Author Topic: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge  (Read 19808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2014, 04:15:03 AM »
That's my line.  You didn't even put your so-called mathematical proof together right, let alone demonstrating that a mathematical quantity adopted for convenience's sake actually exists in the real world.  Have you ever heard the saying, "a logical proposition is only as good as its premise"?  It means that you can prove anything using logic with the right premise, but many premises don't work in the real world.  The same goes for math; we can show that it's possible to conceive of negative numbers, but we can't ever show that negative numbers actually exist outside of that conception.
Its all your lines it seems. I was just pointing out that your thinking is wrong. I can prove a negative using mathematics. I do understand why you feel you have a point. Duality. I accept your point but have a counter point.

Quote
No, I don't think you know that, because you didn't really understand what I was trying to say.  What you're trying to do is the equivalent of saying that since a hammer is a useful tool, we can use it to cut a board. 
Its possible.

Quote
Simply put, math is very useful for some things, but nearly useless for others.  We can use negative numbers to represent concepts, just like we can use infinity, but neither of those are things that can possibly be demonstrated in the real world.  For that matter, we can conceive of math that doesn't even work, like taking the square root of -1 or dividing by zero.  But trying to take those concepts and apply them to the real world in some manner simply doesn't work.  We can't have a negative number of apples, nor can we have an infinite number of apples.
Exactly - that is why I said in maths we can prove a negative. Because we do. It was against your logic that we could not and it is why I have questioned. Using infinity to work out complex problems like the big bang and claiming it is true would in anyone book sound like a lie or a cheat. Yet you do not go around saying in science and in maths we lie and cheat to prove these things we say it is logical and rational. We use critical thinking. There is no need to educate me on what we already know are lies and deception. But that is how we do things around here - in science and in maths. The concepts of our world as it appears in our minds eye is that there are laws that govern everything in matter and it is for the human mind to obey such laws. There is nothing else says the theists who know God. Wherever the human goes he would have to use rationale critical thinking and science to try and figure out the world he is observing. It is to give the mind hard work or fail trying to prove that there is no God. Nothing created does not follow some law. Only god has no laws to follow. He can do what he wants when he wants and that will forever confuse the logical rational skeptical mind.

Quote
The text you bolded doesn't mean what you want it to mean.  Much like your attempts at logic, which are so bizarre that I generally have trouble figuring out what you're trying to say.

To put it simply, when we talk about proving a negative, what it means is taking a negative proposition (i.e., that something doesn't exist) and proving that it's true.  The reason that's impossible is that you literally can't examine all of the possible evidence in the universe to determine that the negative proposition is true in every case.  Because you can't determine that, you also can't determine that it doesn't exist, because a piece of evidence you weren't able to examine might prove crucial.
In other words it is bullshit. Take this apple hold it taste it and now lie to yourself and prove that it does not exist - keep saying "it does not exist" until you come to "believe that it does not exist". And the point is -- it is self delusional training.

Quote
Trying to use a mathematical proof to negate this just shows that you don't understand what the subject is about to begin with.  This subject was never about mathematical proofs to begin with.
Exactly - you are not being realistic when you say nobody can prove a negative. And that atheism is what you define it to be when it is not. There is no logic in any of your arguments. But I am sure atheists see the logic, the rationale and the science behind it - they want everyone else to examine even though it is not there because it is a negative. You cannot prove a negative so it is true but it is not really cause it is imaginary. It is just a figure of speech to acknowledge what is not there but claims it is there to prove that it is not there. Technically BS.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2014, 04:19:10 AM »
Added: Just in case he is real and worried about doing me in, he has my full permission to zap me. But only if he is real. Otherwise, the deal is off.
Lets hope we see you then.
You do know that zapping is not on your terms. But trust me it is coming to all of us.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2014, 04:28:10 AM »
The entire point is that you can't even prove that the tooth fairy does not exist.

As I'm sure it's been pointed to you a thousand time, I don't need to prove the non-existence of something.  It's more productive to try and prove the existence of something, than it is the non-existence of something.  When no evidence is forthcoming, then there's little reason to hold on to the "it might exists" card.  If there is no evidence that my shoes flies around at night, if everything operates exactly as though my shoes do not fly at night, then I'm going to hold on to the idea that shoes do not fly at night.  Same with your god.  If you're going to pull the "you can't disprove it" card, that's a tacit admission that you have no solid evidence for its existence.


Quote
Thus, there is still a probability of existence to label to it. To flat out state, "X does not exist" is showing a closed mind.

Wrong.  To state something does not exist can also be a valid conclusion to draw when one notice that evidence is either lacking or non-existence.


Quote
A truly open-minded honest person keeps the possibility open.

A truly open-minded honest person keeps open the possibility that there are certain things that simply do not exists.  Do you consider the possibility that your god does not exists?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2014, 04:40:09 AM »
Which is not relevant to modern atheists, because modern atheists do not accept that deities exist to begin with. 
I understand - I am giving you the logic of the word its formation its origin. What it meant and how you use the term and change the meaning is what we do as humans. Like you refused my logic that Theists know God atheist don't. You get to define words but I don't. That does not work for you only. That was my point made.

Quote
That's the part that neither you nor skeptic seems to understand.
Keep enlightening me/us

Quote
  Pointing out that people used the word atheist to refer to a different subset of individuals, and then insisting that modern atheists must fall within that subset, is an error in your logic.  What was true in the past is not necessarily true now.
Glad we agree -- now endorse the Title "Theists know God and atheists don't" or I will not accept your version of logic that only allows you the privilege.

Quote
Actually, faggot was not always a derogatory term, and even today it isn't always one.  Same with atheist.  It may have started as a derogatory term, but its meaning has changed, in large part due to people who made it their own word and took it away from the ignorant - by your own admission - people who were using it as an excuse for persecution.  But the thing is, modern atheists don't make any claims to wisdom, any claims to knowing for sure that gods don't exist, because they can't.  There's no way to examine all the evidence and rule out the existence of gods, because there's no way to get to all of the evidence.  All we can do is go past the point of reasonable doubt.
Well Theists have a method of knowing which removes all reasonable doubt. The observer cannot know everything unless he merges with the creator. - Movie - Startrek --  V-GER 6 wants to know the creator. Only possible way -- merge.

Quote
And now, I'm going to bed.  Practically falling asleep at the keyboard.
Talk some time. soon. Sleep tight.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2014, 05:21:03 AM »
Prove there is one, and then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, I dismiss your claim just as I dismiss every claim for which there is no evidence, as a rational and open-minded person does.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2014, 06:34:39 AM »
If my atheism is a belief, then so are all of my other disbeliefs. Since there is potentially an infinite amount of things for me to disbelieve in, then it's impossible for me to believe them all, as, funnily enough, I don't have the brain capacity.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2200
  • Darwins +73/-89
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2014, 07:06:47 AM »
That just might be the coup de grace.
The only thing this shows is that you have an even poorer understanding of this subject than I thought you did.

To put it very simply, his point here is that the term 'atheist' originally referred to not believing in a particular god or gods (specifically the ones that a given group of people did believe in).  Sometimes, that meant simply not worshiping the god or gods, and sometimes, that meant not believing that the god/s existed in the first place (exactly what depended on the particular culture).  Which is the point I was trying to make in the first place.  You don't get to define what atheism means based on old, outmoded definitions that simply don't make sense in the modern world, especially since it's come to mean the rejection of the existence of deities much more than the rejection of belief in those deities.

This is the same nonsense we get when someone tries to arbitrarily define the word theory to make it look like scientific theories are nothing but guesses.

That's the same way I feel about theological theories.  Many have been tested over time to be in the humans best interest.  Like appreciating mother Earth and be kind to others, don't do murders, etc...

These ideas were developed by God believers were they not?  I am NOT saying that's falsifiable evidence that God exists but only the theories of behavior that is best for humans is correct.  Some bad behaviors are condoned in earlier believers like Moses I think because of his greed, fear and ego.  Why else would the ancients name greed as a deadly sin if it were not proven to be deadly?

I think it's mankind's responsibility to update theology as we learn and grow just as science is updated as it learns and grows or is just proven to be wrong as slavery was or a flat earth.

JB
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2200
  • Darwins +73/-89
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2014, 07:11:46 AM »
If this can't be done, then atheism is a belief.

A lot of atheists falsely think that atheism just means "without belief" but it actually means, "No God." Atheism is a positive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the view where they don't have an opinion either way.

Sure, some atheists like to say, "Atheism just means that we lack belief in God" but this is an attempt by modern atheists to redefine the word. The word NEVER meant that. The word always meant "No God."

I even heard some of them say, "Atheism means that we don't think there is enough evidence for God." But, this backfires too because there ARE theists out there who agree with this statement, but believe in God anyway. So, this definition gets thrown out the window too.

The proper meaning of "lacking belief in God" means that you believe God is there, but you don't believe in Him. Sort of like having a friend who betrays your trust and you lose your faith in him. The friend still exists, but you lose your belief in your friend. So, this is why "lacking belief" backfires and actually means you DO think God is real, you just lost faith in Him.

So, that leaves atheism as meaning "No God" which is a positive claim. So, any atheists out there want to defend their positive claim of "No God?"

You are fighting a loosing battle here Skeptic.  It can not be proven or unproven.   It is possible they are right and we are wrong and vice versa.
There is not enough knowledge to draw an absolute truth from.

JB
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1555
  • Darwins +102/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2014, 07:27:17 AM »
According to the online Merriam Webster dictionary:

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

It is my understanding the letter "a" when used as above is equivalent to the English word "without" so an atheist is one "without god" or "without a belief in god". 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

It would seem that until the entire known universe can be fully explained, then there is room for the possibility of God's existence.  The challenge, by atheists, is for some measurable empirical proof that God exists.  No such proof exists to the best of my knowledge.  Plus, if there is room for God's existence then there is also room for leprechauns, dragons, Easter Bunnies and Tooth Fairies (to name just a few).  Which, then dilutes the existence of God if God is just one of many supernatural entities. 

Socrates argued there is precious little we actually know; that much of our life is based on belief.  So, yes, atheism is a belief based on the lack of concrete evidence for theism.  Theism, in turn, is based much more on subjective belief than empirical measurable evidence on God's existence. 

End of lecture.

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2014, 07:32:50 AM »
<snip>
an atheist is one "without god" or "without a belief in god". 

What you say here (above) contradicts what you said here (below).

So, yes, atheism is a belief
<snip>

Now, for anyone else, I'd probably have smited the crap out of them for claiming that atheism is a belief, but, for you, I'm willing to give you a chance to retract your statement (or reaffirm it, in which case I will most likely have to smite you).

OldChurchGuy

One
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1781
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2014, 08:31:28 AM »
While I can see how theists could interpret atheism as a belief, given that it makes a statement about the way we see things, I'd say that it's more an assumption. It's not as active as an actual belief, and open to any proof that comes along to the contrary, but in the meantime, given the lack of proof, we simply assume that this is because there is nothing there to actively believe in.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1555
  • Darwins +102/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2014, 08:32:41 AM »
<snip>
an atheist is one "without god" or "without a belief in god". 

What you say here (above) contradicts what you said here (below).

So, yes, atheism is a belief
<snip>

Now, for anyone else, I'd probably have smited the crap out of them for claiming that atheism is a belief, but, for you, I'm willing to give you a chance to retract your statement (or reaffirm it, in which case I will most likely have to smite you).

OldChurchGuy

One

Your point is well made.  Before conceding, please indulge me a bit.

Since I used Merriam Webster earlier, I will continue to use it.  The first of 3 definitions for "belief" is "1:  a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing."  (I am presuming a "thing" can include a conclusion). 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Based on the above definition and the earlier one of atheist it seems to me the two camps (theism and atheism) can be summed up as follows:

Theists believe God exists based on their interpretations of various experiences in their lives.  These interpretations are primarily subjective as there is no known way to reproduce these experiences much less produce an entity which can be seen and measured and agreed upon as "God".  Since these experiences tend to be intense and personal, theists conclude God exists. 

Atheists believe God does not exist based on their interpretations of various experiences in their lives.  These interpretations are primarily objective since there is no known way to produce an entity which can be seen and measured and agreed upon as "God".  Since God cannot be reproduced, much less produced, for all to see, atheists conclude God does not exist. 

For me, both groups (theists and atheists) are acting upon beliefs / conclusions based on their understanding of the known world. 

Perhaps, the challenge is that some are equating belief with faith.  Turning once again to a definition from Merriam Webster, one of the definitions of "faith" is: "2 b  (1) :  firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2) :  complete trust

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Thus, to me anyway, theists act upon faith in their understanding of God whereas atheists see no proof of God's existence.  So, theists operate on belief and faith where as atheists operate on belief. 

Hoping I clarified rather than muddied the waters I remain,

OldChurchGuy

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2014, 08:41:13 AM »
Your point is well made.  Before conceding, please indulge me a bit.
<snip>
Atheists believe God does not exist

Indulged and, not surprisingly, still wrong. Atheists lack belief in deities; we do not actively believe in the non-existence of deities. At best you could say that gnostic atheists actively believe in the non-existence of deities. It'd still be wrong, but some atheists (not me, though) might agree with you.

OldChurchGuy

One
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #42 on: March 02, 2014, 08:51:04 AM »
Atheists believe God does not exist based on their interpretations of various experiences in their lives.  These interpretations are primarily objective since there is no known way to produce an entity which can be seen and measured and agreed upon as "God".  Since God cannot be reproduced, much less produced, for all to see, atheists conclude God does not exist. 


You've expressed it as antithesis. I just think that Christians make a dismal case for the existence of their God, and other religions (that I know of) also make an unconvincing case. I have no experiences to delude me one way or the other.

As long as troll threads like this keep being fed, with verbose explanations, people like skep will continue to troll with this pointless technique.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7289
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2014, 08:56:34 AM »
What a sad, sad OP by skep....

Trying so hard to put atheism on the same level as belief in the supernatural - by trying to define atheism to suit his needs. And by trying to claim that it is a positive truth claim by itself. Let's put that to rest right now, shall we?

It is far too late for any theist to make the ridiculous argument that atheism is a "positive truth claim" about the non-existence of any god or gods. There were no atheists before there were theists. Some doofus, long ago, said there was a god, or a bunch of gods - which is indeed a positive truth claim. I wonder how long it took for the next intelligent person to step up and ask for evidence of this claim? Probably not very long, since the claim is incredibly extraordinary. There was always a set of minds that simply did not accept those claims, many of which paid the highest price possible for even questioning the claim.

And with no evidence to support the original claim, any "atheist" who declares that the claim is not true, is NOT making a positive truth claim, they are simply asking for the original claim to be substantiated in ANY MEANINGFUL way - which to this day, has never happened.

The positive truth claim for EVERY SINGLE GOD OR SET OF GODS has fallen completely flat in terms of being proven to be even remotely true or accurate. EVERY SINGLE claim remains nothing more than deluded philosophy from people who are seemingly unable to manage the obvious distinction between things that are natural, and available to be measured in some way, and made up crocks of BS straight from the mythology and supernatural fiction department of every library and bookstore on the planet.

Bottom line, gods DO NOT get a free pass in the realm of people "making shit up." So it is well within the rights of the atheist, or anyone for that matter, to say "there are no gods, there never have been, and there never will be". And THAT is NOT a positive truth claim.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7289
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2014, 08:57:56 AM »
As long as troll threads like this keep being fed, with verbose explanations, people like skep will continue to troll with this pointless technique.

oops...my bad.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2014, 10:09:29 AM »


lol deep down inside, you know that's not proof that God does not exist.

Where did God say that he will bow to your whims?

He doesn't bow to my whims. He doesn't exist. I survived the night, hence no god.

If he exists and he helped someone win a basketball game yesterday (a common claim) he can certainly take the time to cause my heart to explode. If he doesn't exist, he had nothing to do with the game and he had nothing to do with the fact that I didn't die last night.

You are, as a believer, afraid to admit that you were hoping that I wouldn't make it through the night, just so you would know for sure.  And had I not lived, you would have used it as a proof that god is real.

You can't have it both ways. But, as a theist, you have no choice. You take what you can get, you ignore everything else, and call it reality. And then you have the temerity to brag about it.

How does it feel to be a waste of resources?
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2014, 10:39:16 AM »
The entire point is that you can't even prove that the tooth fairy does not exist. Thus, there is still a probability of existence to label to it. To flat out state, "X does not exist" is showing a closed mind.

A truly open-minded honest person keeps the possibility open.

I think you missed my post on page 1, number 7.

Have you not realised that you answer the statement - prove there is no god - in exactly the same way as atheists do. You agree entirely with atheists on this matter that there are no real gods, with the one minor exception you have made for Yahweh. If you accuse atheists of not keeping the possibility open, why are you doing the same. Now I hope you see why asking for proof of this kind of negative statement is useless for practical purposes.

The reason I said "this kind" of negative statement is because negative statements can be proved in special circumstances when all possibilities can be defined. The proper way to state the purpose of this thread is to say " prove there are no gods which are claimed to exist".
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2014, 10:54:57 AM »
Atheism is the position, a/gnosticism is the claim, how is that so hard to understand?

I can't prove there is no god no more than you can't prove there are no unicorns, fairies, Santa Clause, the Celestial Teapot, Cthulhu, FSM, Big Foot, etc. Basically with you claiming that being credulous about god claims is a good thing, I can also say that being credulous about the things above is just as good. I can claim anything, but I can also reject such claims, as such most people here have rejected both the things I've listed as well as your god claims.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 11:00:22 AM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #48 on: March 02, 2014, 11:05:32 AM »
Atheism is the position, a/gnosticism is the claim, how is that so hard to understand?

I can't prove there is no god no more than you can't prove there are no unicorns, fairies, Santa Clause, the Celestial Teapot, Cthulhu, FSM, Big Foot, etc. Basically with you claiming that being credulous about god claims is a good thing, I can also say that being credulous about the things above is just as good. I can claim anything, but I can also reject such claims, as such most people here have rejected both the things I've listed as well as your god claims.

Correct. Anything claimed might be true as long as at least one person claims it, as per Skeptic. And it is up to the rest of us to prove something wrong, whether it be a religion stuck in the head of millions or just a suggestion stuck in the head of one.

Skeptic is so full of crap, it must be true. The crap part.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5072
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #49 on: March 02, 2014, 12:01:06 PM »
Its all your lines it seems. I was just pointing out that your thinking is wrong. I can prove a negative using mathematics. I do understand why you feel you have a point. Duality. I accept your point but have a counter point.
And now you're just repeating yourself.  Stop trying to sound profound and actually listen for once.

Creating a mathematical proof for a negative number is NOT the same thing as proving a negative.  You're making the same mistake skeptic is in trying to conflate two statements with different meanings.  Trying to prove a negative refers to the absence of evidence for something, and it's effectively impossible because you can't rule out that you might find evidence at some point.  It has nothing to do with a mathematical or logical proof, since those are constructs used in arguments, not demonstrations of physical reality.

Did you understand that time?

Quote from: Jesuis
Its possible.
At least you're willing to admit that much.

Quote from: Jesuis
Exactly - that is why I said in maths we can prove a negative.
But you aren't actually proving a negative in the first place, because math doesn't work with physical evidence the way science does.

Quote from: Jesuis
Because we do. It was against your logic that we could not and it is why I have questioned. Using infinity to work out complex problems like the big bang and claiming it is true would in anyone book sound like a lie or a cheat.
So you aren't even talking about the subject of the topic now.  Great...  And worse, you're trying to make science sound like lying and cheating by playing word games.

Quote from: Jesuis
Yet you do not go around saying in science and in maths we lie and cheat to prove these things we say it is logical and rational. We use critical thinking.
Yep, because scientists don't claim that the current theories on the Big Bang[1], accelerating to lightspeed[2], and black hole singularities[3] are the final words on the subject.  The fact of the matter is that the BBT and black hole theory are incomplete, but we can't exactly perform experiments or test them to find out what actually happens.

Quote from: Jesuis
There is no need to educate me on what we already know are lies and deception.
Wrong, because you're making an assumption about science that doesn't fly, namely that science lies or cheats to support claims.  Do you have any actual evidence of this, or is it based on your misapprehension of things?

Quote from: Jesuis
But that is how we do things around here - in science and in maths.
This is a lie; furthermore, it's an insulting lie.  It shows only two things - that you don't understand science or math nearly as well as you think you do, and that you're only saying so to further what you want to believe in any case.  It's as big a strawman as what skeptic tried to pull in the first topic of this post.

Quote from: Jesuis
The concepts of our world as it appears in our minds eye is that there are laws that govern everything in matter and it is for the human mind to obey such laws. There is nothing else says the theists who know God. Wherever the human goes he would have to use rationale critical thinking and science to try and figure out the world he is observing. It is to give the mind hard work or fail trying to prove that there is no God. Nothing created does not follow some law. Only god has no laws to follow. He can do what he wants when he wants and that will forever confuse the logical rational skeptical mind.
Until you actually show evidence that there is such a thing as a god - and trying to say that there are laws that govern things and thus a god must have put them in place is not any kind of evidence, it just shows your continuing lack of understanding of how science works - any belief that there is is no sturdier than a house of cards.  It's just that people are really good at propping up houses of cards in their minds.

Quote from: Jesuis
In other words it is bullshit. Take this apple hold it taste it and now lie to yourself and prove that it does not exist - keep saying "it does not exist" until you come to "believe that it does not exist". And the point is -- it is self delusional training.
Are you speaking from experience here?  If you pretend that you have an apple long enough and hard enough, your mind will start manufacturing evidence that the apple exists, even though it doesn't.  And you'll claim that it does to other people until they get tired of listening to you.  That's just as much of a self-delusion as trying to pretend that an apple which actually does exist doesn't.  Ever read The Emperor's New Clothes?  Perfect example of what I'm talking about.

In any case, you still don't get it.  When we talk about "proving a negative", what it means is that we can't say outright that something doesn't exist without evidencet.  However, sauce for the goose works for the gander too; if you don't have evidence about something, then you don't have evidence, and so while you can't prove that it doesn't exist, you also can't prove that it does.

Quote from: Jesuis
Exactly - you are not being realistic when you say nobody can prove a negative.
The one who isn't being realistic here is you.  I've said repeatedly what "not being able to prove a negative" means, and you insist that I'm wrong.  Well, if I'm wrong, prove a negative - in the real world, not in math or logic.  Prove that something for which we have no evidence either way doesn't exist.  You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath, though?

Quote from: Jesuis
And that atheism is what you define it to be when it is not.
When your argument is that the word atheism originally meant something, therefore it can't possibly mean anything different today, your argument is invalid.

Quote from: Jesuis
There is no logic in any of your arguments. But I am sure atheists see the logic, the rationale and the science behind it - they want everyone else to examine even though it is not there because it is a negative. You cannot prove a negative so it is true but it is not really cause it is imaginary. It is just a figure of speech to acknowledge what is not there but claims it is there to prove that it is not there. Technically BS.
All you're doing here is showing the old adage that you can prove anything logically if you use the right premise, even if it's totally ridiculous.

Unless you have evidence regarding something, you can't make any claims about it - even whether it exists or whether it doesn't exist.  Playing these asinine word games to try to claim that atheists really do think this god of yours exists but are trying to pretend that it doesn't only shows the weakness of your position.  Namely - that you have no actual evidence to support the existence of 'god'.  So you're left with trying to claim that it exists anyway and that atheists think so to, they just don't "have faith" in it, and using steadily more ridiculous argument to support it.

To get back to the original point of the topic, atheists can't prove that there is no god.  Can theists prove - in the real world, not with sophistry and logic - that there is one?
 1. indeed, the BBT talks about a time when the universe was very hot, very dense, and very small, but we can't travel back in time to observe it and can't reproduce it to check what came before that
 2. where it's used to show that an object with mass can't accelerate to lightspeed
 3. which we can't observe because we can't get close enough to the singularity and couldn't send the data out past the event horizon in any case

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5072
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2014, 12:33:08 PM »
I understand - I am giving you the logic of the word its formation its origin. What it meant and how you use the term and change the meaning is what we do as humans. Like you refused my logic that Theists know God atheist don't. You get to define words but I don't. That does not work for you only. That was my point made.
This is just plain getting ridiculous.  What you're trying to do is redefine what the word atheism means so you can change what it means to be an atheist.  And what I'm trying to tell you is that the latter part fails miserably.  You can't change people by changing the meaning of a word they use to describe themselves, unless they consent and agree to it.  Let's say for the sake of argument that you did get atheists to agree that atheism requires the acceptance of the existence of things which a person does not have faith in.  All the former atheist has to say is, "fine, but since the word now does not describe me, I'm picking something else instead."  And then you're back at square one, with all these former atheists going by a new term and you being left with a useless argument about atheism.

In short, this whole argument of yours (and skeptic's) doesn't work, because it requires atheists to tamely accept your redefinition of what it means to be an atheist and that the new definition applies to them, and they're not willing to do that.

Quote from: Jesuis
Keep enlightening me/us
Are you actually paying attention this time?

Quote from: Jesuis
Glad we agree -- now endorse the Title "Theists know God and atheists don't" or I will not accept your version of logic that only allows you the privilege.
Provide real evidence that shows that there is a god and I'll happily endorse your title.  Because until then, you're stating something that I don't agree with (that the only true theists[1] are ones who actually know 'god', and everyone else is an atheist), and to say otherwise would be a lie.  And I frankly couldn't care less whether you approve or not.  You see, I'm not seeking your approval; you're seeking mine.

Quote from: Jesuis
Well Theists have a method of knowing which removes all reasonable doubt. The observer cannot know everything unless he merges with the creator. - Movie - Startrek --  V-GER 6 wants to know the creator. Only possible way -- merge.
Gotta have a creator to 'merge' with in the first place.  And that gets us back to needing evidence to show that it exists in the first place.

By the way, V'ger was looking for a creator which was essentially a bigger and far more powerful version of itself.  What it actually found was humans - and it couldn't believe that humans created it at first, because humans were nothing like what it expected its creator to be.  Individually weak, far less intelligent and powerful, and shaped nothing like it.  Definitely something for you to ponder.
 1. gee, this seems awfully familiar

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5072
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2014, 12:41:55 PM »
That's the same way I feel about theological theories.  Many have been tested over time to be in the humans best interest.  Like appreciating mother Earth and be kind to others, don't do murders, etc...
Right.  Theology is, at its heart, a way to try to understand things.  The problem comes when someone starts assuming that their understanding is the only right and proper way, which is a rather nasty trap of the mind.

Quote from: junebug72
These ideas were developed by God believers were they not?  I am NOT saying that's falsifiable evidence that God exists but only the theories of behavior that is best for humans is correct.  Some bad behaviors are condoned in earlier believers like Moses I think because of his greed, fear and ego.  Why else would the ancients name greed as a deadly sin if it were not proven to be deadly?
I've always tried to keep in mind that it doesn't matter what a person believes to be true, and you should always consider what they say independently of that.  The fact that a moral imperative is communicated through religious belief doesn't make it any less moral.

Quote from: junebug72
I think it's mankind's responsibility to update theology as we learn and grow just as science is updated as it learns and grows or is just proven to be wrong as slavery was or a flat earth.
I'm reminded of a saying I read a while back - religion must reflect reality.  If you start expecting reality to reflect religion, then you're bound for disappointment.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5072
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2014, 12:48:53 PM »
Indulged and, not surprisingly, still wrong. Atheists lack belief in deities; we do not actively believe in the non-existence of deities. At best you could say that gnostic atheists actively believe in the non-existence of deities. It'd still be wrong, but some atheists (not me, though) might agree with you.
Part of the problem is how the word 'atheist' is defined.  Per Merriam-Webster, "a person who believes that God does not exist", alternately, "a person who believes that deities do not exist".

Offline SpaceTime

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2014, 12:57:54 PM »
"I believe there is no god"
"I don't believe there is a god"
They look similar but are intrinsically different, both are forms of atheism, the former is more inclined to be considered a form of belief, the latter is a matter of being skeptical really.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2014, 01:26:36 PM »
"I believe there is no god"
"I don't believe there is a god"
They look similar but are intrinsically different, both are forms of atheism, the former is more inclined to be considered a form of belief, the latter is a matter of being skeptical really.

Welcome SpaceTime

You are of course right, there are differences in those two statements, but I, as an atheist, should not have to be so careful when I say I don't believe that there are gods. What we atheists don't like is being told that we are not being specific enough or otherwise unclear when we say we don't accept the stories of others who do believe.

It is the theists or the semi-theists that will want to work their beliefs carefully. Because beliefs, as inherently unsubstantiated claims, require care when being defined. Simply saying something isn't real should be easy, and free of controversy. (The controversy over the general issue can remain . As in this case, about whether or not there is a god, but if I say there isn't one, people can't tell me I'm wrong and that I really believe but I hate god or something. That is redefining my words, and/or putting words in my mouth.)

Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real. How can I say that in a short sentence and be absolutely clear? What phrase would work best? Especially in Skeptic's world, where he wants to tell me I don't know what I think, but that he does.

Note: This is a curiosity question only. I'm just asking. Anyone?
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2014, 02:17:28 PM »
skeptic, (and I am disinclined to refer to him by that name, since he appears to be skeptical of nothing whatsoever) is just here to stir up trouble and to incite pointless arguments. We have had visitors like him here before-- Tesla springs to mind-- but rarely have we had such a good example of the pigeon crapping on the chess board, flipping it over and declaring himself the winner of the game.

He already knows all the counter-arguments to his initial post. He knows that his proposal (that if you cannot prove god's non-existence, then you have proven god's existence) is bogus, because it means everything anyone could imagine and everything unimaginable as well would have to exist.

I cannot prove that Xenu, my daughter's two imaginary friends, Thor, unicorns, Santa, Cinderella, werewolves, Bigfoot, fairies, Sherlock Holmes, zombies, those big-eyed aliens, the human fly and the goddess Durga do not, in some far distant unknown corner of some pan-dimensional universe, actually exist.

So, according to skepic-of-nothing, all those beings are real. And we should behave accordingly. Any wacked-out thing that you want to think is out there, is actually out there if you cannot prove otherwise. Kinda scary universe you got there, skeptic-of-nothing. Medication might help.

I look forward to someday meeting Mr. Spock. And Zena, warrior princess. Until then, I am putting skeptic-of-nothing on ignore. First time I have done that, but he meets the definition of troll. Trolls, it turns out do really exist.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2014, 02:19:16 PM »
When I said above that all the possibilities need to be defined to prove a negative, I personally think all the possibilities are defined so that an unknown god can also be ruled out.

First, a being inside a universe must have evolved so it cannot be a god and cannot evolve the powers of a god.

Second, no being of any sort or any powers whatsoever or of whatever nature can exist outside a universe. There is no time, space, energy or any way for it to think, act or exist.

simple, no unknown gods exist

The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #57 on: March 02, 2014, 02:28:03 PM »
skeptic, (and I am disinclined to refer to him by that name, since he appears to be skeptical of nothing whatsoever) is just here to stir up trouble and to incite pointless arguments. We have had visitors like him here before-- Tesla springs to mind-- but rarely have we had such a good example of the pigeon crapping on the chess board, flipping it over and declaring himself the winner of the game.

He already knows all the counter-arguments to his initial post. He knows that his proposal (that if you cannot prove god's non-existence, then you have proven god's existence) is bogus, because it means everything anyone could imagine and everything unimaginable as well would have to exist.

I cannot prove that Xenu, my daughter's two imaginary friends, Thor, unicorns, Santa, Cinderella, werewolves, Bigfoot, fairies, Sherlock Holmes, zombies, those big-eyed aliens, the human fly and the goddess Durga do not, in some far distant unknown corner of some pan-dimensional universe, actually exist.

So, according to skepic-of-nothing, all those beings are real. And we should behave accordingly. Any wacked-out thing that you want to think is out there, is actually out there if you cannot prove otherwise. Kinda scary universe you got there, skeptic-of-nothing. Medication might help.

I look forward to someday meeting Mr. Spock. And Zena, warrior princess. Until then, I am putting skeptic-of-nothing on ignore. First time I have done that, but he meets the definition of troll. Trolls, it turns out do really exist.

You could be right that he is a troll. I have noticed that he ignores the difficult questions and pretends they are not there. He also returns to ideas which have been refuted and pretends they have not been. On the other hand I have seen him struggle to make a reasoned argument and he is genuinely confused about himself, about others, and about reality.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V