What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of leprechauns and unicorns, but most would agree that is not a good reason to believe that they do exist. I consider myself an atheist because there is no positive proof for the existence of any spiritual deity. Some consider themselves agnostic because they concede that God's non-existence can't be disproved. Do you stand for positive proof or double negative speculation?
sort by best latest
Studies have shown that people who rely more on emotion and intuition rather than reason and logic are much more likely to be religious/spiritual. Your answer is very accurate and poignant, in my opinion.
Thank you! The thing is that everyone has their own set of beliefs and ideology. Yours may be different from mine, but that doesn't make it bad or good, just 'different'. And it's OK to be different.
Just because God is above your intellectual reasoning does not make God nonexistent. No one in history has been able to outthink God. Never will! IMO You are just making yourselves look inferior because you are.
Which god specifically AC? I feel your response will only show how biased you are and why you shouldn't be taken seriously.
But do show me wrong. It would be a nice change of pace for once.
Apparently, AC - YOU think that you can outthink your 'god'! You think your judgement is ever so perfect.
Any God that one chooses to follow. We are all human beings that have a choice. So, whatever God one chooses to serve is their business and not ours. Where in lies the problem that atheists just cannot grasp that God loving people could care less?
A better answer than I would have thought. But again, why are you assuming that atheists have a problem with everyone of faith, rather than those of faith that judge, condem, deny certain privileges and even kill simply for having different beliefs?
Is this not the case? Please fill me in as to what I am missing. I am not one to judge anyone. Like I said we are only humans and have flaws even greater than the one's we are judging. You have chosen your beliefs;I have chosen mine. Why not let it b
First, your particular beliefs do not bother me personally.
Second, if you think atheists have an issue with everyone of faith simply because they believe in a god you seem to be the one under a very huge misconception.
What is the problem then? Why is so much hatred spewed especially in the forums towards Christians? Calling God names, belittling him, just crass, vulgar attitudes towards God. What has God done to deserve this retribution from those who do not belie
I know your supposed problems with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. is you do not want them to force their beliefs down your throat. That my friend I' sure never happens in your private life. On here all you must do is avoid religious questions.
Is there a reason you are assuming I flock to religious themed questions just to bash god/people who believe in god? So far I haven't even grouped religious people as a whole let alone Christians together as much as you have atheists.
Some do, some do not. From what I have seen in my short time here is that the atheists I have came in contact with are very aggressive, condescending people. I am of course not saying all atheists are like this. As all Christians are not extremists.
AC-DC, you've meet the average atheist. Not all of us are aggressive. I believe it's your right to believe in any God. I choose not to, but I support your decision to. We all all individual, unique people with our own beliefs
Earlier it sounded as if you thought all atheists had a problem with anyone of faith, yet now you are saying not all atheists are the same.
Which is it exactly? Your stance seems to jump around quite a bit, makes it difficult to grasp.
There in ONE and only one thing that ALL atheists have in common - We do not believe in a god or gods. Every other belief or disbelief is up to the individual - just as it is in believers.
The question posed here, it seems, is fundamentally flawed. "How can one be an atheist" invites a discussion of the irrational. "How can you believe there is no God without proof of his/her nonexistence?" is easy - a belief does not require proof.
I think you misunderstand my wording. My question is about whether the double negative inability to disprove God's existence quantifiably justifies theism.
"We are not making the claim that a god or gods exist." Yes, but you ARE making a claim that God does not exist, therefore you require proof for your claim.
promisem - I am making the claim that "I AM AN ATHEIST". How does that affect whatever it is that YOU believe in? If i said that "I AM A RED HEAD". How would that affect you being a brunette?
Austinstar, I don't see how that addresses my point. I am responding to your comments that atheists don't have to argue proof for their beliefs while non-atheists do.
and I was responding to your comment - "" Yes, but you ARE making a claim that God does not exist, therefore you require proof for your claim."
Burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. If I said there was a space dragon hiding in my basement on a third floor apartment building with absolutely nothing to prove it, would you believe me no questions asked?
Implying that you have the right to believe whatever you want has nothing to do with the fact that you are requiring proof from non-atheists for their belief while saying that atheists don't have to provide proof for theirs.
Even if I were to state that there are no gods, I cannot prove it, just as you or anyone else cannot prove that gods exist.
But its certainly alot more logical to be able to prove something exists before believing it does.
Link, if you are making a claim that God does not exist, then of course you have to offer proof for it. But if you are simply claiming that I can't provide proof to your satisfaction, then we have no disagreement.
You realize that before someone can make the claim gods don't exist, someone would have to first make the claim that they do? So why does the responsibility to prove/disprove fall onto the person who hasnt even had it proven to them first?
That burden falls on you if you claim the rest of us are wrong and that God doesn't exist.
Ah, thank you for avoiding the question and proving the point I was getting at so clearly. Have a nice day promise.
Just answer ONE question promisem, "Why has no one EVER in history EVER proved that a god or gods exist"? If you want someone to believe you, just provide some evidence. Just ONE piece of evidence!
That's easy, Austin. Because it's an internal, intangible experience. But we're not debating the proof of whether God exists. We're debating why atheists claim God doesn't exist and then claim they don't have to offer proof for their claim.
So, that's the argument you make to the claim, "you can't disprove the existence of God"? That is your evidence?
If an "atheist needs proof BEFORE believing in..." That proof must include personal experience. It seems to only take one time outside their belief system to change their game - Poof! No more atheist. Check out: Eben Alexander, M.D. (Neurosurgery)
The part belief here is important the difference in ideologies of each one and believing in them is more important than Ideology itself
Savannah - No, personal experience is not necessary. The physical prrof must only meet the scientific method of proof verified by independent researchers who can duplicate and repeat the same experiment with the same results. ex. creating glass
Austinstar, someone I know was robbed. According to atheist logic, the robbery didn't take place because it was merely the personal experience of that individual and we have to take his word on faith. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Psem - I do not agree. Either the money was real, therefore proving he was robbed, or it wasn't. Money leaves a trail, an ATM receipt, physical paper notes, fingerprints, etc. There are several way to prove your friend was actually robbed or not.
As, you are making an assumption there is a money trail for the sake of disputing my point. You don't know for a fact that there is.
I do not think you need proof to be a believer. I was agnostic for a long time before I started reading about the history of religion its amazing what you find when you actually do your homework.
Psem that is why I'm saying there needs to be an investigation. Pleas read my comments carefully before replying.
How does atheism affect me personally? Only when closed-minded atheists treat non-atheists with contempt.
Psem - Do vegetarians treat you with 'contempt' when you eat meat? Does that stop you from eating meat?
Jake, I suggest deleting this question altogether. The number of insults flying back and forth have become seriously counterproductive.
I'm afraid not. I was expecting a more nuanced intellectual discussion of a specific double negative theological paradox. However, I will not censor impassioned comments simply because they do not meet my expectations.
Proving existence is easier than proving non-existence b/c if you find one exp of existence, you're done. Proof of non-existence requires every possibility to be explored. However, since humankind does not have sufficient FACTS, everything is BELIEF.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
― Stuart Chase
People who believe without proof are being manipulated by someone else and are not able to live to their full potential.
True spiritual experience is proof to many people. Can you acknowledge that some people have had experiences that you have not had? Yes or no.
People who believe without proof may just have faith. Whether that's wondrous or naive depends on perspective.
Faith is a byproduct of spiritual experience. Many atheists falsely assume it is the primary driver of theism.
You took the words right out of my mouth. People who believe in God have "faith" - look it up in a dictoionary to see what it means. People who believe in God spend their whole lives with their fingers firmly crossed.
The burden of proof certainly lies with the claimant. The FSM is a great example of the fact that no outlandish supernatural claim can be disproved. It makes much more sense to develop a worldview based only on that for which there is evidence.
While a lack of evidence for a claim is not proof, it tends to dispel the myths of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and other such imaginative things. But why the god myth won't die for lack of evidence is beyond me.
@Jake & @Lela: I exactly agree. Both of these statements are thoroughly rational and eloquently stated.
Interestingly enough, moderate atheists admit that there is evidence for God. Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris for instance don't deny it. They just claim that, in their opinion, the evidence is not convincing enough.
And how many religionists have given up that fantasy and become atheists or agnostics? I suspect it is 10 times more than atheists reverting to "faith".
Most historians seem to agree that Jesus was real. Proof of a divine deity? No. But something to consider, and something more likely than "the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Personally, I think so. May not be definitive evidence, but it's there.
And you would be wrong. Last time I checked most of the world's population has been and continues to be Theistic.
But there is also no agreement among this theistic majority as to the very nature of this elusive deity. There are psychological explanations for the universality of theistic belief, but I wouldn't expect an ignorant theist to know much about that.
Let's try and respect each other's views, guys.
Abrahamic religions are patriarchal and condone genocide/ethnic cleansing, among other things. How dare you wag your finger at me and smugly suggest I should just "respect" it. These religions are not compatible with modern feminism and human dignity
Jake - this is the very reason that I am flabbergasted by women who claim to be Christians! I can understand why men want to control "their women", but I don't understand why women want to be controlled.
@Lela, women have been oppressed for so long, I do not think they can do on their own. Way back when women did have the autority they were burned at the stake...
@Jake. First, my comment wasn't directed solely at you. Second, please calm down. Is there really a problem with me suggesting we all respect each other's opinions? Yes, some Christians have done terrible things, but they're not all monsters.
To respect Christianity is, for example, to respect chauvinism. It is overly simplistic for you to sit there and claim neutrality. I suppose you also "respect" the totalitarian Islamic oppression of most Middle Easterners. Give me a break.
Why are you attacking me and making assumptions about myself? I am asking you to respect me as a fellow Hubber and human being. If you are incapable of that, HubPages is not the site for you. If you are capable of it, then please show it.
I'm challenging you to think critically. It's not my fault you can't handle tough questions. It is a cop-out when people who are uncomfortable with argumentative critical thinking play the victim and avoid the issues at hand altogether.
Jeremy, anyone who uses the word "you" repeatedly in a condescending manner, i.e., "it is overly simplistic for you", is definitely making it personal. People with successful careers and long-term relationships know better than to talk that way.
Agreed, Scott. Hubbers, non-believers and believers alike, should be above personal assaults. There's a large difference between "tough" questions (or statements) and disrespectful ones.
It is intellectual laziness to avoid responding to an argument, opting instead to dismiss the other as disrespectful and condescending. If you feel offended, fight back and tell me why I'm wrong.
OK. You are wrong because you can't prove God doesn't exist. You also are wrong because you tell people "your assertions are simply wrong and indicate a lack of education and intellect." Rudeness has no place in true debating.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. If you are claiming the existence of god, it is not on the atheist to prove your God doesn't exist when you haven't bothered to prove that it does. This is basic debate.
Jake, listen to yourself. Earlier, you accused me of being smug, yet how do your own phrases sound? "Give me a break" and "It's not my fault you can't handle tough questions". Consider that we're not here to "fight back", but to respectfully debate.
Fine, if you can't handle debate (as evidence by your consistent attempts to avoid doing so) then I won't push it any further. Just because you adhere to an rigid definition of debate doesn't mean I should feel wrong for being "disrespectful"
Julie, please read my post again. I'm not saying God does exist. I'm saying you can't prove God doesn't exist. You are making the claims, not me.
Jake, your earlier belligerent tone was far more suggestive of picking a fight than having a debate. I'm not trying to avoid anything. If you want people to focus on what you're saying (not how you're saying it), phrase it non-insultingly.
Tell me what claim I made. I have never said god doesn't exist. I simply don't believe in any gods because none have been proven. A lack of belief is in no way a claim.
You and others are claiming that I believe God exists -- using your own definition of God. "The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim." And you didn't address my key point. You can't prove God doesn't exist.
You are the one saying that atheists are wrong because we can't prove god doesn't exist. We don't have to. No one has proven or demonstrated or even defined a god. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=You_c...
It's a simple question. Can you prove God doesn't exist? Yes or no.
I'm saying your question is absurd since no evidence supporting the existence of god has been presented. You're shifting the burden of proof, which is a fallacy, and also bring dishonest by inventing claims that we haven't made.
No, and no one can prove that god does exist.
Taking that into account, what exactly was your point Jeremy?
Julie, I am asking you a simple yes or no question. Why can't you answer it? I will be happy to answer any reasonable question in return.
Because you know your question is absurdly backwards, which is why you're pushing it so insistently. I'll make a deal with you. Prove definitively that universe creating pixies do not exist, and I'll use your methods to disprove a god.
I'm pushing it consistently because you refuse to answer a simple yes or no answer. Even when I was an atheist, I was not afraid to answer such a question. Nor am I convinced today that God exists as defined by church teachings. I can still say no.
Jag, my point was that whether a hubber believes or not in God's existence, HubPages should be a place where we can respectfully discuss the topic, even if we don't all agree. And personal attacks or condescending tones shouldn't be present.
It's not a simple Question. It's a logical fallacy, and I'm certain that you know that.
Respectful according to whom? Everyone has subjective ideas about respect and attacks. What you consider respectful may not be perceived that way.
Julie, I agree it can be subjective. But some phrases are distinguishable as belligerent. For example, does "Give me a break" and "How dare you smugly suggest" sound like reasonable thoughts to you? Just doesn't sound like a professional debate.
Jeremy, this isn't a formal, professional debating site. It's a writing site. If you don't like the quality of responses, you don't have to keep responding. No one gets to control what other people say or how they react
Better yet, if you don't want responses or if you plan on insulting the people who do respond, then don't post the question at all.
I agree with that point, Scott. And Julie, I'd like to mention that while it's true this isn't a professional debate site, HubPages has official rules of conduct. Please read the "Keep it Civil" note at http://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules
Promisem - to answer your simple question - No, I cannot prove god doesn't exist. I can't prove Santa doesn't exist. But there is no real evidence to prove either one of them exists.
It's still subjective, Jeremy. The moderators respond to posts that are reported, and anyone can be reported for anything. After being here for over 2 years, I'm quite familiar, but what u see as an attack is probably not how I'd see one.
Julie, I'll agree that we have different perceptions. Perhaps this isn't the case for you, but to me, phrases like "You can't handle tough questions" seem unnecessary and mean-spirited. I hope one day atheists and believers can get along.
Lela, that seems reasonable to me. Thanks for answering the question.
As long as many believers keep telling us about eternal torture, ridicule and insult us, I imagine some atheists will remark in kind. for me, why should I care if a stranger was rude to me on the Internet? It doesn't affect my life. Ignore it
Julie, please do not attribute the faults of some believers to every believer. I have not ridiculed you or any atheist, and I'm sorry you've been persecuted. Hubbers shouldn't have to ignore something when it isn't permitted in the first place.
Jeremy, PLEASE let it go! Turn the other cheek or simply stop coming to HP.
I specifically said many and some. Not all. Nor do I claim to be persecuted. Ridicule and afterworld threats are nowhere near persecution. Neither are Christians persecuted in this country simply by being disagreed with or opposed.
Lela, you seem exasperated by me. May I ask why? If, hypothetically, at your favorite diner I walked up and called you "stupid", are you at fault for feeling put down, or am I at fault for being disrespectful? Would it be fair for u to not return?
I would totally ignore anyone who called me stupid. Arguing with them would be fruitless.
That's fair, Lela. But where would the fault lie?
Julie, I know you used those terms; my apologies if I offended you. My point was just a reminder that some believers are accepting people, regardless of whether you believe or not.
I really wouldn't be interested in laying blame. I simply would not accept that opinion as being valid. I'm not stupid, I know I'm not stupid, but it would be stupid to keep beating a dead horse.
The interest here isn't in laying blame, but in creating a better foundation for a thoughtful and respectful environment. Thus, I believe transgressions should be addressed. I'll stop posting, though, so we can get back to the original question.
And atheists wonder why they are labelled "angry". lol
@Link, Welcome back from a long hiatus. Why is it you pop up out of nowhere to gang up on people you disagree with? Why don't you offer something other than an insult? Your tone is mocking. Write another hub or something.
I'm amazed at the miraculous claim of determining someone's tone over the Internet and the willingness to dictate what complete strangers should be doing instead of asking a question? Why choose to take offense rather than contribute productively?
Believe it or not, J, one can totally deduct another's tone in writing. We learned that in school--what is the author's tone toward the subject?
Aside from the fact that it is entirely subjective, aren't you doing the exact same thing? Popping up out of nowhere to criticize a person, telling him what to do instead of contributing to the actual conversation? Isn't that hypocritical?
I think the main critique was that he makes comments, not Hubs. He only has 3 Hubs and hasn't written for a long time. This is the kind of person Austin wrote a question about a few days ago.
If that was the main critique, is baffling how it was the very last thing mentioned, almost like an afterthought. Telling other people what to do simply for not liking their tone or methods doesn't mean much.
That's because u only cherry pick what u want to "debate" about. U hear what u want.
I see. Have we moved to personal accusations again? Cause you know me so well and we're so close?
So u can say someone is "hypocritical" because that is a fact, but I am making personal accusations when I say a "fact" about u. I love how u use loaded language. U have a gift. That takes years of practice.
I asked her if her behavior was hypocritical, I did not say she was a hypocrite. There's a difference. Your opinion that I cherry pick is entirely subjective. We cannot all respond to everything 24/7, which means we choose, yes. We ALL do that.
No, u implied she was hypocritical in that question. U also cherry picked the part of her statement. That is different than not being able 2 comment on everything. U took her statement out of context and used only the part for your critique.
Show me how. Prove your assertion.
@Jeremy, there is a difference between using strong and gruff language when arguing and walking up to someone in a restaurant and calling them "stupid". I have not even come close to calling you stupid. It is very immature to just play the victim...
Jake, I never claimed you called me stupid, and I'm not playing a victim, nor am I immature. Would you kindly stop saying I am smug, immature, intellectually lazy, and things of such nature? We can do better than this.
I did not directly call you smug, immature, and intellectually lazy, rather I described your conduct in this way. I just find it strange how you seem so fixated on attacking my methods of discourse rather than engaging in the topic of discussion.
Jake, if your "methods of discourse" include negatively labeling people solely because of a simple reminder for us to respect each other, then they are flawed. If you're interested, my opinion on God's existence is that none of us can prove our views
Jmc, it is in black and white, so I don't have to "prove" my assertion. All one must do is read this thread.
Jeremy, the question is not just about whether or not God exists, rather a deep discussion of the double negative inability to prove God's non-existence, and how it is used in theist/atheist debates.
I understand that. I'll mention things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and historian's agreement of Jesus's existence as bits of evidence. Additionally, the scientist Hugh Ross has some good Youtube videos, but it's not conclusive proof, even to me.
Again, this is not about positive evidence for God's existence, rather the double negative lack of disproof for his evidence and how that is used in debates about the nature of the world and the universe.
I think the two topics are connected, and worth discussing. We have evidence for God's existence. Whether the evidence is compelling or not is up to perspective. And yes, neither side can disprove the other, which often turns debates into stalemates.
I have believers telling me all the time that if evidence were possible, there would be no need for faith. Yet you're claiming to have positive evidence not only for a god, but for a specific one? I'd love to see it.
Remember, I'm using "evidence", not "proof". The Dead Sea Scrolls provide support as to the validity of the Bible, most historians agree that Jesus existed, and if you have *lots* of time, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY
What are you saying the dead sea scrolls prove? That the Bible exists? No one questions that. Earlier copies have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the stories are true. Also, authority and popularity arguments for Jesus don't mean much
JM, perhaps these do:
Julie, I already said it's not proof. They indicate that the Bible from today is essentially the same as the one from back then. And I quite disagree; historians establishing Jesus's existence is a good first step for lending credit to the Bible.
The only evidence for a historical jesus are the Bible and writings long after he supposedly lived by people who could have easily gotten the common beliefs from Christians. No eyewitnesses, no contemporary sources.
So, you're saying that the sources might not be reliable. Hmm, who knows? Debra mentioned Josephus, who also wrote about Jesus, but some argue the validity of those writings. Maybe it's honest, maybe not. It's up to us to decide what we believe.
Almost no scholars accept Josephus, and the testimony doesn't appear for several hundred years. I'm saying all the chips in the world mean little if the stories never happened. We have dozens of examples of that that no one believes are true.
Like I said, there's not enough evidence either way for a conclusive decision. It comes down to what you believe. Consider examining Hugh Ross's youtube video I linked to. It's lengthy, but offers some interesting arguments.
If there's not enough evidence either way, then why believe something until there's more? For what? A maybe shot that out of all the claims and deities you may have gotten the right one?
Some of the evidence, such as points Dr Ross brought up, make a lot sense to me and have something of a scientific background, even if they're not definitive proof. For me, it's enough, though it may not be for others.
Obviously, you all haven't read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-277...
Argumentum ex silentio. Try again.
Burden of proof is on believers. You can't prove a negative. You know that. Otherwise, I'm proposing that Spiderman exists. Prove he doesn't. He even has books written about him!
Maggie, I know it's lengthy, but the video I linked to mentions some interesting things about the Bible from a scientist's point of view. I don't think we have any obvious conclusions one way or the other, but it's not like there's no evidence at all
Jeremy, I have more proof that Spiderman exists than your god. Show me the "facts."
Quite a statement to declare, Maggie. I never claimed to have proof, and the evidence is too complex to properly sum up in this comment. But basically, the Bible's depiction of *some* creation aspects closely matches scientific analyses.
Except, Jeremy, Hugh Ross is using falsified documents to make his claim. Check out: http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.com/2012/12/dr-hugh... Oh, and: http://tinyurl.com/kkvy6ma from DiscoveryMagazine
Maggie, one of the comments in that link lists a response to that post by Ross that counters many of its claims. The responses back and forth could go on forever. My overall point is, there's evidence on both sides that's inconclusive.
Jeremy -- You are deluding yourself. You have no proof. If you want to believe in your god on faith, that is one thing. But don't drag logic and science into it and claim it supports your belief, when it obviously doesn't.
Harsh words, Maggie. I've stated already that I have no proof. None of us do; therefore, I find your use of the word "obviously" odd. The evidence I've researched and conclusions I've drawn is enough for me. It just isn't enough for everyone.
A bit late on my part star but can you explain to me how asking a question to one person is considered ganging up on multiple people and mocking? That is If you can get past the hypocritical bs of your own comment, which reminds me of an old HP user
Jag, its cool if I answer? I don't think you ganged up on me. You didn't use mocking words or anything, you simply asked a question and I answered. Please feel free to ask me more in the future, if you wish. Hope everyone here has a great Easter day.
Maggie, you are deluding yourself. Please provide your proof that Spiderman exists.
Jeremy, pseudo intellectuals who say they want to debate an issue are actually seeking validation for their beliefs. When they don't get it, they get angry and make the debate personal.
Avoiding the argument and dismissing the critic as disrespectful is a cop-out. I don't make personal assaults on anyone. If you disagree with my criticism, argue back or don't, but don't just project your insecurities and uncertainly back onto me.
Jake, I have clearly not avoided the argument based on the number of posts I've made on topic. I'm merely pointing out that comments like "your assertions are simply wrong and indicate a lack of education and intellect" makes the debate personal.
Scot, when one has actually has already lost the debate is when accusations like that are used, to make the debate personal, about something else, rather than concede defeat.
I don't think there is any way to "defeat" or be "defeated" when a matter of belief is involved. I am not even sure why it is contest. Personally I am fine with what others believe or don't. I can love them all the same.
If you need to have conscious contact with God to believe that it exists, and billions of people over thousands of years have had that contact, why does your lone experience lead you to believe that God doesn't exist and everyone else is wrong?
If you were to get a detailed account of each experience from those people, you would not get a consistent answer.
Would the fact that people believe they have experienced Allah, buddah, Zeus etc mean that they also exist?
First off, it's not a question of who is "right or wrong". It's a question of what YOU personally believe. I believe in one thing and you believe in another. And Link hasn't had a "lone" experience. there are lots of agnostics in the world.
Link, ask what people saw at a crime scene and you'll get different answers. It's the degree of consistency that counts. And God, Allah and Buddha are all cultural descriptions of the same experience. Austin, no one said it's about right and wrong.
....that's kind of the point I was making about consistency...the less consistent the accounts are, the least likely whatever in question is true. Cultural differences should have no affect on an experience with god who supposedly permeates all life.
Link, put 1 billion people from 100 different countries into a room. Do you think all 1 billion will say the same thing and describe an experience in the exact same way?
In any other instance? Absolutely not. But the subject is god. Can you explain why god would give billions of people conflicting experiences which leads to division and violence? Shouldnt be that difficult to give everyone the same experience
Link, you are missing my point about human abilities to interpret and communicate something in the exact same way. And you also are making a personal assumption and communicating your interpretation about what God is -- which validates my point.
The point has been missed by you multiple times. You even repeated the point I initially made and now you are saying something different.
My only interpretation of god I have made is based on yours which said it is all the same experience.
I have consistently made the point about a common experience combined with human differences in communication. I have not once offered an interpretation of God. If you want to keep diverting the debate, feel free.
I recall posing a question that got ignored, but if it had been answered it would have required you to explain how a god is incapable of providing the same experience to all regardless of culture and communication ability. Yet I'm the one diverting..
Peace be with you.
Direct quote - "why does your lone experience lead you to believe that God doesn't exist and everyone else is wrong?" YOU are saying it is "wrong". So yes, someone brought that up!
God is an illusion of human psychology, namely, the capacity to conceive of consciousnesses beyond the self. I am not interested in looking for signs or awaiting feelings. This is subjective dribble that fosters ignorance and superstition.
Prove it. Prove God does not nor cannot exist ...
Why do I have to prove that God does not exist? It is perfectly fair and reasonable to accept only that for which there is evidence. I invite anyone to consider the evidence, and to construct a world view based on that.
Because you claim that all of us theists are delusional. For that to be true you need to prove that God does not nor cannot exist. That or retract your preposterous claim.
It makes more sense for me to ask you to prove your preposterous claim that God exists.
Actually it makes more sense for you to prove your own claim. Or are you too afraid to?
There is no evidence for God's existence. There is also no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't disprove the existence of either of these things, but should that be a good reason to believe their existence is probable?
All of a sudden you're too timid to present some actual evidence for your belief in God's nonexistence?
This discussion would be more productive if we distinguish belief from proof. You can believe or disbelieve in the existance of God, but you can't prove or disprove that existence empirically.
Spaghetti has defined physical properties such that a monster cannot be created from it. Moreover, our understanding of aerodynamics makes it obvious that spaghetti cannot travel sustainedly through the air. As such, the FSM has no basis in reality.
Neither does God.
You keep saying that but you've yet to prove it, Spongy. Where is your evidence God does not nor cannot exist? Time to put up or ...
If you read my question carefully, the whole point of this thread is to question and consider the nuances and complexities of the paradox of not being able to prove God's non-existence. It is not meant to be a direct debate about his existence.
What a cop-out ...
You can't make a claim and then run away from it ...
Yet you do it all the time Joseph...
Do as I say not as I do kinda guy aren't you...
That isn't quite accurate in my case. I am an atheist who is intensely interested in proof when I am accosted by a religious person who disagrees with my lack of faith in that for which there is no evidence.
I have asked for proof probably 100s of times. No one has any shred of verifiable evidence for gods or santa. So, that is why religionists come back with, "No, YOU prove it doesn't exist!"
Lela, a believer answers that way because we know we have no proof for YOU. And we know atheists know this also, so when the question is asked, that is the best response to stop the beating we are about to take.
Burden of proof lies with the person who insists on telling us this "truth."
Maggie, that just went right over your head. Obviously you didn't read what I wrote or you must be feeling frisky and itching for an argument.
I went from agnostic to staunch atheist when I came to understand that claiming the existence of something does not automatically give it a philosophical 50/50 chance of being so. One could claim anything and then counter "you can't prove it DOESN'T"
Jake, it's weird, but I became less agnostic and more toward being a believer in a god, but not in the Judeo-Xian-Islam god. And yes, you're absolutely right. Anyone can claim anything. I do not claim I am right which is why I agree with you on this.
Evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality - http://bit.ly/185Tf1D
Now try to apply the same approach to our Creator and God Almighty.
I rely solely on logic and evidence because human perception is flawed and sensory illusions can play a major role in spiritual leanings. I used to think I'd seen ghosts, but now I realize they were just tricks of light and perception.
Logic and science have limits and are filled with their own sensory illusions. They can't explain everything. And if you believe perception is flawed, then you can't rely on evidence if your perception of that evidence is flawed.
Science can't explain everything, but I choose to believe only what it can explain. When I said perception is flawed, I meant in terms of ghost sightings and near-death experiences. The evidence for evolution, for example, can't be mistaken.
Do you believe it's possible that God exists? Or do you believe with certainty that God does not exist?
Basically, I am not making the claim that "God does not exist", I am making the claim that "I am an atheist". See the difference?
I believe only in that for which there is evidence. There is no real evidence for God's existence or anything supernatural, so it plays no role in my world view.
Austin, on that point we agree. Spongy, I would be more willing to agree with you if you said you want objective physical evidence. "No real evidence" misses the point that some things in this universe can't be explained, at least not yet.
Yes, of course! Objective physical evidence is exactly what I would need to believe in the supernatural. As it is, there is not a shred of evidence.
Then I respect your choice. But I'll use a point I made in another comment. Someone I know was robbed. But according to atheist logic, the robbery didn't take place because there is no evidence other than taking the word of someone on faith.
....you realize promise that has nothing to do with atheist logic right? That's like telling a Cop you got kicked in the face by that guy over there, but there isn't a mark on your body to prove it. Should he believe you based solely on your word?
It has everything to do with atheist logic. You attack faith because someone says a thing exists. You say it doesn't exist because you can't prove it exists and therefore faith can't be used to justify spiritual experiences.
Psem - no one is attacking your faith! Why do you think this? We are just saying that we choose to require EVIDENCE that a god exists BEFORE we believe it. If that doesn't apply to you, what is your problem?
Do keep the facts straight promise. If we are talking about me personally, I attack blind faith that demands acceptance with absolutely nothing backing it.
So far, most atheists i see on here have similar mindsets
AS and Link, you are twisting my words as usual. Link, the only common mindset is you and AS. At least spongyollama tries to have an honest and respectful debate without resorting to zealotry.
Twisting words? You assumed that I attack faith simply because it deals with a higher being and that because it cannot be proven it doesn't exist. Can you point to where I said that at all, even hypothetically?
Please use a dictionary for zealotry.
Link, Psem seems to misunderstand quite a few of the English definitions for our words. As a former atheist, I would be interested in knowing about the 'proof' Scott has found.
The reality of all Creation demands a Creator. 'Nuff said.
You calling it creation is not the same as it being creation.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature ( Biomimetics ) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of an Almighty Creator.
People believe and act without proof positive all the time. You could not function if you did not. People elect Presidents without even meeting them. They jail people without seeing the crime. They buy stocks. They marry.
Joseph, no. You are defining all you see as a "creation." But it isn't a creation, necessarily, & there may be no creator. Prove it was created. Besarin, you can go to DC and see the president. You can't take a road trip to see god.
I like your court-system analogy, Phil.
Agnosticism is a noble and neutral position to take. However, would you agree it behooves one to take an agnostic stance toward, say, the flying spaghetti monster, simply because there is no proof indicating its nonexistence?
Jake, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a farce. It doesn't and never existed. It was to make fun of religion. If you look up the history of it you'll find out it was just to make fun of religion. It was never intended to be taken seriously...
This isn't about the FSM alone, it is just an example of a multiplicity of things whose existence can't be disproved. The FSM was not created to just "make fun" of religion, rather to point out the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural.
Exactly! I completely agree about that statement concerning the FSM! I couldn't have said it better!
It's just sad that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to prove "anything" higher knowing or supernatural..
How does your theoretical need for "much more than exceptional intellect" in order to design creation prove the existence of a creator? This kind of philosophical speculation is not viable evidence.
I agree, the flying spaghetti monster is indeed almighty. Pair him up with Thor and the well cooked noodlely goodness never ends.
Simply explain to us how a god can create itself out of absolute nothing and then go on to create everything else in the universe. Also out of nothing. Oh, I forgot, God exists out of "space and time". It ALWAYS existed, right? Just like the Universe
It's quite simple really. If merely copying something from nature requires extraordinary effort then it stands to reason that the original was the product of even greater effort by a sentient entity.
Joe, as usual, you are assuming that copying nature is difficult. It isn't. We can grow fetuses in tubes now. And cloning is pretty simple for a good biologist as well. In the future, I suspect, it will be child's play.
The problem that I have with your argument is that your speculation starts with the assumption that there is a creator, and then goes on from there. Complexity in nature beyond human capacity is not evidence of an intelligent designer.
Child's play for people like you or child's play to the PhDs? :)
If intelligence is needed to merely copy systems and designs found in nature then obviously the existence of the original also had to be the product of an intelligence
Copying nature isn't difficult? I have never seen nor heard of nature harvesting it's own eggs and fertilizing them artificially. Of course, they do not harvest their own sperm either. It isn't copying nature when it is done against nature's ways.
What if it is ALL God? So God, then is not immutable, all-powerful, all-knowing. Perhaps this is ALL simply God- ever changing, growing. We are all part of it.Thus morality hinges on what our growing intellect tells us preserves this wondrous system
Billie - Good Answer! At the very least, we should all be interconnected by 'something'. Perhaps it's all just gravity we are going on about? We are all tied together by gravity. Held together by gravity. Maybe gravity is the "god particle".
I personally do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. What category do I fall in? :)
AC - If you do not believe in the FSM, then you are ATHEISTIC toward that particular "god", Proving you are an atheist.
You know, you never did tell me, how many people have you and yours killed with a blood transfusion?
JP - Surely you are not accusing me of murder? I know of no case that resulted in a death by blood transfusion in all of my 38 years of working in transfusion services. I lost count of the number of people that I saved. What an odd question to ask.
Of course it isn't an odd question to ask, assuming you do back alley blood transfusions with no medical preparation whatsoever that is.
Logical first assumption
I feel he is trying to accuse me of killing people! I have certifications in Tx and Hawaii to do blood transfusions. That was my career specialty. So, yes, I do find it a very odd question.
You mean to tell me no one has ever died from Sepsis, Acute Kidney failure, Intravascular Coagulation or a Hemolytic reaction as a result of transfused blood?
Joseph I will admit that you truly are a master at twisting words. Bravo.
I think the creator is the Holy Spirit" you do not mess with that- karma is a ...well you know! yet please view my comments below..
Aloha, I'm Savannah & I'm new here. I am working on my first hub and came across this debate. A fellow atheist has written an account of what he was doing when he lost his functioning brain. Google: Eben Alexander, M.D. (BTW he's a ) neurosurge
I think the only reason for being atheistic rather than agnostic about leprechauns and unicorns is because cultural narratives have made the idea of their existence seem absurd. Philosophically, I think we should be equally agnostic about them.
I agree that cultural narratives play a major role. The way scripture has been venerated for centuries has lent undue credence to it.
That means billions of people over thousands of years are all wrong...
People were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe as well as it being flat. We learned from that.
Religion just happens to take an extremely long time to admit it COULD be wrong let alone actually learn from a mistake.
Link, I used to think the same way as you. And then I realized that I didn't know everything and that having an opinion about something I didn't understand was wrong. It turned me from an atheist into an agnostic.
Not too sure why you are assuming that I think I know everything promise. I have yet to declare that no gods exist. I simply don't know.
What I do know is that its asinine declare something as true but expect other people to prove it
Link, then we're on the same page. Expecting Christians to prove that God exists is just as asinine as expecting atheists to prove that he doesn't. And if you are saying you just don't know -- again on which we agree -- then you're an agnostic.
Not too sure why you seem to think I don't know my own stance. Getting down to specifics, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any gods but I don't claim none exist.
And no, i don't think we are quite on the same page still.
I'm simply acknowleging something you said where I think we are in agreement. There is such a thing as searching for common ground instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate the breathtaking daedal designs and systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation thus represents unshakable proof of our Creator's existence.
Your argument that the existence of Creation proves the existence of a Creator is wrong. It is a semantic issue. You simply choose to use the word "Creation", which originates from a preexisting religious bias in your understanding of the world.
Fine. Prove it's not Creation.
We can't even prove if there is another Universe and we're constantly discussing God. I'm up for debate. It's beyond us to find the answer at this point in our lives. If there has to be something that began, we have no way of logically proving that.
I disagree. If there exists no evidence for something, then there is no rational reason to believe that it exists.
No evidence but logic of relativity suggests Earth\humans are so tiny in the universe they are statistically insignificant. The infinite potential for variety out there makes the odds of 'creation' having assumed human like attributes quite low
Agree completely. Closed-minded atheists lump everything religious into one big pile and attack the flaws. Open-minded atheists make the kind of distinctions that you provided.
I don't stand for talk and rhetoric without substance. How much do you really know about the history of mankind and specifically, the history of evil? How do you justify a focus on evil as the dominant force behind human actions throughout history?
Jake: even in the dictionary: Evil is defined as "Satan" and Satan is defined as "evil".
What is your point? Satan has been a metaphorically symbolic representation of evil in the Western world for centuries. And?
That is one of the most honest answers I have ever read on a forum like this.
I think souls either live before and after the body, or not at all. We'd already know if souls live outside the body because we had no body before we were born. Conversely, if souls develop at conception, then they'd also fade as the body perishes.
Vortrek Grafix, Interesting.I, for one, can't conceive soul without mind, so I can't understand soul outside of the body. I get that they're supposed to be different concepts,but it's beyond my level of comprehension to conceive of a mindless soul.
The majority of Atheists you'll find on here believe God does not nor cannot exist. Interestingly enough, though, they have absolutely zero evidence for their claim.
There is no evidence for God's existence. Absolutely none. It is only rational to develop a worldview based on that for which there is evidence. Of course no one can prove that God does not exist, but that is no reason to believe that he does.
The existence of all Creation demands a Creator.
Jesus Christ is a piece of evidence if you look at what he did you would be amazed at the fact that lots of his miracles are in more places then just religious history.
Vandall - Where is the evidence that Jesus was a 'god' or the son of a 'god'? There is no evidence that Jesus was "divine" in any way. The books of the bible describe him only AFTER his alleged death. Some say he never existed at all.
I am talking about the fact that Jesus was here and preformed miracles. I never said he was a god, but the things he did are a mystery.
Jesus Christ did exist, and he did perform miracles. The proof is the word of the people who have passed his stories down through generations.
Hmmm all of Thor's legends and miracles have been passed down as well.
The legends of the Greek gods are passed down to this very day for anyone who takes ancient history classes. There is a lot more lore to back their existence than there is Jesus, so they exist as well right?
If you do your research on greek myths like i did you would see that they have been PROVEN myths for example, Medusa was created to put kids to sleep when they were little.
So there's proof that refutes myths (that you dont believe in) from nearly 3000 years ago but nothing to prove that Jesus not only walked the earth but performed miracles only 2000 years ago (you do believe in)?
Do explain the convenience of that..
Lady G - That is exactly what they did! Since no one has ever actually seen a god or group of gods, there is no way to assign names to them really! Except maybe by their "powers" - god of rain, sun, water, etc.
Exactly! It always amazes me that most religious people believe in just one "god" and think all of the others are nonexistent or dead or something. If you believe in one, you must believe in ALL of them! But then, u just say they have different names
@AS Did you know that the Catholic church, when they took over the Pagans made the pagan gods into the Saints? I read that somewhere. They didn't get rid of the God(S), they just gave them another name.
This is why hostility toward atheists doesn't make any sense. Everyone is an atheist of most gods that are or ever were, some of us just take it further (I realize something to that effect already exists as a popular quotation).
I brought that up to a christian on here once and they outright denied they were an atheist of whatever god I mentioned. Didn't make a lick of sense and I can't remember if I got insulted afterwards.
Notice how the argumentative ones just ignore this question? They don't have an answer for why so many other gods exist in their minds. They just insist that the one most POPULAR god exists :-) But eventually, even Yahwey will fade into nonexistence
Yes, the argumentative ones ignore the question, i.e., Are you saying with certainty that God doesn't exist? It's a yes or no question.
Let me put it this way. I am as certain that God doesn't exist as I am that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Both are equally unprovable, so we technically have to be agnostic about both, but functionally, I am an atheist.
Spongy0llama, I respect your focus on debating the issue logically. How can you be certain that God doesn't exist if you can't prove he doesn't exist?
You don't prove a negative--the onus of proof is on the positive claim, i.e. "There is a god" or "There is an angel sitting inside the Euphrates river" or "I have a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls in my pocket."
Sure you can. Here's proof, for example, that Santa Claus can't exist in reality: http://bit.ly/185Tf1D
Now try to apply the same approach to God Almighty.
Psem - you asked, " Are you saying with certainty that God doesn't exist?" Our answer is plain. NO ONE can say with certainty that God doesn't exist. We choose not to believe based on the fact that no evidence has been produced to prove God exists.
OK, AS, I agree.
I didn't say you CAN'T prove a negative--as with the Santa Claus example you provided, sometimes it's really easy--I said that you DON'T prove a negative. The onus of proof is on the guy who says Santa does exist, not the guy who says he doesn't.
Then you're just making a distinction without a difference ...
The Bible doesn't deny that other gods exist. It rather confirms it. You are a Christian if you choose Jesus as your Lord and savior. For me that means living as Jesus did- helping the poor, the sick, the weak, forgiving and tolerating others.
It is amazing how poorly the bible holds up to scrutiny, but more amazing still how bad people are at admitting it.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate the breathtaking daedal designs and systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation thus represents unshakable proof of our Creator's existence.
Claiming religious faith is based on miracles and feelings is not only inaccurate but totally misses the point. Revelation is the central religious experience. If you don't understand revelation, you will always misunderstand spirituality.
what concrete proof do you have God does not exist?
There is no concrete proof that God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Thor, mermaids, leprechauns, and unicorns etc. don't exist. Is that a good reason to believe that they do? You can invent literally anything and not be able to prove it's nonexistence.
Actually there is on some of those if you look at the origins of the myths. For example Medusa was created to put kids to sleep when they were younger because they were afraid to open their eyes.
Humans don't come from apes, we are apes. We belong to a family of primates who share the same origin, just as all mammals, including rats and pigs, are more distantly related. You can't see oxygen either, but we have evidence for it's existence.
That entire movie is a strawman, and every argument that was presented in that movie is fallacious. I would recommend looking the movie up online and many of the rebuttal blogs that were written, even from Christians who abhor its dishonesty.
I take issue with people who give themselves over to blind faith when ignorance and scientific illiteracy are clearly factors.
I have a very hard time believing that anyone who has a basis of science or philosophy or apologetics finds this movie anything but humorous
Prove that we're apes.
Evidence found in DNA, the fossil record, and comparative physiology definitively proves that modern primates (including humans) are closely related and share a fairly recent common ancestor. Humans are apes just as well as the earth is round.
So far as supposed hereditary clues that purportedly reveal common descent, forming dogmatic opinions on the basis of somewhere around 0.0025% of all the available genetic data is a blatantly fallacious A Dicto Simpliciter.
There is nothing dogmatic about the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is based on mountains of evidence. Our understanding of evolution is subject to change based on the evidence we are regularly gathering.
@Jake. I would love to see all those MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution.
Thanks, JM but I would like something a little more specific. Talkorigins is a site you must sign up for to view, or it used to be. EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong. I can view the site now.
If your wife or husband didn't believe or have faith that the other one loved them more than anything then they would really be nothing right? To prove it you'd have no faith in each other and proof denies faith and without faith it is nothing!
Many care what people think- otherwise why even post? we should value all opinions, and continue to seek answers..much love!
Actually, atheism is not a belief. This is a common misconception. Most atheists choose what to accept about the world based on facts and evidence. Naturally, this tendency for truth-seeking precludes the supernatural. Again, atheism is not a belief.
I won't argue with you because all of your assertions are simply wrong and indicate a lack of education and intellect. Your interpretation of evolution is based on popular misconception and your understanding of reality is unenlightened.
Brilliant observations Jatko!! :)
Also, atheism is not the belief in nothing, it is the belief in only that for which there is evidence, which precludes spiritual beings. If you are dependent on religion for finding meaning and purpose in life, then I feel sorry for you.
Nipping it in the bud early..bravo spongy. Saved yourself a migraine.
If we're going to engage in reductio ad absurdum, let's sum up Christianity, then, shall we:
Christianity: "A wizard did it!"
You won't argue because you are hiding behind another tactic "when you can't refute the facts demean and attack the messenger" which tells a whole lot about your lack of education and intellect.
I won't argue with you because you are wrong on so many counts that I can not properly deal with all of your absurd arguments within a 250 character limit.
Really? then just take one thing. Let's see what your tactic is for that minor challenge. You must have something else in your playbook that you can use to weasel out of answering besides "attack the messenger".
tsadjatko: I completely agree with all you have said. And there is no need to argue Spongy , an intelligent dialog / discussion is what I would encourage. start a new hub I to hear your side to discount/ respond to above . Bravo to you tsadjatko.
Very good answer, Tsad! I agree 100%!
Joseph, Eddy, Starrgirl...You know you have just demonstrated your lack of education and intellect! According to his highness, Spongebobby, you (and I)are to be pitied. Sounds like someone is harboring a deep resentment and needs to lash out.
Fine. You clearly know nothing about evolution. It is a common misconception that the world is designed to suit life, as you suggest. In reality, life evolved to best adapt to the conditions as they exist and change on this planet.
So what you are saying then is life could evolve on any planet but it would conform to that planets characteristics?ABSURDor there should be life on the moon,Venus&Mars.The only explanation for the precise design of Earth/life is the Godof Bible
No, I did not say that life could evolve on any planet, but life evolved on this planet and adapted/continues to adapt to the environment at our disposal. It is a very complex process which requires a great deal of abstract thought to understand.
Abstract thought? Forget that! How about some actual historical evidence for your absurd claim?
Yeah,abstract thought,not facts/actual observable evidence.You are saying you need more faith to believe in evolution which doesn't even qualify as a theory https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/e... than God!
My "absurd claim" is a scientific fact, about which you know terribly little. I am not reluctant to argue because I do not have a compelling argument, but because you are simply denying the facts and are clearly unwilling to consider the evidence.
I'll say this for you Jake,at least you don't censor debate because it disagrees with you like the person you choose as best answer has a reputation for doing(then lying about why she deletes the comment).But your statements arejustasabsurdashers
Prove it then. Prove that "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" is a scientific fact.
Cosmic background radiation is pretty convincing proof of the Big Bang. Now where's your proof that "a wizard did it" is a scientific fact?
SO,you didn't even look at the link above,it explains clearly how evolution isn't a fact by any stretch of the imagination &it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory because there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed
Nobody's talking about the Big Bang. The issue is hard evidence for "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" as a scientific fact. Do you have any to proffer?
Joe, I got this, If Z knew anything about the big bang he'd know that the only explanation for it is supernatural. Her is your proof http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigi... zelkiiro, meet your wizard or should I say your maker
I'm done going in circles with this. If you simply refuse to accept the facts, I am not interested in arguing it any further. You win by default. No need to rub it in my face.
Jake, you have experienced these two trolls now. Trust me, it's better to delete them than argue with them. Or if you don't want to delete them, then totally ignore them.
The typical atheist response, if you can't refute the facts, name call, attack the messengers personally or delete their comments. Speak of lack of education, intellect and unenlightenment "here's your sign" wear it in good health.
Joseph and TSAD, you are not alone.
Oh goody! Someone let out the trolls. I'll get Thor to squash them. ;-)
"Virtually any material thing you can think of that has order, purpose, design, beauty was created by intelligent beings"
Ever seen a spider's web? How intelligent do you think the spider is?
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
The truth is what matters. It is irresponsible and intellectually detrimental to "fill in the gaps" with religion. As you can see, I am opposed to rationalizing harmony between scientific truth and religious superstition.
if "filling in the gaps with religion" discourages natural curiosity to question the "word of god" (as preached by mortals) then that is unfortunate. That's not a rule though. Many scientists, mathematicians, etc. believe but research\discover also.
The existence of religious scientists does not validate religion. What I meant with "gaps" was about christians pointing to the gaps of a scientific worldview as proof that it is inferior to their "complete" religious world view.
I agree, the truth is what matters. So prove the truth of your belief that God does not nor cannot exist ...
I am not responsible for proving God's non-existence. I live in a world in which there is no evidence for his existence, therefore, there is no rational reason to believe that he does exist.
That's pretty bombastic considering all of the tangible evidence for God's necessary existence ...
Logic requires verifiable observation for validation, so faith cannot validate itself. And yet, physicists also use assumptions (educated guess - hypothesis) when developing equations to research\explain scientific phenomena
Please enlighten me. Of what tangible evidence for God's existence do you speak?
The existence of all Creation demands a Creator.
It is you who name it "creation", and it is your play with words that implies the necessity of a corresponding "Creator". In reality, there is no rational reason for labeling our existence as creation.
Truth is derived from unknowns through logical deduction, and faith would not be faith if it dealt in tangibles. Either camp is feasible while unknowns exist, but staunch adherence to faith precludes discovery of what might otherwise be tangible
Faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence. It is only rational to accept that which is based on evidence and to criticize blind faith.
Assigning fanciful labels to unknowns does not make them tangible. I respect anyone's freedom of choice, but do sometimes question how prominently preserving institutionalized religion figures into indoctrinating the flock with that type of protocol.
If it's not Creation what is it?
I have yet to encounter a theist who is able to offer any evidence for the existence of God which is not merely toying with words like "creation", "love", "emotion", "design", etc.
Hi Jo, that is the ultimate question. The complete answer eludes us all. I'll bet on science\physics to discover the details. Others prefer a different approach to digest that befuddling puzzle. As a liberal, I welcome differences in opinion any day.
It is not Creation. It simply is.
I find it interesting that even when an atheist concedes and agrees, for the sake of the argument, that everything was created, nothing is ever put forth that designates a specific creator over another.
Spongy, I agree logic trumps faith whenever applicable but "it simply is" does ring rather like a faith based statement. Yes we perceive but are we fully cognizant of the significance of our perceptions? Cogito ergo sum is logical until that point.
You are delving into philosophy, into which one may go deep enough as to come to the conclusion that we can't really know anything for sure. I don't go down that path. I accept that which I perceive with my senses because it is most rational to do so
Are you people attacking a specific definition of God or the existence of a higher spiritual experience that can't yet be explained? It's hard to tell.
Prove it's not Creation.
Promisem, no battle, just thesis vs antithesis & potential synthesis. Logic attempts to learn the unknown while faith covets it as devine which tends to discourage questioning it. Lots of room for logic & faith though when unknowns remain unk
Vortrek Grafix, LOVE ur thought process. From ur profile, I'm not sure if I'm addressing Chari or Marc or both, but I have the highest respect 4 the logic of ur input.I agree that societal good is foremost. To keep on keeping seems the mandate to me.
Thanks, Vortrek. Faith is not the central concept for belief in the existence of a higher spiritual experience. Faith is simply the belief in what other people describe about that experience. The faithful SHOULD question it.
Hi Jake! Everyone fills in the gaps all the time. You never have all the evidence about anything. Your brain fills in the blind spots in your vision. If you are honest with yourself you realize you can't know the truth about anything.
Joseph, prove it IS creation. You see, you assume that because humans make things that your god made the universe. Very egocentric, really. The universe may not have a starting point. Physicists are talking about that now.
If God was not real, there would be no NEED to have atheists.
If god was real and theists could prove it, there would be no reason to have atheists.
One side seems to be slacking quite a bit wouldn't you say...
I should have phrased my comment, "If God was not real, everyone would be an atheist!" LOL
"If there was no God, there would be no reason to be an atheist."
Sorry thats' what I get for typing toofast. :)
That's some strange logic you're using there.
If humans didn't create the idea of God, there would be no reason to be an atheist. It has nothing to do with its actual existence.
It has everything to do with his existence. Atheists talk more about God than Christians. All 3% of you
Mumbo-Jumbo much girls? An atheist NEVER talks/preaches about gods. They don't believe in them. We talk about science and logic and why we don't believe in gods. But we don't talk ABOUT a god or gods. We don't believe in them. :-)
Just like you are doing now. POINT PROVEN! :)
Imagine that, talking about gods in response to a comment that talked about god first.
Who would have thought...
It is your choice to actually involve yourself in a conversation about God. If I were an atheist I would be running from these type of questions. You are not going to convince anyone. Why are so many of you just wasting your time? It is frivolous.
AC - Your depth of misinterpretation of the written word amazes me.
So why do you choose to waste your time as well?
The point behind discussing anything is to consider other viewpoints if you didn't know.
And it would only be frivolous if theists could prove their gods existed. So again, that side is sorely lacking
Why worry about what others believe or do not believe? Is it going to make you rich? Why not worry about yourselves and the back yard you need to be cleaning up before you judge others. The only thing atheists want to do is stir the pot. Good job!
Thank you Link! If only theists could just prove that even ONE "god" actually exists. It would clear up so many things.
No it wouldn't. Atheists would never believe any proof and would argue that proof until they were blue in the face. But, telling billions of people that they are wrong is just egotistical rhetoric isn't it
I never said you were wrong. I said, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD OR GODS. Note the use of the word "I" (meaning me.) You are the one insisting that I am wrong.
I do not believe that I have mentioned any names Mam. Nor, have I directed my comments at one person. Wishing everyone a great day!
YouTube TTA Podcast 206, that's a pretty good reason not to be quiet about things all the time.
And no rational atheist would argue consistent, undeniable proof of a god. People of different religions certainly would so please get your bias straight
Biased? And what might you label yourself young man? See this is the great misconception that atheists have about Christians. Christians are not trying to please anyone or WIN an argument. They are simply trying to live a life pleasing to God. Simple
Ac - good luck with that!
Nothing wrong with that, although I'm not sure why you seem to think all atheists have a problem with everyone of faith, rather than those of faith that judge and condem others for believing something different from themselves
In my opinion there is no need for atheists. All they do is try to prove that god does not exist, but not one of them has tried to prove does exist. Atheists in my experience restrict Christians beliefs and values and don't understand the base of god
Jennings, you ARE the problem with all your prejudice. Judge not lest ye be judged.
Jennings - did you even read my answer (best answer)? I am an atheist and I contend that I cannot prove that gods don't exist, I merely contend that I (me) do not believe in them. If you choose to believe, I don't have a problem with it.
Mmm...and Christianity has maimed and murdered to get where its at now.
Yet somehow it still hasnt managed to prove itself right over other religions. Would it be accurate to say there is no need for religion then if it does those two things?
Read my comment before saying Im the problem I said "In my experience" I could be wrong, but my friends want god out of things such as the constitution and the base of god is free will just cause I dont like it doesn't mean I have right to control it
Jennings That is NOT what you said. I re-read your comments. God was't on money before the 1950's and wasn't in the constitution. Who possesed someone to put it there in the first place?
PS: proven fact - I will find scientific Proof if requested and post) but when a body dies, it is documented 4 ounces can not be accounted for in weight. theorize' this is the weight of a soul...unexplained but very interesting indeed!
Ok, where's your proof? Which body? Who documented it? Who verified it? Who reproduced that experiment with other bodies? Who proved it wasn't water or bodily elimination? This is a very old rumor that got started many years ago and isn't verifiable.
I do remember that being the central theme of Dan Browns the lost symbol.
I find spiritualists often play with words like "love" "feeling" "emotion" etc., all of which are well understood in terms of psychology and neuroscience.
Anecdotal evidence of miracles are not sufficient proof of the supernatural.
for give my prior response that it is proven: it is a theoretical hypothesis which is gaining more scientific evidence through modern technology. Here is an interesting article for all to read. http://horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38
EV - I read the conclusion statement from that study of NDEs. As usual, there was no reliable result of patients having cognizant awareness of objects in the rooms. So, there is no evidence as you are suggesting of anything. The study failed.
Austinstar : The article and clinical studies is not for NDE rather it discusses the difference in weight before and after death.
I did not see that. I read the 2014 conclusion of their "study". What page was the weight of dead bodies discussed on?
Basically, we haven't come up with a scientific God detector yet... very good analogy. Wish I thought of it.
As a medical professional, I have never heard of such a thing as a body weighting less, but I can tell you when you die, your body gets rid of all the fluids and you basically pee, poop, and bleed all over yourself. I have seen it.
In the deaths of a few of my cats and a dog I can tell you that is is false. They are light until after they reach rigo mortis and then their body get very heavy. I did hear of the study though and did not believe it cuz of my findings.
There is a difference between telling a believer that they're wrong and asking them to quantify or demonstrate that they're right, especially if they're trying to convince us to convert and believe what they do.
How many people a day try to "convert" you? I only see you going around trying to instigate fights w/ believers. And again, I have never heard a believer use that defense unless provoked.
Somebody talks to me about God and tells me I should try Jesus like some kind of spiritual milkshake several times a week in daily life, not on hubpages. I don't want to instigate fights, I look for intelligent discussions. Define provoked.
You say u seek intelligent discussions, yet u r the 1 that wrote about "no-win conversation". If believers only harass u then why not ignore them. If we cannot offer u proof, why ask? 90% of ur hubs r against religion. That enough? lol
Some people cannot have intelligent conversation. I do ignore them. Others can. I was raised in religion. Ive studied it. I'm a student of history, and religion surrounds me and influences my culture. Why wouldn't I talk about it?
BTW, I don't believe someone tries to convert u 3 times a week. Do u have any proof of this? I am from the Bible belt and we don't talk about Jesus that much! lol
I work with a fundamentalist evangelical, 3 Baptists and 5 Catholics. Whether you believe me or not doesn't change the fact that it's true :-)
Same goes for my beliefs and others like me, so we can stop the needless "intelligent conversations" and u and other atheists can stop asking for proof. Now, don't you feel better that we cleared that all up?
That is fine but some Christians are calling other Christinas atheists and that is NOT right. Don't judge! THAT IS THE POINT.
Don't be asking people to believe something unless you have proof of the thing you are asking people to believe in. We have never seen proof and that is why we don't believe. Believers are the ones saying that they have this so-called proof.
I'm not going to stop having conversations just because you think they're pointless. I learn and grow and gain understanding from them. Maybe you don't, which would make them pointless for you, not me.
Fair enough J. I challenge u 2 write a Hub that lists the positive things u have learned from others about religion. Let's c if u can walk the walk or if u r just blowing hot air. Deb & lel, did I do those things 2 u? ok don't lump every1 n2 1 la
Did I specifically say you in my comment? No I did not. There ae a few pple here that do that and then claim that we no nothing about what we r talking about, when they cannot provide proof.
Then u should address ur comments 2 those that say those things to u. Not 2 moderates.
Sure, once you write a hub on the positive things you've learned from atheists and those of every belief that is not your own. this may come as a shock, but I don't answer to you or particularly care if you think I'm blowing hot air or not.
No. I never said I learned anything positive from atheists. I actually said "I don't care" in my answer 2 the question, so why would I waste my time? Also, u answer a challenge w/ a challenge that proves u r not sincere, which means u r trolling.
Whatever you say. :-) life's really easy when you put all the responsibility and accusations on others so you don't have to shoulder any yourself. Again, I don't answer to you and your opinion of me really couldn't matter to me less. Bye :-)
U want 2 talk to me about putting accusations on others? Didn't u do that when u first commented on MY answer? R u the pot or the kettle? lol
I made no accusations against you. Perhaps you should read it again. If believers seek out the conversion of non believers, they have to be able to show that what they're saying is true. I'm not sure how that can be seen as an accusation.
U were accusing others of trying to convert u to what they believe.
Is that an accusation or a statement of fact? People do try to convert me. They do it because they day that's what their beliefs mandate they do. That's a far cry from telling someone who disagrees with you that they're a troll or inventing intent
So, u said a fact. I made an accusation. This is like being married! lol I actually proved my point of why u r here, so I am stating facts, too. U had ur chance 2 prove me wrong, but u didn't take it.