Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dawkinsrocks]

The existence of something does not imply a creator.

That is fallacious reasoning of the type that is commonly used by Christians.

It is also spectaculalrly hypocritical as with the idea of god the question is just then shifted to what created god.

The usual get out of jail card is that god has always been there.

It is a lot more reasonable to say that energy has always existed as we at least have evidence of its existence now

But if a creator was implied there is no evidenmce whatsoever to indicate that it is god.

And as for god, here's one for you.

If god is omniscient he kn ows everything that will happen in the future. Therefore he can't be omnipotent because he can't change it.


Evolution is not a kind of design because design pre-supposes an intent i.e a change brought about for a specific purpose.

Evolution is the result of genetic accidents that happen to benefit the recipient from a survival perpsective.

[The Scotsman]

The existence of something does not imply a creator.
.....but for something to exist there must have been a dynamic that created it which as I said earlier you could define as "nature". "Mother nature" appears in many ancient and indeed modern cultures as synonymous with "god" thus as I said God could be defined as nature; by implication we know nature surrounds us, defines us and indeed controls us.

Thus you could argue that God exists! ;)

[Dawkinsrocks]

That is nothing more than the vacuous point that you could call anything god.

It is nothing like what people really mean when they uise the term

[GenSeneca]

that is nothing more than the vacuous point that you could call anything god.

It is nothing like what people really mean when they uise the term

dawkinsrocks has no clothes!!!

[The Scotsman]

That is nothing more than the vacuous point that you could call anything god.......Thank you Sir! Exactly the point............. God is what you make it......thus endeth the thread

Between us Dawkins in a few short exchanges we've proved the existence of God :D

[Dawkinsrocks]

Arguments for god's existence

1) You can't prove he doesn't exist.

2) There had to be something to start it all off.

If that is the best that Christians have maybe they should do what I did after a childhood of being brainwashed to believe in god.

Think for yourself.

It does not add up and those earguments are worthless.

You can't disprove the existence of anything so this argumenmt confers the same legitimacy on the existence of fairies and father xmas as it does on god.

Who knows how it all started? You don't just make up an answer. And even if there is a supernatural force behind it all there is no evidence to say it is the god of the christian faith.

[GenSeneca]

Think for yourself.
Let me know when you start thinking for yourself.

You don't just make up an answer.

You make shat up all the time, like every post, so why begrudge others the same opportunity?

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are quite a wit aren't you?

When I say 'quite' I mean about half

[PLC1]

God is the most perfect being.
It is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
If god did not exist, then god would lack a perfect existence.
Therefore, god exists.

There you go, proof of the existence of god. Dawkinsrocks can't apply that to Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, since neither of them has to be perfect. I'll bet no one can dispute that reasoning without resorting to changing the argument from the non existence of god to the validity of religion.

[Shadow]

Arguments for god's existence

1) You can't prove he doesn't exist.

2) There had to be something to start it all off.

If that is the best that Christians have maybe they should do what I did after a childhood of being brainwashed to believe in god.

Think for yourself.

It does not add up and those earguments are worthless.

You can't disprove the existence of anything so this argumenmt confers the same legitimacy on the existence of fairies and father xmas as it does on god.

Who knows how it all started? You don't just make up an answer. And even if there is a supernatural force behind it all there is no evidence to say it is the god of the christian faith.


Absoutely spot on. Science will eventually find out how it all began. IF it began . Providing the religious fanatics don't impede scientific discovery with their "beliefs" and condemnations.


The FACT is that NO ONE KNOWS . Some are happy to follow what they have been told in their formative years without questioning it. These are the "followers" in the world. Others question , research, THINK , analyse, and explore with an open/ receptive mind. as new data is made available...... they review it carefully . They don't take things on faith or face value. And good for them.........as THESE are the true explorers of life, the world around them and the biggest contributers to human progress.

And there definately is NOT just one "god" ....... as it all depends on where one was born and where one was brainwashed.

Now, is there some energy form that is integral to creation , (& destruction) that fascilitates "life" (all) time and momentum??? It is possible. Until it can be defined and isolated as an entity........it remains a "belief" or a myth.

believing something does not make it fact.

[GenSeneca]

believing something does not make it fact.

Both you and Dawkins believe a great many things that are not fact, yet you state your own beliefs as though they are fact - repeatedly - without backing your assertions.

Arguing the existence of God, I don't expect to see many sources, links, empirical studies, or fact sheets regarding the information being presented BUT you guys often "argue" points that can be easily sourced, linked and verified - yet you rarely choose to present such evidence in order to buttress your assertions. Instead, I see opinion's of others used to back your arguments... other times the truth has been twisted or exaggerated in order for you to have anything to comment about... and we mustn't forget the ability to plagiarize the works of others to make it sound like you know something and have intelligent insight on an issue or topic.
-------------------------------------

Now as for the topic,

If a Theist approached me asking me to believe in God, I would want proof that he existed. If the Theist could provide convincing evidence, I'd be silly for rejecting the existence of God.

Inversely, If I were a Theist and an Anti-Theist were asking me to renounce my belief in God... I would ask for proof that God didn't exist. If the Anti-Theist could provide convincing evidence, I'd be silly to think God did exist.

Of course, there is no such evidence for either side...

I don't agree with or follow any religion, yet I respect people as being individuals capable of making informed decisions on their own, as is their right, but I do expect the same in return...

The FACT is that NO ONE KNOWS--Shadow

So stop trying to tell others they are wrong for their belief while you guys mystically know the unprovable truth... Don't agree with Dawkins when he says that belief is a result of brainwashing and don't go on to repeat the degrading brainwashing nonsense while also claiming to be open minded... You may not notice all these self contradictions but rest assured, everyone else does. ;)

[Shadow]

don't go on to repeat the degrading brainwashing nonsense while also claiming to be open minded... You may not notice all these self contradictions but rest assured, everyone else does.


and of course YOU are taking the liberty of speaking for "everyone else".....


and for the record: your peevish PERSONAL ATTACKS Are getting tiresome.:mad: NOt that you would take heed.

[NO Obamanation]

and of course YOU are taking the liberty of speaking for "everyone else".....


and for the record: your peevish PERSONAL ATTACKS Are getting tiresome.:mad: NOt that you would take heed.

He is just speaking common sense. Any “normal” person could understand

[GenSeneca]

and of course YOU are taking the liberty of speaking for "everyone else".....
I will concede that to you: everyone -1, since Dawkins will agree with you and will not see your shared self contradictions.
http://sio.midco.net/stonecoldtruth/images/owned.jpg

and for the record: your peevish PERSONAL ATTACKS Are getting tiresome.:mad: NOt that you would take heed.
So its OK for you to personally attack theists by asserting they are all brainwashed - and not rational, critically thinking individuals - but for its not OK for me to point out your double standards and contradictions in logic?

[NO Obamanation]

I will concede that to you: everyone -1, since Dawkins will agree with you and will not see your shared self contradictions.
http://sio.midco.net/stonecoldtruth/images/owned.jpg


So its OK for you to personally attack theists by asserting they are all brainwashed - and not rational, critically thinking individuals - but for its not OK for me to point out your double standards and contradictions in logic?

Funny cartoon :) where do you guys get these!


See I have been watching and I know how it works. He knows no matter what foul thing he says to you, you are not going to report him. But he will report you and since the only time you get into trouble is when someone reports you, he feels he has the upper hand.

I have decided that I am not as mad or disgusted about those who do that anymore. They are all from socialist countrys where they are taught the big brother mentality, its all they know so I feel more sorry than anything now.

But it is smart of you to show him his own stuff that way when he reports he has to report something that shows his own words said too :) haha a new concept, reporting on yourself.

[Dawkinsrocks]

God has a very large dick on his head.

He must have

You can't prove he doesn't and he made Genital Senility in his own image

[bododie]

God has a very large dick on his head. Lol. Now assuming He doesn't open his mouth and say the stupid things that men say when they've lost an argument, He is definitely perfection in my mind.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Can you prove that god isn't gay?

[PLC1]

Can you prove that god isn't gay?
If we're children of god, then it follows that he isn't gay.

But, that's a Christian concept, not the same as knowing god.

So, no, I can't prove he isn't gay, nor that he is a he. Can you?

[bododie]

Can you prove that god isn't gay? With the pictures that you try to project, I think that your anger is because He isn't. LOL.

[Not Amused]

If by any chance God does exist and is also in the form of a 'He', then I think he most definitely created human man in his own image. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

Only a 'He' God would be so vindictive as to allocate menstruation, childbirth, PMT, menopause etcetera, etcetera, exclusively to women.

Whilst at the same time allow man to get off virtually 'scot free' in this particular department, also still enabling 'him' to feel not only incredibly, unjustly superior, but also own such a 'teeny brain' that he cannot even acknowledge acceptability of this misconception, OR admit magnanimously that women are by default and decree superior in every conceivable way ;):D

[Dr.Who]

If by any chance God does exist and is also in the form of a 'He', then I think he most definitely created human man in his own image. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

Only a 'He' God would be so vindictive as to allocate menstruation, childbirth, PMT, menopause etcetera, etcetera, exclusively to women.

Whilst at the same time allow man to get off virtually 'scot free' in this particular department, also still enabling 'him' to feel not only incredibly, unjustly superior, but also own such a 'teeny brain' that he cannot even acknowledge acceptability of this misconception, OR admit magnanimously that women are by default and decree superior in every conceivable way ;):D

You have a good sense of humor.

[PLC1]

If by any chance God does exist and is also in the form of a 'He', then I think he most definitely created human man in his own image. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

Only a 'He' God would be so vindictive as to allocate menstruation, childbirth, PMT, menopause etcetera, etcetera, exclusively to women.

Whilst at the same time allow man to get off virtually 'scot free' in this particular department, also still enabling 'him' to feel not only incredibly, unjustly superior, but also own such a 'teeny brain' that he cannot even acknowledge acceptability of this misconception, OR admit magnanimously that women are by default and decree superior in every conceivable way ;):D

LOL

If men had to put up with menstruation, PMS, menopause, and hot flashes, not to mention childbirth, birth control would be so popular that the human race would have died out by now.

[SusanConstant]

I did not want to overwhelm you:

Time is immutable. Time and place or energy and matter come into existence at the same time as it is instaneous. Time is; it exists. The death of this universe will then be the birth of another. In Genesis the distinction between light and then evening and day is meant to signify or mark the first emanation of God as that is the collective consciousness or self-awareness. I wanted you to consider light differently and time differently before I told you this. We call this 'creator' consciousness the collective unconscious only as we refuse to acknowledge it exists. Once you acknowledge it as actual reality you see, hear and feel it everywhere. we deny it as we refuse to accept as fact that an all male God or an all male universe dissolves as it eventually implodes or self-dstructs as it is not stable. At some future point nothing all male can sustain itself. You know that line from "Jurassic Park" about an all female world? Life finds a way? It does as the universe is lawful and just.

The dirty little secret the Catholic Chruch does not want anyone knowing is that this first emanation of God is female not male and that is Id or wisdom as it is unconditional love. The Holy Spirit is a girl not a boy. It's only a dirty little secret as the Church has never been quiet about this and mostly leaves it up to you to reason. The Trinity is not the father, son and other son or other father. It's: Holy Spirit. If you're trying to consolidate power, or save people or doing what you think will be popularly accepted, you might lie and cater to partriarchy in order ot advance your cause whatever it is. But, once done, then you have to deal with the lie when society catches up or catches on.

Self-awareness and Creator awareness is female, it is your Id, and discrimination beats it out of you. We operate on Ego and we're not suposed to as Ego is the creation of man. Eating the apple witrhout petitioning the Creator first was man exerting Ego. That's how man created by himself as he created fear - thus blame - and self-doubt. Men do not like to admit that the first emanation of God is considered female. Like God a human being is both male and female but we deny over one half of humanity and half of God. We actually are making ourselves dumber as we use less of our brains as we incapcitate ourselves. We are now shutting down our dominant brain side all by denying God and denying women or female.

This is why boys are now falling behind girls in math as the injury is past completion. We have conditioned ourselves to be dumb by denying reality.

[9sublime]

SusanConstant, you have absoloutley no scriptual or any other kind of basis for that claim. Christianity was invented by men, with men in mind, and as a result God is a man.

[PLC1]

SusanConstant, you have absoloutley no scriptual or any other kind of basis for that claim. Christianity was invented by men, with men in mind, and as a result God is a man.

If we are god's children, as the Christian philosophy teaches, then there must be at least two gods, one male and one female.

Unless, of course, you picture god undergoing asexual reproduction, like an amoeba.

[Dawkinsrocks]

And if we are all god's children why is he happy for large numbers of us to spend eternity being burned for not thinking the right thoughts.

I think that probably constitutes child abuse don't you?

[bododie]

And if we are all god's children why is he happy for large numbers of us to spend eternity being burned for not thinking the right thoughts.

I think that probably constitutes child abuse don't you? No. Dear. That constitutes "Catholicism", a system devised to keep the masses spread out from the ruling body in line and afraid. Why can't you understand that faith and religious systems and rules, are two different entities?

[Dawkinsrocks]

No it isn't.

Plenty of fundamentalist protestants believe that some people will go to hell and burn forever.

[bododie]

No it isn't.

Plenty of fundamentalist protestants believe that some people will go to hell and burn forever. Learn your history. Who came first the chicken or the egg? Regardless of what any religion states, faith in God is a personal thing.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Is that suppoed to be a response to my post?

It sounds like you don't have an answer so you are making up some a series of non-sequitirs.

Mind you, you have to be a big fan of non-sequitirs to believe in god so I shouldn't be surprised

[9sublime]

What came first? The chicken or the egg... I'm afraid that ones been solved.

Dinosaurs came before chickens, and laid eggs.

[bododie]

The answer to your post was learn your history. Your remark about Protestants is akin to a child going off on its own but still taking some values from its parent. That parent was the religious freedom given by Constantine, and the parent's name became the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was the chicken honey, and it laid a bunch of eggs.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Are you ok?

It is just a plain fact that there are many flavours of christianity (though god knows why ha ha) and many of them including Roman Catholicism (if you have done your history honey) and Protestantism believe in eternal damnation for those who don't think the right way.

So if god does exist and we are his children he sure knows how to discipline those who don't do as they are told.

Bit like the Nazis really only on a much greater scale and for wayyyyyyyyy longer.

[bododie]

Why do you insist on equating the Bible to faith? So what if the Protestants believe in eternal damnation? Are you saying that to believe in God you have to believe that everything a church dictates as a sin is in fact a sin? If the church says it, then if you believe in God you must accept it? It doesn't work that way. Religion= apple. Faith= orange.

Reason for so many branches of the Christian church? It seems a lot of people read the same words from the same book and interpreted them differently.. hmmm Maybe religious people need a version of their beliefs that fits in with their desires in life. If you simply have faith in a higher being, what's the point of all the rest?

Maybe one can choose to follow the message of Jesus because, hey, it was a good message. He didn't demand it at the end of sword. In my mind, a better choice than another one. Did Jesus personally dictate the tenets of the church that came to call itself Christian? Were those that put together the books of the Bible led by the hand of God? If someone can prove THAT, then the parables might become more than just that. It was a way of speaking in ancient times, y'know, parables.

Does faith in God present the same threat to you as the Nazis?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Erm doesn't it talk about eternal damnation in the bible?

And here's the thing I love about the bible.

Either you believe it is literal which means you are crazy OR you believe it is to be interpreted which makes it impossible to know which interpretations is the right one which means you are thwarted.

Either way...

It's bollocks

[bododie]

the bible is a valuable historical documenation of life ages ago , and it also gives some people a reason to blame everything on somebody else. If one believes that knowing the bible makes them of purer heart in God's eyes, then I will go along with your delusional theory. But to say that God doesn't exist because parables in the bible are questionable is just too judgmental, condescending and unnecessary. It's like saying that someone with an education is always and automatically smarter than someone who has none. Half of the people I went to college with (quite a few years ago) couldn't find their way out of a paper bag with written instructions, but could fake it well. I'm certain that the primary reason most believe in God or a higher being is totally because of mankind.

Man doesn't have what it takes to create beauty that is pure and simple and lasting. He's had thousands of years, ain't happened. He destroys. The hope that there is something else, something better, is what has kept people hopeful for millenia. The hope that there is something that will protect or avenge them from the evil of other human beings. "Hope" It's not quite the same as being a Nazi.

[Dawkinsrocks]

No no no.

Here is the argument.

There is no credible evidence for the existence of god and citing a book of fables and allegories that could be interpreted in many ways as evidence is contemptible.

[bododie]

But you're the one who equating the bible with belief. Are you absolutely certain that your spouse has never cheated on you, or do you just have faith in it? Are you saying that you have never had "faith" in anything in your life? Were you being contemptible? You believed words that someone might have blown out of their ass.

Actually, if there is no God, then we are not all equal in having the right to exist, because some of us that evolved from that little chaotic bacteria pool didn't do it as well. Man and science definitely believe in the survival of the fittest theory, so the only way to clean up this world is for man to eliminate. Who goes? Who gets to make that decision? Why not me?

[Dawkinsrocks]

So you accept that the bible is not evidence.

So far so good.

Now what I said was contemptible was citing a work of clear fiction as evidence.

Believing stuff for which there is no evidence is something an enquiring mind grows out of when it leaves early childhood.

[bododie]

Do you actually believe that faith is from a book? You're not making the intelligent argument you think you are. You are assuming that your intellect can disprove the existence of anything that you cannot touch. You can't. Sorry. If you ever do, let me know. Trying to explain everything logically leaves us with existentialism. If you get hit by a car and die, it's totally your fault for being there in the first place, there is no randomness to life at all. If there is no randomness, how did we evolve to what we are today? Did the bacteria have a plan? Prove it.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are saying you have just made up an idea of god based on the fact that you can't answer some difficult questions.

This is quite common with godbotherers.

And it is ridiculous

[bododie]

Think what you like. You haven't been able to prove anything either, other than being a judgmental person who calls themselves liberal. You only address points in posts that suit your purpose, the folly of all liberals, and mankind in general.

Do you actually believe that bacteria evolved into an ability to create human life and reason. Where is your proof? You have none. Your inability to accept that human intellect isn't the beginning and end of all knowledge is as ridiculous as anything you pass judgment on.

Do you believe that alien life as imagined by man is more probable than God? Did man have to make up something so ugly? Couldn't he have made up an alien lifeform that looked like Chris Cornel? What is that alien theory based on? Probability as prescribed by MAN? Ridiculous.

[Dawkinsrocks]

I haven't called myself anything.

You can keep demanding proof of all the scenarios you keep coming up with all you like.

I am not sufficiently stupid to 'reason' in the following way.

''There are some really hard questions to answer so I know, I will just make up an answer and that answer will be as bizarre as it gets and pose as many if not more questions than it answers.''

I would rather continue the search for truth.

[bododie]

That's fine. But what makes you think you, or me, or some goat farmer living today is going to find the "truth" that no one in the history of man, that we can ask, has been able to prove? Again I ask: do you think that bacteria could have evolved into what human beings are?

[bododie]

]I haven't called myself anything.Everyone's got it wrong except Libs

eh?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Are you ok?

[bododie]

LOL. You don't have to accept my words dahlin', but to refute your own is something else. If Libs are right (according to your words), and you think you are right, then by "reasoning" you are a lib.

Please answer the bacteria question. If you believe in science then you must believe in that theory, 'cause it's the new and upcoming scientific assumption, made by man.

[Dawkinsrocks]

see my last post on the other 'dialogue'

[bododie]

I did. What it really said was: "I don't really know anything about what I'm talking about, I can only think in compartmental terms, but if you don't agree with me, you're thick". You are a true liberal whether you know it or not.

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you like

[SWP70]

Just ask one thing......... are you willing to take a chance ????????

[Dawkinsrocks]

Not sure what you mean.

But here is my last word on this thread.

The impossibility of proving non-existence is taken by many christians as proof of existence in the case of god.

It is a desperate argument that I will no longer dignify with a response.

I am happy in the knowledge that there is not a shred of credible evidence for his existence and to, use normal parlence, to say he does not exist.

[numinus]

The existence of something does not imply a creator.

The existence of something implies a CAUSE, which ultimately leads to an UNCAUSED CAUSE.

That is fallacious reasoning of the type that is commonly used by Christians.

The alternative to the proposition above is that the chain of causation is infinite, which is a fallacy.

It is also spectaculalrly hypocritical as with the idea of god the question is just then shifted to what created god.

Which is why god is the uncaused cause.

The usual get out of jail card is that god has always been there.

That is correct, because the alternative is even more ludicrous.

It is a lot more reasonable to say that energy has always existed as we at least have evidence of its existence now

But we already know that energy has NOT always existed. Whatever form of energy you might be imagining, it is still a function of the fundamental quantities of physics - mass, space and time - which themselves, are finite.

But if a creator was implied there is no evidenmce whatsoever to indicate that it is god.

There are lots of proof. Thomas aquainas gave five. And he was a medieval thinker.

And if the cause of everything in everything is not god, then whatever else you wish to call it/him/her makes no difference to the argument.

And as for god, here's one for you.

If god is omniscient he kn ows everything that will happen in the future. Therefore he can't be omnipotent because he can't change it.

That is ridiculous. God's foreknowledge doesn't make him incapable of affecting causation. As a matter of fact, neither does yours.

Evolution is not a kind of design because design pre-supposes an intent i.e a change brought about for a specific purpose.

Evolution is the result of genetic accidents that happen to benefit the recipient from a survival perpsective.

Evolution occurs for the survival of the species. That is its purpose. If the specie dies out, then no evolution can occur for that specie, no?

[numinus]

Not sure what you mean.

But here is my last word on this thread.

The impossibility of proving non-existence is taken by many christians as proof of existence in the case of god.

Not at all. Ontology assumes that god does not exist and proceeds to demonstrate that such an assumption leads to a logical fallacy.

It is a desperate argument that I will no longer dignify with a response.

I am happy in the knowledge that there is not a shred of credible evidence for his existence and to, use normal parlence, to say he does not exist.

And what sort of evidence do you need?

[bododie]

Evolution has another name: Mutation. Again, I ask those who believe only in evolution. How did bacteria evolve to humanity? Without proof positive this theory is equally fallible to faith, and you don't have the proof.

[Dr.Who]

And what sort of evidence do you need?


Well I have already asked him numerous times if he would believe in the face of the the testimony of his own eyes and he refuses to answer.

Should we assume that he would not believe even if he saw God with his own eyes? Then obviously no evidence at all will ever be credible in his view.

[Dr.Who]

The impossibility of proving non-existence is taken by many christians as proof of existence in the case of god.



I would be willing to bet that he could not provide a single example of a christian on this board who has used the impossibility of proving non-existence as proof of existence.

He and I have discussed proof of non-existence ad nauseum and my point has steadily been that since non-existence cannot be proven it is ridiculous for empiricists to make any claims that God does not exist.

I do think progress has been made now that the strongest claim he has made recently is:

"I am happy in the knowledge that there is not a shred of credible evidence for his existence and to, use normal parlence, to say he does not exist."

[dahermit]

As Dr. Who has stated, the only evidence that God exists is the believability of those who profess to have been touched by God.

Following that logic, Bentwood England U.S. Air force Base. An Airman, a Sargent of Guards, an officer (Lt. Colonial I think), stated that not only had they observed a UFO outside the gates of the Air Base, but stated and entered in the official record that the office touched the "skin" of the craft and determined that it was warm to the touch.

Given that fact that there were three Air Force personnel involved (not likely a hallucination), not likely a hoax, not likely made up, inasmuch as they entered it into the official log book and were subject to military discipline for entering fictitious material. This incident, including the Belgian police sighting, etc., etc., by persons of recognized responsibility, I have concluded that there are indeed UFOs.

Now for Christians testifying to a significant connection to a God, I find that they are less convincing (many appear to be somewhat simple minded), and would appear to be responding to sociological reinforcement of the manifest delusion.

In other words, it seems that there is better evidence (quality of the testimony) for the existence of UFOs than for the existence of God.

[bododie]

Faith in God does not need a "significant connection" to have occured. However, to even discuss the possibility of His existence, you would probably need to think outside the box of everything that man knows to be "real". Of course, if that is all you know, as is the case with humans, then anything outside that box is a leap of faith.

I'm glad you have faith in humans and their motivations. I guess people don't lie out of greed, fear, coercion, whatever. And records of any kind would, and have, never been altered for reasons that you couldn't fathom. How wonderful mankind has proven himself to be. Dare I say, omniscient?

All I want to know is this, and not one evolutionist here has offered an answer: If life evolved from oceanic bacteria, as the "very wise men" of today seem to think, what kind of mutation could have taken place that ultimately allowed me to give birth? Now use your science. Do you really believe that anyone will ever know the answer to that? What makes that so different than never knowing for sure, that there is a God?
Just curious.

[numinus]

As Dr. Who has stated, the only evidence that God exists is the believability of those who profess to have been touched by God.

Following that logic, Bentwood England U.S. Air force Base. An Airman, a Sargent of Guards, an officer (Lt. Colonial I think), stated that not only had they observed a UFO outside the gates of the Air Base, but stated and entered in the official record that the office touched the "skin" of the craft and determined that it was warm to the touch.

Given that fact that there were three Air Force personnel involved (not likely a hallucination), not likely a hoax, not likely made up, inasmuch as they entered it into the official log book and were subject to military discipline for entering fictitious material. This incident, including the Belgian police sighting, etc., etc., by persons of recognized responsibility, I have concluded that there are indeed UFOs.

Now for Christians testifying to a significant connection to a God, I find that they are less convincing (many appear to be somewhat simple minded), and would appear to be responding to sociological reinforcement of the manifest delusion.

In other words, it seems that there is better evidence (quality of the testimony) for the existence of UFOs than for the existence of God.

When a witness swears 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god', does he not, in fact, enter god's existence as evidence in a court of law? An evidence that is largely uncontested?

There is actually more 'evidence' for god's existence than a ufo.

Duh?

[Dawkinsrocks]

The argument on this thread basically says that the statement 'xyz does not exist' cannot be legitimately used.

And yet people use it all the time.

For normal parlence it means there isn't nor has there been nor is remotely likely that there will ever be credible evidence of existence of xyz.

God fits this bill perfectly and having a life-style belief system based on anything that fits this bill is just ridiculous.

Adults should have put away such childish things.

[bododie]

Adults should have put away such childish things. drinking beer is childish. football is childish.

[Dawkinsrocks]

A lot less so than inventing an imaginary friend and then singing to him every Sunday telling him how worthless you are and how great he is.

Actually, when you think of it like that it is very clearly insanity.

[bododie]

When are you going to get it through your head that what you are professing to be faith is in fact religion, sets of rules set down by men. Don't worry. You can still have faith in God, and watch your favorite football players pinch each other's butts on Sunday. It's o.k.

You do present a good case of how not everyone "evolved" equally though. Lol.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Interesting view from someone who has to make up an imaginary friend to make all those nasty hard questions go away.

Also, I note the usual christian charity in your response.

I assume your mention of butts is your interpretation of turning the other cheek.

Are you a roman catholic priest?

[bododie]

Harldy. Catholicism is the baby of Constantine, doll, another man who probably liked men pinching his butt! And no, the butt remark is more indicative of "fraternity or maybe some other carnal pleasure", not cheek turning. If you slap me, I will knock your head off, or simply dismiss you, I won't let you do it again. What you take as "Christian charity" is simply not wanting to get booted off of this board for saying what I would like to say!

I definitely do not love or respect everyone simply because they are breathing, so I guess "good Christian" is out of the picture here. Faith in God and a religious label are different thought processes. My faith/hope that there is something better than mankind does not eradicate common sense, my education, or survival instinct.

I Just don't think that we evolved from a puddle of pond scum, that's all.

Man has been asking this question for thousands of years. Look how far we've some intellectually. Apparently he ain't smart enough to figure it out. Well, except for you of course.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh I see, it's the 'I don't like it so it can't be true approach'.

Probably a forerunner of the fingers in the ears going la la la argument

I do wish you American's could keep your kick'ass talk in check.

You are all so tough from a distance.

[bododie]

Oh I see, it's the 'I don't like it so it can't be true approach'. No different than your attitude. Oh yeah, we're tough in your face too! I'm not the one who is too cowardly to even state where I am. Is third world life tough for you?

[Dawkinsrocks]

No I don't think 'what do I want to be true?' and then just believe it irrespective of the evidence.

I do realise that a lot of religious people do do this though because they want there to be an afterlife.

What I do is ask questions and then go and look at prosective answers to see which is the most credible.

You should try it.

Rather than be one of the stupid masses who believe in astrology, religion, the supernatural, mind reading, spiritualism, fortune telling and all the other crap that lots of people want to be true but isn't.

[bododie]

Please cite any post where I have insinuated that I believe in any of the stuff you listed above.
Religion: institutionalized system of beliefs.
Faith: belief and trust in God.

Can you even conceive of the differences? 'cause you keep harping on religion. Is we came from pond scum the most credible answer to you?

The bottom line is that you can't prove any of your "conclusions" from man's studies and written words is any closer to explaining the origin of HUMAN life than faith does. Why can't you just admit that? Do you think you have read stuff that no one else has? Do you think that just because someone believes in God that they don't have a desire to learn? Can you come right out and say that I am definitely wrong and you are definitely right?

No I don't think 'what do I want to be true?' and then just believe it irrespective of the evidence. Are you sure that those who say they love you and do kind acts for you, actually do love you the way you think? or do you just have "faith" because it's what you want to believe?

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is a big difference between faith and knowldge.

One is the belief in that for which you don't have evidence.

Guess which one

[bododie]

The one you are believing? You are putting your absolute trust in an entity that has proven it's ignorance and inabilities, and dishonesty since the dawn of time.

Where is your evidence? the latest study?

[bododie]

Better idea. Let's give up on God and talk about the evolution theory that you trust.
Can we agree that evolution is simply another term for mutation? Evolution not only deals with physical properties but also mental and reasoning properties. If so, then it doesn't seem that all humans evolved equally because some specific groups of humans still live like, have unnatural relations with, and sport the alpha mentality of animals. Did these people stop evolving too soon? Maybe science should inject entire peoples with better bacteria so they catch up. Sound good? Science fix everything...

[The Scotsman]

drinking beer is childish. football is childish...........you've just trashed my whole life!!!!!

[dahermit]

When a witness swears 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god', does he not, in fact, enter god's existence as evidence in a court of law? An evidence that is largely uncontested?Gosh, I have missed you, little brown monkey. But alas no, if you were a resident of the U.S. you would know that there is now an alternate oath that a person may opt to take for the purpose of swearing in at a court of law that does not pertain to a "God".
It goes something like: "Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

There is actually more 'evidence' for god's existence than a ufo.Duh? This post was in response to Dr.Who's statement that the only observable evidence of God was related to how believable a person was in their personal "testimony"(A personal declaration of the salvation of God; as in some Protestant religions... not as in testimony given in a court of law.). That is why I related it to the equivalent testimony of UFO observers.

You seem to have not gotten any more knowledgeable about American culture. You seem to be stuck on "warped paper targets."

[bododie]

you've just trashed my whole life!!!!! O.K. I'll amend it. Beer, football combined with special feelings for goats is childish. If your life is still trashed, I don't want to know about it! lol.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Anyone who relies for evidence on a single book with talking snakes in it shouldn't throw stones.

[numinus]

Gosh, I have missed you, little brown monkey.

Of course you would miss me. Low-brows normally feel that way to their betters.

But alas no, if you were a resident of the U.S. you would know that there is now an alternate oath that a person may opt to take for the purpose of swearing in at a court of law that does not pertain to a "God".
It goes something like: "Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have sworn by god in the past. And their sworn testimonies, part of american jurisprudence.

Duh?

This post was in response to Dr.Who's statement that the only observable evidence of God was related to how believable a person was in their personal "testimony"(A personal declaration of the salvation of God; as in some Protestant religions... not as in testimony given in a court of law.). That is why I related it to the equivalent testimony of UFO observers.

I am perfectly aware of what your stupid post really amounts to -- that you would reduce a metaphysical truth to an official entry in a government log book.

But then again, what can one really expect from a low-brow cowboy like you?

You seem to have not gotten any more knowledgeable about American culture. You seem to be stuck on "warped paper targets."

It really is best to leave the subject matter of standard deviations to engineers and the shooting of guns to the know-nothing cowboys.

HEE-HAW!

[numinus]

The argument on this thread basically says that the statement 'xyz does not exist' cannot be legitimately used.

And yet people use it all the time.

For normal parlence it means there isn't nor has there been nor is remotely likely that there will ever be credible evidence of existence of xyz.

God fits this bill perfectly and having a life-style belief system based on anything that fits this bill is just ridiculous.

Adults should have put away such childish things.

Ontology says no such thing.

There is the argument from cause, the argument from motion, the argument from teleology, etc. Nothing in those arguments is remotely similar to what you are saying here.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Those arguments are all discredited.

Saying that there has to be god to be a first cause just pushes the question back.

What caused god?

[Dr.Who]

Saying that there has to be god to be a first cause just pushes the question back.

What caused god?

Yes, it does push the question back. The first cause might not be God though it does have to be something outside of the natural world. And once we accept that there do exist things outside of the natural world then we can be more open to the testimony of the prophets.

For the naturalist they have to come to grips with the fact that almost all scientist claim that the universe had a beginning. Yet at the same time they claim that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed. clearly there is a contradiction operating here and it just might indicate that the scientist have at least one assumption wrong somewhere. Perhaps the one where they say there is nothing beyond the natural world - which is a faith based statement. Well probably and obviously that is the assumption they have wrong because they claim that something started the universe.

But unlike the natural universe which almost all the scientists are saying had a beginning, God is claimed to have always existed by almost all the religionists.

[dahermit]

.
There are lots of proof[for the existence of God]. Thomas aquainas gave five. And he was a medieval thinker.

Do you mean Saint Thomas Aquinas? A medieval Catholic Priest, philosopher, concocter of theories. In 1225 they did not know that bacteria caused disease, likely thought that it was "evil spirits", earth was thought flat, and like in third world countries, did not wipe their a$$es on paper. So we are to take the theories of the "dumb ox" as he was called by some of his peers, a priest who was likely prejudicially influenced by his commitment to the catholic church, as proof of the existence of a God?

[numinus]

Those arguments are all discredited.

Saying that there has to be god to be a first cause just pushes the question back.

What caused god?

It is precisely your reasoning that is a logical fallacy -- infinite regress. A chain of causality may not extend infinitely. At some point, there is a first cause that is caused by itself -- hence god.

Which brings us to the concept of NECESSARY EXISTENCE, as opposed to contingent existence.

Understand?

[numinus]

Do you mean Saint Thomas Aquinas? A medieval Catholic Priest, philosopher, concocter of theories. In 1225 they did not know that bacteria caused disease, likely thought that it was "evil spirits", earth was thought flat, and like in third world countries, did not wipe their a$$es on paper. So we are to take the theories of the "dumb ox" as he was called by some of his peers, a priest who was likely prejudicially influenced by his commitment to the catholic church, as proof of the existence of a God?

Correct. He is a saint of the catholic church. He is considered a church 'father' for his contributions to catholic dogma and western thought.

And no, his cinque viae did not make mention of bacteria nor flat earth, so your post is entirely irrelevant.

Oh, and there are many versions of the cosmological argument framed in the modern setting. There is even a moslem version of it -- the kalam cosmological argument.

The point I am making, if it isn't obvious by now, is that a metaphysical truth may not be reduced to an entry in a government logbook. Nor is it dependent on 'sensory' evidence.

Capice?

[numinus]

Yes, it does push the question back. The first cause might not be God though it does have to be something outside of the natural world. And once we accept that there do exist things outside of the natural world then we can be more open to the testimony of the prophets.

For the naturalist they have to come to grips with the fact that almost all scientist claim that the universe had a beginning. Yet at the same time they claim that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed. clearly there is a contradiction operating here and it just might indicate that the scientist have at least one assumption wrong somewhere. Perhaps the one where they say there is nothing beyond the natural world - which is a faith based statement. Well probably and obviously that is the assumption they have wrong because they claim that something started the universe.

But unlike the natural universe which almost all the scientists are saying had a beginning, God is claimed to have always existed by almost all the religionists.

Yes.

From the time of the conception of the natural sciences, one of the most enduring postulate is the conservation of mass and energy. Presently, we know that cme is being violated in the sub-atomic level. In physical cosmology, it is believed that the tensile tendency of the universe is a function of the expansion of space. As space expands, the tensile tendency, lambda, also increases.

Where lambda comes from is anybody's guess. One might as well say god made it so.

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is no reason at all that there cannot be an infinite regression of cause and effect.

And if you are going to suggest some supernaturtal creator you are going to have to explain how the non-physical can interract with the physical.

Clue, it can't.

[numinus]

There is no reason at all that there cannot be an infinite regression of cause and effect.

Sigh

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.

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

And if you are going to suggest some supernaturtal creator you are going to have to explain how the non-physical can interract with the physical.

Clue, it can't.

Sigh

Aristotle argued that knowing doesn't necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration:

“ Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand – they say – the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.
”
— Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (Book 1, Part 3)

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

[bododie]

... and 59 pages later can someone please cite the post which PROVED God doesn't exist? Kinda sounds like thousands of years and boatloads of science still haven't done it.

[dahermit]

The point I am making, if it isn't obvious by now, is that a metaphysical truth may not be reduced to an entry in a government logbook. Nor is it dependent on 'sensory' evidence.

Capice?No, the point you were making was an appeal to authority...a catholic priest who in 1225 theorized that God existed. In that time, had he said that God did not exist, he would have been burned for heresy. Also in that time, some monks claimed to see him levitate. It would seem that he would have been too busy levitating and buggering alter boys to postulate theories of a deity.

[dahermit]

The point I am making, if it isn't obvious by now, is that a metaphysical truth may not be reduced to an entry in a government logbook. Nor is it dependent on 'sensory' evidence.

Enough of your third world straw man attempt. The my original post took to task the idea that the credibility of the person who states that they have had a life changing experience relative to religion is in fact evidence that God exists. Whereas my point was that there have been persons who have given statements that they have seen UFOs, who's credentials and credibility are on a par with or better than persons who claim a religious experience.

This is the only point on which I will argue despite your attempts to broaden the argument.

[numinus]

No, the point you were making was an appeal to authority...a catholic priest who in 1225 theorized that God existed.

Nope.

There are numerous proofs for god's existence. An entire branch of philosophy is devoted to it. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignorant.

In that time, had he said that God did not exist, he would have been burned for heresy. Also in that time, some monks claimed to see him levitate. It would seem that he would have been too busy levitating and buggering alter boys to postulate theories of a deity.

I'm afraid the buggering of altar boys is largely confined to the US clergy. I cannot help but wonder if the phenomenon is conducive to the catholic church or your culture.

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is not a shred of credible evidence of god's existence.

That is why more and more people are casting off this superstition and voting with their feet.

Funny isn't it how the less educated you are the more likely you are to believe in a god.

[numinus]

There is not a shred of credible evidence of god's existence.

That is why more and more people are casting off this superstition and voting with their feet.

Funny isn't it how the less educated you are the more likely you are to believe in a god.

That is quite funny from someone who is patently ignorant of ontology and the rules of logic.

[Dawkinsrocks]

The ontological argument was discredited years ago.

It is only clung on to be despaerate people who have no proof for the existence of god.

[numinus]

The ontological argument was discredited years ago.

It is only clung on to be despaerate people who have no proof for the existence of god.

Then it would be a simple exercise to discredit it here -- rather than post your endless gibberish.

Oh and there are MANY ontological argumentS.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Go and google it.

Next bring on your flat earth argumenmt

[numinus]

Go and google it.

I have. I was hoping to see a moron undertake the futile exercise.

Next bring on your flat earth argumenmt

Certainly. Haven't you heard of PLANE surveying before?

Duh?

[dahermit]

Nope.
There are numerous proofs for god's existence. An entire branch of philosophy is devoted to it. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignorant.

I pointed out that Thomas Aquinas's opinions would be suspect because of the time he lived(Heretics burned, he would not likely philosophize that God did not exist.) and his likely prejudicial background(a catholic priest committed to an existence of God before he developed his philosophy of the "proof" of God's existence. Wow, a priest convinced that God exists...what a revelation!). Also, being catholic makes him suspect inasmuch as catholic practices seem much like a magic show...as in monks observing him levitate, magic "holy water", incense, magic Latin words, ringing of magic little bells, lighting magic candles, magic gestures of the trinity, etc.

It is not possible to prove a negative, so of course there are many of what you call "proofs". I refer to "proof" only in the common usage of the today; can sustain scientific examination. Such things as philosophers refer to as "proof" is not in the same context.

Yes, it is well known that there are many philosophical arguments that have been made for the existence of God. If you would read and understand the posts, you would not try to bend the argument into something it is not. I certainly did not say that there is no philosophical background for the existence of a deity.

[Dawkinsrocks]

But there isn't.

To say there is demeans philosophy.

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument etc have all been discredited and you will not find a philosophy faculty in a credible university anywhere in the world where they are regarded as anything but part of the history of philosophy.

But then you won't find a credible university teaching creationsim but it doesn't stop the lunatic fringe from thinking they have discredited evolution

[Dr.Who]

Yes.

From the time of the conception of the natural sciences, one of the most enduring postulate is the conservation of mass and energy. Presently, we know that cme is being violated in the sub-atomic level. In physical cosmology, it is believed that the tensile tendency of the universe is a function of the expansion of space. As space expands, the tensile tendency, lambda, also increases.

Where lambda comes from is anybody's guess. One might as well say god made it so.

That is intriguing. Do you have any links?

[Dr.Who]

There is no reason at all that there cannot be an infinite regression of cause and effect.


Except for the Law of Entropy which states that entropy is always increasing in the universe. If it is always increasing then the further back in time we look the smaller it is. If time were to extend infinitely back then at some point entropy would be zero or the rate of change of entropy would be so small as to demand that all activity were virtually non existent. It cannot get smaller than zero so the universe could not have existed further back than than when entropy was zero.

That is of course assuming that the laws of science are correct.

Now if you want to argue that the laws of science are not correct then we can revisit the question about the existence of God with a new starting point.

[bododie]

Hey dawkins, I thought you stated that you weren't going to bother this thread anymore. No honor? Or do you just make EVERYTHING that you say up? Tell me again about how we all must be the spawn of two men if there is a God...lol.

[The Scotsman]

Now if you want to argue that the laws of science are not correct then we can revisit the question about the existence of God with a new starting point........it always amazes me that if just one of the 20 cosmological parameters differed by so much as a tiny fraction of a percent then the universe would not exist.....as if it was designed to an exacting standard! Take stars for example....the probablility that stars should exist is infinitesimal! If the gravitational constant differed by 0.00001% then stars could not exist! No Stars no.......well no nothing really!!

Cool huh!

[numinus]

That is intriguing. Do you have any links?

The cosmological riddles are often included in any discussion of the standard models of cosmology. It is commonly refered to as the lambda problem. To my knowledge, wikipedia has the simplest language possible.

[numinus]

Except for the Law of Entropy which states that entropy is always increasing in the universe. If it is always increasing then the further back in time we look the smaller it is. If time were to extend infinitely back then at some point entropy would be zero or the rate of change of entropy would be so small as to demand that all activity were virtually non existent. It cannot get smaller than zero so the universe could not have existed further back than than when entropy was zero.

That is of course assuming that the laws of science are correct.

Now if you want to argue that the laws of science are not correct then we can revisit the question about the existence of God with a new starting point.

Not only entropy but the expansion of space. Einstein postulated a steady-state universe because he wanted to believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist.

Hubble's observations roundly debunks a steady-state universe. It is expanding according to the hubble's separation. Since space cannot contract beyond the point of singularity, then expansion must have begun from that finite point.

[numinus]

But there isn't.

But there are criticisms -- the most popular of which is the assertion that the first cause is not necessarily god.

One can tell instantly that such an assertion is not fatal to the proposition presented -- merely word play.

It is enough to prove that a first cause exists, that this first cause is the cause of itself, that this first cause is both infinite and incontingent, and that the first cause is the cause of everything in everything.

Yep. Sounds exactly like god to me.

To say there is demeans philosophy.

Philosophy is subdivided into 4 major but inter-related branches -- metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence. No discussion in the other three main branches of philosophy is even possible without metaphysics. No discussion of metaphysics is possible without philosophical cosmology.

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument etc have all been discredited and you will not find a philosophy faculty in a credible university anywhere in the world where they are regarded as anything but part of the history of philosophy.

But then you won't find a credible university teaching creationsim but it doesn't stop the lunatic fringe from thinking they have discredited evolution

If you have even set foot on any university, you would realize the supreme foolishness of such a claim. Heck there are even doctorate programs in theology in secular universities.

Duh?

[numinus]

.......it always amazes me that if just one of the 20 cosmological parameters differed by so much as a tiny fraction of a percent then the universe would not exist.....as if it was designed to an exacting standard! Take stars for example....the probablility that stars should exist is infinitesimal! If the gravitational constant differed by 0.00001% then stars could not exist! No Stars no.......well no nothing really!!

Cool huh!

What is even cooler is if one takes a look at the ratio of the total gravitational energy of the universe and the negative energy, lambda.

To get a flat spacetime geometry (the one we see right now) you need this ratio to be within 1.(add 49 zero)1 to 0.(add 50 9's). Otherwise, the universe would not exist (at least not for 13 billion years and counting).

Either that is a cosmic jackpot that would boggle the human imagination, or the initial conditions of the big bang were somehow tinkered to a perfect balance -- a balance that is being continously maintained for the last 13 billion years.

Neither of the two conclusions deserves any serious consideration from the scientific point of view.

[numinus]

I pointed out that Thomas Aquinas's opinions would be suspect because of the time he lived(Heretics burned, he would not likely philosophize that God did not exist.) and his likely prejudicial background(a catholic priest committed to an existence of God before he developed his philosophy of the "proof" of God's existence. Wow, a priest convinced that God exists...what a revelation!). Also, being catholic makes him suspect inasmuch as catholic practices seem much like a magic show...as in monks observing him levitate, magic "holy water", incense, magic Latin words, ringing of magic little bells, lighting magic candles, magic gestures of the trinity, etc.

The last time I checked, the truth value of any proposition rest solely on its logic -- not the character of the one proposing, nor the era in which it was proposed. No amount of religious fervor is capable of endowing logic to something that is illogical.

Your line of reasoning is typical of uneducated bigots who simply do not know any better.

It is not possible to prove a negative, so of course there are many of what you call "proofs". I refer to "proof" only in the common usage of the today; can sustain scientific examination. Such things as philosophers refer to as "proof" is not in the same context.

What absurd nonsense. No one is trying to prove a negative -- least of all the argument for universal causation.

It starts from a premise that all contingent phenomena have efficient causes. That is precisely the hypothesis of the scientific method, is it not?

Yes, it is well known that there are many philosophical arguments that have been made for the existence of God. If you would read and understand the posts, you would not try to bend the argument into something it is not. I certainly did not say that there is no philosophical background for the existence of a deity.

You claimed that there is no compelling evidence, did you not? You went on to say that there are more compelling evidence for ufo's than god, did you not?

Isn't an argument based entirely on propositional logic evidence??? Isn't this form of evidence the strongest possible evidence to ascertain truth-value???

Not only are you a bigot but a liar as well.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Phds in Theology are studies for in the Theology department.

There is no argument for the existence of god as god is a logical impossibility.

[Dawkinsrocks]

And just in case you want to argue against that...

1) The christian god is illogical because omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive

2) The idea of a non-christian god as say a supernatural unmoved mover as an initiator of everything faces the impossibility of the non-physical moving the physical.

Add to that the fact that there is no credible evidence either and you have a pretty weak argument for believing in god.

Why not just admit it?

You sooo desperately want there to be a god so that you can believe in an afterlife rather than face facts like an adult that when you die that's it.

And who would really want a christian god to exist?

He made the world knowing how it would all turn out but didn't change the plan to stop loads of people burining in hell forever for thinking the wrong way.

Evil bastard

[SW85]

There is no argument for the existence of god as god is a logical impossibility.

Surely then you can provide some rebuttal to the logical content of the cosmological argument. If, after all, god's existence is logically impossible than the argument must be fallacious.

An unsupported assertion to the contrary, for the record, doesn't count.

1) The christian god is illogical because omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive

You have it backwards -- a god that is not omniscient cannot in any meaningful way be omnipotent.

Add to that the fact that there is no credible evidence either and you have a pretty weak argument for believing in god.

Sure there is: the cosmological argument, the substantive content of which you have yet to address.

At any rate, the proof is in the pudding, friend: you exist, ergo you were caused. What caused you was caused by something else, which was, itself, caused. And unless you propose that the fallacy of infinite regress is not, in fact, fallacious, you must concede the existence of a first cause that caused everything else.

You sooo desperately want there to be a god so that you can believe in an afterlife rather than face facts like an adult that when you die that's it.

Pop-psychology nonsense. And for someone who insists on rigid mathematical proofs for everything, you sure are sloppy when you make assertions yourself.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ypu have not addressed the points

How can you know the future if it is not fixed? How can you be omnipotent if you can't change the future?

Explain

How can the non-physical move the physical?

Explain

[bododie]

How can the non-physical move the physical?

Explain

Can't. I'm not God.

Explain why God has to exist by the physical properties of earth. The thread is prove that God DOESN'T exist. Not one of your scientists can.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your argument for the existence of god based on the idea that everything must have a cause is self defeating.

Making capital out of the impossibility of proving that god doesn''t exist is desperate.

It is a vacuous point that you can apply equally to anything including fairies and father xmas.

I would be embarrassed to cite such drivel as justification for one of my beliefs.

But then you have to be mad to believe in god

[bododie]

Fine, think I'm mad, who cares. That's what YOU don't get. Nothing worse in my life, how 'bout yours? Just keep having disdain for people who believe in God, disdain for America, disdain for all the people here, and I hope that works out for you. Living well is the best revenge. You can't touch that.

[numinus]

Phds in Theology are studies for in the Theology department.

Correct. And the theology department is naturally a part of the college of philosophy, no? And if philosophy isn't a separate college, it most certainly is a part of the college of social sciences.

Duh?

[numinus]

And just in case you want to argue against that...

1) The christian god is illogical because omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive

Care to prove that they are mutually exclusive, hmmm?

2) The idea of a non-christian god as say a supernatural unmoved mover as an initiator of everything faces the impossibility of the non-physical moving the physical.

Care to demonstrate how the universe came from a space-time singularity -- the starting point of any big bang cosmological model?

Add to that the fact that there is no credible evidence either and you have a pretty weak argument for believing in god.

There is no evidence for the state of the universe prior to nor at the point of singularity of the big bang. What modern cosmologists are describing are events at least one planck time AFTER it.

Heisenberg's uncertainty made sure of that.

So, other than the whole of the universe laid out for your benefit, what sort of evidence are you asking for, really?

Why not just admit it?

Certainly. You are an unmitigated moron. Happy?

You sooo desperately want there to be a god so that you can believe in an afterlife rather than face facts like an adult that when you die that's it.

Not at all. I would prefer to be done with my life as soon as it is finished.

And who would really want a christian god to exist?

It really is not a matter of wanting. If it were, then you would have proven your point by now. No luck there, I'm afraid.

He made the world knowing how it would all turn out but didn't change the plan to stop loads of people burining in hell forever for thinking the wrong way.

Evil bastard

It is not enough that you are what you were created to be, you need to choose it for yourself.

Is that not what the liberal schmucks in the us are teaching nowadays -- the absolute operation of choice?

[numinus]

Ypu have not addressed the points

How can you know the future if it is not fixed?

Simple -- it is not fixed. Your choices and their possible effects, however uncountably many, ARE STILL FINITE.

Take the possible moves in any particular chess game. It is finite simply because it is played in a board that is finite and according to rules that are finite. The only way a chess game could drag on to infinity is by perpetual check, which isn't really an unknowable thing, since the moves merely repeat ad infinitum.

How can you be omnipotent if you can't change the future?

You need not be omnipotent to change the future in a significant way -- only the exercise of choice.

Just as your simple rational faculties can gain foreknowledge of the possible effects of your action, so does god's foreknowledge can -- only uncountably many times more infallible than yours.

Are you at all aware of how a computer's algorithm works?

Explain

How can the non-physical move the physical?

Explain

When you speak of the universe originating from a space-time singularity, you are already talking of something physical arising from the non-physical.

Haven't you gotten at least this by now?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Look, if I say I know it will rain tomorrow then for me to retain any credibility one thing at least must happen.

It has to rain the next day.

If you can't understand this logic which demonstrates why the future has to be unchangeable to be knowable you are too stupid to entertain further.

Game set and match to the god-is-illogical crew.

[numinus]

Look, if I say I know it will rain tomorrow then for me to retain any credibility one thing at least must happen.

It has to rain the next day.

If you can't understand this logic which demonstrates why the future has to be unchangeable to be knowable you are too stupid to entertain further.

Game set and match to the god-is-illogical crew.

When I say that all phenomena have their own causes, as sure as sun and rain, they have their own causes.

When I say that an infinite change of causality is impossible, as sure as sun and rain, it is impossible.

What more evidence do you need, eh?

Game set and match indeed! As if the operation of logic suffers the ramblings of one afflicted by an incurable case of stupid.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You haven't addressed the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.

Because you can't.

The rest of your post is contingent on lots of laws you have made up and thus is inconsequential verbiage.

You produce a lot of that.

[numinus]

You haven't addressed the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.

Because you can't.

Of course I can, and I already have -- lots of times.

There is NO incompatibility with omniscience and omnipotence. The existence of an omniscient being does not make reality deterministic. Neither does god's foreknowledge contradict one's free will.

The rest of your post is contingent on lots of laws you have made up and thus is inconsequential verbiage.

You produce a lot of that.

I am flattered but I most humbly decline the authorship of the logical and scientific principles I have posted.

I get my ideas from the accumulated knowledge of western thought.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Just denying my posts does not make you right.

It is an unequivocal fact that the future must be unchangeable to be knowable.

You cannot say why there cannot be an infinte regress of cause and effect.

You cannot say how the non-physical moves the physical.

In fact what can you actually say that makes sense?

[Dawkinsrocks]

And for the record, if god did make the world he did so knowing how it would turn out.

Otherwise he is not omniscient.

He could have changed it so it turned out without lots of people going to hell if he was omnipotent.

Ipso facto it is his fault how it turned out.

Cue a complete load of bollocks from you trying to wriggle out of this inassailable argument

[SW85]

It is an unequivocal fact that the future must be unchangeable to be knowable.

Do you actually understand what the word "omniscience" mean? Because you talk about it as if it were no more than mere prophetic foresight. (If one were to accept at face value the notion that God exists outside of time than the distinction between past, present, and future is mere orthographical jerking-around anyway).

Omniscience is the knowledge of all that which is knowable. If an omnipotent and omniscient being were to consider doing X, he would be infinitely aware of the consequences of doing X. And of not doing X. And of doing X but not Y, Y but not X, both X and Y or neither. It's not so hard to understand.


You cannot say why there cannot be an infinte regress of cause and effect.

Because it is logically impossible. And how can something exist that is logically impossible, hm?

Here's a good demonstration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down) of why infinite regress is fallacious:

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Now, how in the world can an infinite chain of turtles be standing atop one another, hmm? Somewhere at the bottom of the chain there must be a turtle on which all other turtles are standing and which is not, itself, standing on a turtle. Understand?

Or do you require a mathematical proof against infinitude? I'd be happy to provide that, as well.

You cannot say how the non-physical moves the physical.

Perhaps you missed the bit about omnipotence.

And as numinus has already said, physical cosmology's explanation is literally no better in this regard.

[bododie]

Those who don't believe in God are commonly upset because they know that they are the bottom of the gene pool and don't understand why it was them. Lol.

[numinus]

Just denying my posts does not make you right.

Of course I am right.

It is an unequivocal fact that the future must be unchangeable to be knowable.

Sigh

You do not wish to accept the purely philosophical explanation of sw85. How about one based on einsteins special and general relativity?

Everyone knows that time is a lorentz-invariant quantity, no? It can be made to go slow or fast depending on the observer's reference frame, no? In fact, it is merely an effect of a particular space-time geometry.

And what do you suppose an observer from a reference frame that is made to move very close to the speed of light be seeing in this particular reference frame, hmmm? Is that not like looking at us in fast forward? If one were to sufficiently curve space-time, isn't the net effect exactly the same?

When einstein posited the impossibility of simulteneity, the consequence should have been obvious instantly -- what is the future for one reference frame could very well be the past in another.

Unequivocal fact, indeed!

You cannot say why there cannot be an infinte regress of cause and effect.

I already have. SW85 even took the time to present it in moronese, for your benefit, it seems.

You cannot say how the non-physical moves the physical.

Again I have.

A space-time singularity is an entity that has no measurable quantity, hence non-physical. According to all big bang cosmological theories, it is the starting point from which the universe came into existence.

Hence a non-physical entity itself, becoming a physical entity.

In fact what can you actually say that makes sense?

It is not my fault that you don't understand, is it?

[numinus]

And for the record, if god did make the world he did so knowing how it would turn out.

Otherwise he is not omniscient.

Of course.

He could have changed it so it turned out without lots of people going to hell if he was omnipotent.

Ipso facto it is his fault how it turned out.

Do you know of anyone who god actually put to hell? By all means, point them out here.

Or do the choices people make bring about their own personal hells -- the same way your ignorance has brought you yours?

That you are able to make a choice means you are responsible for that choice, are you not?

Ipso facto, indeed!

Cue a complete load of bollocks from you trying to wriggle out of this inassailable argument

Mere child's play.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are possibly one of the thickest people I have ever debated with.

This is very simple, I will type s-l-o-w-l-y.

According to you god made everything including free will and he knew how it would be used.

So far so good?

OK. good.

He did not have to make the world in a way that millions of people would live a wretched existence and die of disease, famine and war did he?Or go to hell as per the bible?

No, he could have made it any way.

OK?

But he m,ade it this way in the knowldeg of how it would turn out eschewing other alternatives where the horrors of life don't happn.

So, it is all down to him.

I know that is noty too hard for you to understand.

It is just too hard for you to accept cos it makes your god a monster.

[Dawkinsrocks]

And as for your question 'do you know anyone who god put to hell?' (apart from the childishness of this question) I assume your point is that if I don't know anyone who god has put to hell then it doesn't happen.

I am trying not to laugh but I suppose that in the interests of consistency you would admit that you don't know anyone who god has 'put to heaven' so that doesn't happen either.

Hoist by your own petard is what I believe this is called.

[numinus]

You are possibly one of the thickest people I have ever debated with.

This is very simple, I will type s-l-o-w-l-y.

LMAO.

You finally realized the futility of demonstrating the contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence, eh? And now you're back for more?

You really have a penchant for humiliation.

According to you god made everything including free will and he knew how it would be used.

So far so good?

Yep. Good so far.

OK. good.

He did not have to make the world in a way that millions of people would live a wretched existence and die of disease, famine and war did he?Or go to hell as per the bible?

Yep. He made it so that one can reap the rewards (or pain) of one's own choice. Free will, remember?

No, he could have made it any way.

OK?

Sure he can. He could have made it in a way that you would suffer the consequences of my action. But he didn't. One could clearly see the wisdom of free will -- as it is, no?

But he m,ade it this way in the knowldeg of how it would turn out eschewing other alternatives where the horrors of life don't happn.

Yes, I know.

He could have made it in such a way that you have your free will and yet not suffer its adverse consequence.

And what do you suppose would happen to someone who was somehow shielded from the adverse consequences of his choices, eh?

He can neither know the pain of an evil deed nor the rewards of a good one -- which leads us to the true nature of morality.

A moral action is its own reward just as an evil action is its own punishment.

Capice?

So, it is all down to him.

What???

You have already assumed free will, have you not? What exactly have you said that somehow negated your own premise, eh?

I know that is noty too hard for you to understand.

Of course I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you are WRONG.

It is just too hard for you to accept cos it makes your god a monster.

Let me get this straight.

Man was given the rational faculty to discern good and evil in his own action and in the action of others.

Man was given revelation, as if the rational faculty was not enough (at least in your case, it is not enough).

Man was given senses to experience pleasure within the boundaries of a moral good.

Man was given an immutable existence, and the free will to choose his own thought and action within that existence.

Man was given absolution for his sins unilaterally -- even sins that he has not committed but is in his nature to commit.

And to top it all off, man was given grace, if and when he is incapable of saving himself, even if that danger comes from himself.

And what exactly does man do with all these -- he uses it to bring misery to himself and his fellow man.

So, who exactly is the monster, eh?

[numinus]

And as for your question 'do you know anyone who god put to hell?' (apart from the childishness of this question) I assume your point is that if I don't know anyone who god has put to hell then it doesn't happen.

I do know a lot of people who are experiencing a personal hell of their own making, though.

Is the point clearer now?

I am trying not to laugh but I suppose that in the interests of consistency you would admit that you don't know anyone who god has 'put to heaven' so that doesn't happen either.

I do know a lot of people who experience the rewards of a moral good, though.

Free will -- remember.

Hoist by your own petard is what I believe this is called.

Nope. Its called missing the point by a mile, as morons often do.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are dense

If god makes 'free will' knowing how 'free will' will be used he is culpable.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh and as god knows what will happen in the future allegedly the future is fixed so there is no such thing as free will anyway.

Only the appearance of it.

And then if it is fixed god can't change it so he is not omnipotent

Game over

These are unassailable truths and your continued ranting about free will is the ususal desperate stuff from christians who just won't concede that their god is a monster.

Which he isn't

But only because he doesn't exist

But don't worry, I understand that you have to be hard of understanding to believe in god so you will probably repeat your nonesense about free will.

[numinus]

You are dense

If god makes 'free will' knowing how 'free will' will be used he is culpable.

What an idiot you are!

You have free will hence YOU ARE CULPABLE, NOT GOD. Foreknowledge by god, or anyone for that matter, does not change this fact.

How many more times must I say this before you give that puny mind of yours leave to comprehend, hmmm?

[numinus]

Oh and as god knows what will happen in the future allegedly the future is fixed so there is no such thing as free will anyway.

Only the appearance of it.

And then if it is fixed god can't change it so he is not omnipotent

Game over

These are unassailable truths and your continued ranting about free will is the ususal desperate stuff from christians who just won't concede that their god is a monster.

Which he isn't

But only because he doesn't exist

But don't worry, I understand that you have to be hard of understanding to believe in god so you will probably repeat your nonesense about free will.

LMAO

This post is as helpful to your argument as farting is to the comprehension of special and general relativity.

Reasonable individuals here have already made up their minds about your general ignorance. Frankly, I'm curious as to the extent of humiliation you are willing to accept.

So, tell me -- were does your free will come from, eh?

If there is nothing in the human person but a collection of atoms and molecules happily going about their deterministic way as dictated by natural law, how in heavens name is it capable of choice?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Well that is a good question and you could argue that there is no free will.

And if god made the world knowing how it would turn out there cannot be free will as the future has to be fixed to be knowable.

I have explained that to you many times and you have not been able to successfully dispute that.

There are even quite a lot of christians (Calvinists for example) who believe in predestination which is the opposite of free will.

But in any event.

Whatever free will is, god made it and he made ity in the knowledge of how it would be used an by any normal standartd that makes him responsible.

So, for god to know the future it has to be unchangeable which = no free will and no omnipotence.

If god does not know the future he is not omniscient

And if there is free will god is responsible for how it is used.

Not very good for god is it?

[numinus]

Well that is a good question and you could argue that there is no free will.

LMAO.

There's a headline for you.

THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION'S PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT DOES NOT EXIST????!!!!

LMAO some more.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Look, just because you have accepted as your lord and saviour someone who doesn't exist, who could not possibly exist in the guise depicted by christians and who, if they did exist would be a monster doesn't mean that your life is wasted.

Stop believing in this nonesense and you will feel a huge weight lifted from you.

I was brainwashed as a child to believe in all that crap in the bible and then when I got old enough to make my own mind up I put away childish things and have never looked back.

The truth beats the **** out of superstition.

Try it, you might like it.

Otherwise you will be singing songs to someone in the sky every Sunday until you die.

What a waste of life.

[Dawkinsrocks]

And just think, you won't have to defend the bible with ridiculous points about some of it being literal and some not with no justification at all for being able to tell which bits are which.

(Note, the bits that suddenly become allegorical are those that science has recently debunked).

Soon the whole ****ing book will be allegorical and everyone will have an intrepretation which suits their needs for that moment be it going to war or just hating thy neighbour.

Imagine how great it would be to chuck the stupid book in the bin.

You will feel liberated.

Go, try it.

And no, I am not a talking snake.

Do you believe in talking snakes?

[vyo476]

Soon the whole ****ing book will be allegorical and everyone will have an intrepretation which suits their needs for that moment be it going to war or just hating thy neighbour.

You know, not all Christianity is bad. The two churches in the town I grew up in (tons of Irish in town so we had a large Catholic church along with the near-obligatory Protestant church) did plenty of good things - food drives, clothing drives, donations of money and time to homeless shelters in the area, and participation in a mission that built homes in poverty-stricken areas of Kentucky.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh yes, the good-doing RC church, the one that burned 800,000 men, women and children across Europe fopr the crimes of being eccentric, owning stuff their denouncers wanted, thinking the wrong thoughts.

Then there is the Pope telling the AIDS ravaged population of Africa that condoms are evil.

What about the refusal of the Pope to condemn his paedophile priets?

Then there is the massive wealth of the RC church taken from the poor.

I see what you mean.

They are a great bunch

[bododie]

I was brainwashed as a child to believe in all that crap in the bible

Blame your mother or whoever taught you, not God. Maybe she didn't know that one is supposed to use their own mind in this life and not wait for the bible to tell you which foot to put first.
Sad.

[Dawkinsrocks]

How can I blame god?

He doesn't exist

[bododie]

Then I guess Mom was an idiot huh? Explains you.

[Dawkinsrocks]

oh, insulting my mother?

That really is cheap.

But I will indulge you.

Answer this.

If I say 'I know it will rain tomorrow' would you accept this statement as true the next day if it didn't rain?

[Dawkinsrocks]

oh, and BTW just about all religion is passed on by parents brainswashing their children. You know that christian parents take their children to church as soon as they can and teach them about god at home. they certainly don't leave them to make their own mind up. Ditto for all religions.

That is why most religious people in the west are christians and most people in the middle east are muslims.

Most people in China are Taoists

Or do you think that by some miracle these different religions manifested themselves specifically in those regions?

If there was one true god surely he isn't sufficiently racist to only reveal himsefl in certain countries.

Yet another bus sized hole in the idea of religion.

You really have to suspend reason to be a christian don't you.

I wonder why god made believing in him so hard.

And gave so little (none) evidence of his existence leaving his poor flock to cling to arcane discredited pseudo-intellectual arguments for his existence.

[vyo476]

Oh yes, the good-doing RC church, the one that burned 800,000 men, women and children across Europe fopr the crimes of being eccentric, owning stuff their denouncers wanted, thinking the wrong thoughts.

Then there is the Pope telling the AIDS ravaged population of Africa that condoms are evil.

What about the refusal of the Pope to condemn his paedophile priets?

Then there is the massive wealth of the RC church taken from the poor.

I see what you mean.

They are a great bunch

Yes, I do think those things are horrendous.

But if this is all that you can see - if you don't allow yourself to see the rest of the picture and weigh the whole thing - then you, sir, are the one who is brainwashed.

Tell me, what is so terrible about a bunch of Catholics in my town who've never burned anyone at the stake, never spat in the face of AIDS victims, never involved themselves in pedophilia, and who aren't poor and therefore aren't being victimized by donating to the church?

[vyo476]

Then I guess Mom was an idiot huh? Explains you.

No personal attacks.

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you think a few pharisees shopwing off their good works cancels out all the evil that the church has done then we will have to agree to differ.

If the RC church gave up tomorrow and gave its wealth to the poor it would solve world hunger and the credit crunch with cash to spare

And a few choirboys would sleep easier too.

[The Scotsman]

Tell me, what is so terrible about a bunch of Catholics in my town who've never burned anyone at the stake, never spat in the face of AIDS victims, never involved themselves in pedophilia, and who aren't poor and therefore aren't being victimized by donating to the church?........they're different!....they're normal middle class folks that go about their own business presumably not wanting or doing harm on anyone.....thus they are the epitome of the "establishment". Hence, anathema to those that are insecure with living in a wider world where people are comfortable with themselves and with those around them!

I don't believe in God but don't feel the need to deride those that do. Certain people have this almost missionary zeal to undermine the foundations of others values and beliefs in order to make their own miserable lifes complete; at least in their eyes!

In answer to the question vyo....nothing!

[bododie]

Dawkins. I don't know how many more times I have to say this for you to understand. Just because someone thinks that Jesus' message was better than Mo's doesn't make them a bible thumper. It doesn't even necessarily make them Christian. Jesus wasn't one.

You know that christian parents take their children to church as soon as they can and teach them about god at home. they certainly don't leave them to make their own mind up.

Well, all it takes is one instance to prove that wrong. My parents were two, and my husband and I are two more. So that's wrong.

Or do you think that by some miracle these different religions manifested themselves specifically in those regions?

If there was one true god surely he isn't sufficiently racist to only reveal himsefl in certain countries

Another history lesson. Read up on what the Asians did to Christian missionaries. I think Taoism is a great way to life your life. Basically: quit worrying about what you don't have, and appreciate what you do have". So why can't you just do that, while believing in the possibility of a greater entity, without being labeled? As I have said before, I consider myself a child of God, not any other label. You are doing the labeling.

You really have to suspend reason to be a christian don't you .

Why, because you want to hang with people who have similar morals? Go to a Methodist church once. It’s more of a social gathering than demands to appease God. Catholicism is a different bird, IMO. The rules, the guilt trips, aren't about God. Any religion that tries to make you feel guilty about being human isn't about faith in God. It's about keeping people “sheeple”, and usually for taxat