the evidence will speak for itself.
The fact that there is no god is self evident (empirically and logically) until proven otherwise with a positive assertion, the evidence, and proof
After all its not like everyone knows god exists and we are contradicting the evidence of the senses. Like everyonelse can see god but we cant. Wheres god? wheres the proof

 

the absence of evidence is the only way we can prove or disprove a concept or theory like this....if i wasnt so bound by the lines of perfection (because this is a touchy subject) i would have this one for the atheist.....

but theirs always the question...what if he DOES exist?

 

trying to delete accidental double post but can't find the delete button

=^^=
.../\...

 

there may be a god, there may be not a god, but what the hell difference does it make if there is or not?

we individualy, each of us, live in and experience conditions, that are the collective, statisticly combined resault, of the priorities, all of us togather, actualy, live by. we do so whether there is one god, no god or zillions of them.

so of what PERTINANCE is it, even if any thing so essoteric as to whether or not there is a god, ever COULD be proven?

=^^=
.../\...

 

Let me just say that I never asked you to prove the existence of God is a lie. I know that's the name of this thead, so maybe it's just assumed.

You said that the "creator theory" has no evidence to support it. I asked you what you meant by evidence. What would be acceptable.

You said there is no evidence there is a God. I said "says who?" There is much evidence that there is a God.

I'm saying I disagree the weight of evidence rests with the atheist, and I'm assuming when you say atheist you are referring to those who make the claim "there is no God". This is a very unjustified position as far as I can see for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I think it's harder to try to explain away God's existence then it is to believe there is a God.

In other words, you might say it takes more faith to be an atheist.

The fact that there is no God is not self evident.
Unless of course you have made up your mind that this has to be true.

 

As created beings of the Creator it would make a whole lot of a difference, don't you think. If this personal Being created us in His image and likeness and wants us to know Him.

That's assuming that the God who created us doesn't also sustain us, giving us every breath we have in our lungs.

 

And also gives air to those who blow up them selves in metro area in Madrid, London... New york... also for those who took 500 jews at once and burned then to death... also for those maniacs, taht travel across the country and kill some women, girls... for everyone ?
Just one of examples, There are many more, and peopel understand that, Relgiion is no more power.... Only in still wild, uncivilized countries.

 

Suppose I explain away the existence of god with a well constructed argument that is airtight and foolproof. Well that doesnt mean that god does not exist, it may just mean that I have made an argument for why god should not logically exist. An argument against gods existence may be as elaborate and well constructed, logically precise - the whole caboodle, but may still not prove god does not exist.
As I have said previously, no-one can show that something does not exist. Explaining something is not quite the same as proving it. Your argument hre is a good demonstration of why Occams Razor is flawed - the simplest theory is not always right.

The reason I say that the burdon of proof is with the people who argue a positive theory is because 3000 years of reasoning by the best minds to have ever been on this planet generally assert the burdon of proof to be with the positive because its impossible to prove the negative- I'm not just making this up, it forms the basis of good scientific theory and acceptable theories of proof. Your house would not be full of inventions if it were not the case and much of what we know about quantum physics would prove I am right. I believe the "Schroedingers Cat" arguments also have something to say on this matter.

Try it for yourself, get someone to hold an object and tell them that they must either hide the object in a somewhere in your house or place the object in their pocket then leave the house. You then go into the house and assert to yourself that the object does not exist in the house and try to prove that. You will never be entirely certain that the object does not exist there. Now, given that you may find the object, that would prove that the object is in the house but you can never prove it is not in the house.

I acceed the point and made a fallacious argument, of course there is nothing or very little that is self evident except what we know apriori

 

First, I agree that it is crucial for anyone who is trying to prove something that they provide good evidence for others to be convinced. But I long ago decided that the decision about whether to go to the trouble of collecting and presenting convincing proof is dependent on how important it is for you to get others to agree with you. If you don't care whether they believe you or not, you wouldn't bother spending the time and effort needed to achieve that.
One other point. In my classes dealing with scientific method and the different approaches to testing the theories of others I was taught that it is far preferable to disprove something. I could look up the text we used, and find the section which goes into detail and gives examples of how it works exactly. But, basically, what we learned was that if you can disprove something even once, then you have disproved it. You could go about proving it numerous ways, as many ways as you can come up with, and yet you could miss the one situation or set of circumstances where it is not true.
So, the text book advised that one should always begin by attempted to disprove something, because it is a much faster way to proceed.
I hope that was clear. I do know what you mean about the burden of proof, though, and I agree. If proving something to others is important to you, be prepared to spend considerable effort to do so. And furthermore, if they still don't agree, you can't make them do so, no matter how much solid evidence you produce.

 

You are right that the burden of proof rests with the person who is making the claim. But an atheist who says there is no God is making a claim.

If atheism is a reasonable view point then why don't we talk about the evidence that supports this view.

You made a lot of claims in your first post that I responded to that I disagree with. Atheists don't have to prove anything, that the evidence points to there being no God. Well, if you say there is no God you should be able to give a reason you believe that. What evidence? That there is no evidence for God's existence. Maybe none that you accept. What evidence would you accept?

But couldn't I tear the whole house apart and when I do not find it know it is in the person's pocket. Maybe I missed something.

If man doesn't know much, not the extent of the universe, not the entirety of the spiritual realm, is concluding that you know there is no God a logical position to take? Why would that be the default position?

 

An atheist doesn't say that they know there is no god. The atheist position is that there is no reason to believe in any god. Obviously some people feel there is a reason enough to believe in their gods, but atheists do not.

We don't have to prove there is no god any more than you have to prove there are no purple flying pigs that shit out gold pellets. Both *might* exist, but is it unreasonable to not believe in these purple pigs? Atheism is not an unreasonable position.

 

There are different positions held by atheists, that's why I defined the position I was referring to in my earlier post.

You don't have to prove anything to someone in order to believe it. Once you are introduced to the concept of God you have to make a decision. I believe in God, I don't believe in God, I'm not sure if there is a God. Put you have to have a position, it's not optional.

I would think a person could give a reason for why they believe the way they do, why they came to that decision.

If you say that there is no reason to believe in God, what does that mean? That none of the evidence presented to you was acceptable. If that's true, fine. But does that mean there will never be any that is presentable to you that comes about? Have you exhausted all possible knowledge?

If there might be, then I would say your position is agnostic, you don't know if there's a God. If you have made up your mind that there will never be any evidence acceptable than I think you are taking the position that you know there is no God and rejecting all evidence because God's existence is not possible to you.

 

You are trying to redefine what an atheist is. You don't have to know for sure there is no god to be an atheist. You don't have to be closed to any evidence of a god because you are an atheist. I've always been open to evidence, but none of it has suited me as of yet. I can't possibly say what evidence I'll be confronted with in the future, I only have what I have to date. That doesn't mean I am agnostic, that i think there is some sort of a god but don't know or care to guess about it's nature. I've given you my reason why I believe (or more accurately - don't believe) the way I do. Being atheist means I choose not to believe in a god just because there could be one, just like I choose not to believe in purple flying pigs that poop gold and diamonds even though those could exist too. I'll say it again, it is not an unreasonable position.

And I could say the same to you. Have you exhaused all knowledge to conclude that my position is unreasonable? Or that your god of choice is the correct one? Do you believe in my flying pigs? Why not, what is your reason? Are you so aware of the entirety of the universe, have you exhausted enough knowledge to say that they don't exist? So do you believe in them?

 

My intention is not to redefine atheism. Let's go with your definition for this post. Is it fair to say that your position is: You believe that God does not exist because you haven't seen any evidence that has satisfied you.

 

more like noone has seen any evidence at all....

 

what makes you think that?