Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Kelly]

"Obviously you don't know the Scientific Method if you think lack of being able to disprove the flying spaghetti monster is proof that it exists."
--You have misunderstood what I said. I was referring to how a Scientific Law comes to be. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.
--Also, I didn't say that nature proves Catholicism. I was saying that by observing nature, its efficiency, and even at times its beauty, we can conclude that we we created by design and intent--even if we all started off as seafood.

 

[vyo476]

What patronising condescension!

Its the same as saying, “You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary dumb people, need religion.”

In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true.

I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in God. A lack of knowledge does not represent a lack of intelligence and fear from lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of - quite the contrary.

People use religion to deal with things. Or are you disputing that?

And it DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROVABLY TRUE TO BE A BELIEF. What is your problem with leaving people to their beliefs? Especially people whose beliefs have absolutely no impact on you.

 

[Kelly]

I agree with you VYO476, but in all fairness, I did start this by asking people to disprove God's existence.

 

[ArmChair General]

--You have misunderstood what I said. I was referring to how a Scientific Law comes to be. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.

Im sorry, but you are wrong.

--Also, I didn't say that nature proves Catholicism. I was saying that by observing nature, its efficiency, and even at times its beauty, we can conclude that we we created by design and intent--even if we all started off as seafood.

OK then, I hope it is immediately obvious to you that there is nothing about the beauty or complexity of nature that offers the slightest corroboration that there is a God. If the beauty of nature can mean that there is a God, then it can mean anything at all.

 

[Kelly]

"OK then, I hope it is immediately obvious to you that there is nothing about the beauty or complexity of nature that offers the slightest corroboration that there is a God. If the beauty of nature can mean that there is a God, then it can mean anything at all."
--Things that exist have purpose (at least organisms). Since things have purpose, they inevitably exist by purpose.

 

[Kelly]

"Im sorry, but you are wrong."
--How?

 

[vyo476]

I agree with you VYO476, but in all fairness, I did start this by asking people to disprove God's existence.

Yes, which puts you at fault as much as them.

This whole "prove it!" "no you prove it!" "no you prove it!" thing that involves something that is by its nature unprovable is not only childish, its positively intellectually destructive. You guys are all pretty intelligent (even Armchair General - you know I love you even if you're psychotic) and yet you've spent the last three hours making this thread one of the longest ones currently getting tossed around - threads this large usually take several weeks to grow like this, and you're all arguing over something that cannot be resolved.

 

[Kelly]

"Yes, which puts you at fault as much as them."
--True. However, my intention here is dialectics, not a contest to see who's right or wrong although it has turned into that. I really just wanted to engage in a conversation about the topic, but I did know it would probably turn into this. So ,yeah, I'm guilty.

 

[vyo476]

--True. However, my intention here is dialectics, not a contest to see who's right or wrong although it has turned into that. I really just wanted to engage in a conversation about the topic, but I did know it would probably turn into this. So ,yeah, I'm guilty.

Ah, well, so long as you realize that you threw yourself to the wolves with this one. Debating atheists is almost as infuriating as debating libertarians - it isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're not right.

 

[ArmChair General]

I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in God. A lack of knowledge does not represent a lack of intelligence and fear from lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of - quite the contrary.

People use religion to deal with things. Or are you disputing that?

And it DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROVABLY TRUE TO BE A BELIEF. What is your problem with leaving people to their beliefs? Especially people whose beliefs have absolutely no impact on you.

If subtle, nuanced religion dominated the world, it would be a better place and I would not be here arguing. The sad truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them.

Furthermore, it seems that The atheists among us are too ready to just sit back and allow society to give special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s bad habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Captilist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.

 

[ArmChair General]

--Things that exist have purpose (at least organisms). Since things have purpose, they inevitably exist by purpose.

Why must things that exist have a purpose beyond the empirical physical world in which we live in?

 

[ArmChair General]

"Im sorry, but you are wrong."
--How?

Read it.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

 

[Kelly]

"Ah, well, so long as you realize that you threw yourself to the wolves with this one. Debating atheists is almost as infuriating as debating libertarians - it isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're not right."
--Yep, I knew what I was/am in for, but it's such a great mental workout--especially when the Atheists are intelligent such as many here on this forum. Intelligent Atheists greatly fascinate me.

 

[Kelly]

"If subtle, nuanced religion dominated the world, it would be a better place and I would not be here arguing. The sad truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them.

Furthermore, it seems that The atheists among us are too ready to just sit back and allow society to give special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s bad habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Captilist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents."
--Absolute truth! If I could flip a switch and make everyone believe the same things I do, even though I know they're true in my heart, I would not do it. People need to come to their own realizations and interpretations.

 

[Kelly]

"Why must things that exist have a purpose beyond the empirical physical world in which we live in?"
Because they do. Why else would we come into this world with a desire to know more than what is just necessary to survive and reproduce? Why do we have compassion for other people and even for animals and creatures that have nothing to do with our sustenance or survival? We obviously have a greater purpose than just to exist.