This famous quote originated from a French singer/composer/musician called Serge Gainsbourg corresponds to my idea of God. Any thoughts as for the rightfulness of his quote?
Rightfulness? I do believe it is the most likely scenario. Man also created the tooth fairy and the unicorn and the pizza. I do believe God and Santa were created by man to keep us in line. God and Santa are very much the same, always watching and judging. Both will know if you were good or bad. Both are also fictitious.
Ok...Just what is this BS that Santa isn't real...I am gonna need some evidence to back that claim up...
To add, Santa for children and god for grown-up children.
Jomine, you are the kind of joker who can keep me entertained for hours! Why do you throw candy like this? Just to make the little ones run, maybe? Tut tut.
The analogy is false. God limits the human being in his mental development, Santa doesn't.
On the contrary, it is the limited mental development(or the unwillingness to be mature) that create the need for god. It is 'not' god who is limiting, but the humans themselves.
I meant with all the interdictions praised in the bible or all religious books, the human being that has natural needs and behaviors will be consciously repressed and limited. The one who adopts any religious precepts will mentally be inferior in the sense that he will be trapped in their dogmas.
A man without religion won't be subjected to those dogmas and therefore be freer. If he wants to have sex with 5 women at the same time, he will satisfy his fantasies whereas the religious one will enforce the principles he lives for. It is an illusion to believe that god doesn't limits the human being and that we are responsible of our own imprisonment. In that case why to force women to be virgin before their wedlock?
Maxie, I think you just splattered your credibility all over the bedsheets!
Is it your best shot? So far, you never sustained a valid argumentation! It is easy to critize without advancing a counter argument!
Too late, Max! The coconut's been cracked and the juice has poured; you can't stuff it back in. You ran a good bluff though; I would never have suspected your track to have been that close to the ground.
It was fun while it lasted, buddy. Good luck to ya!
No, you have mistaken me, may be I was not clear.
When I said humans are limiting and not god, I didn't mean god exist.
Let us examine our age, a man is free to think for himself or can believe what others told him. But most people choose to believe others, why? Because it easy, more comfortable and need less work. Again they do not have to take responsibility if anything goes wrong and can always blame god or fate or anything but themselves.
So they just put the name of god as a justification to whatever they do and to remain in their respective situations.
So a man has to first choose, and god has nothing to do with it.
Jomine, you are a genius. I've been trying to get at Max's motivations for two days. You did it with one deft post. You sly devil!
Max Planck, one of the fathers of quantum physics, is known for making an observation something like, matter exists by virtue of a force which brings it into existence. He is often quoted as saying, "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
I am comfortable living in the assumption that Max Planck knew considerably more about the nature of existence than I do.
Belief in God has very little to do with intelligence. There are equally intelligent people who do not believe in God. Why not take their word for it?
There is no doubt in my mind that you see a connection between my comment and yours. I, regrettably, do not.
Oh, I see. Are you saying you are not smart enough to see connections? Is this why you feel you need to believe what someone else does because they are smart? I think you are smart enough to think for yourself. There are smart people who don't believe in God and there are smart people who do. One has very little to do with the other. So making the claim that because Max Planck understands quantum physics and believes in God then you believe in God because Max Planck says so shows lack of thought.
Did you follow?
My perception of you at the moment is that you are behaving in an unnecessarily antagonistic manner. The was no intent to injure in my reply.
You offered Serge Gainsbourg in your OP as an authoritative figure to support your view. I responded by offering Max Planck as an equally authoritative figure to support an alternative view. I do not understand what there is in that exchange to elicit rancor from you.
If you care to respond, could you please do so without the anger?
There was no anger intended. I did not offer Serge Gainsbourg in the OP that must have been someone else. Your comment seemed to me like you could not understand my statement and I think you can and do. Perhaps there was some confusion, but please forgive me if I sounded angry.
Now that I have looked all the way to the top of the page, I see that you are not The OP. Therefore, a large portion of the responsibility lies with me. There is no apology necessary from you; instead it is I who should and does offer the apology. We did get our wires crossed. Thank you for responding as you did.Now the conversation can continue!
You were saying, I believe, that God and Santa are inventions of humanity. I agree that as God has been presented, at least by Christianity, for much of recorded history, there is quite a large portion of fantasy in the mix. However, I do like to ponder notions that there is a Supreme being of some kind at the foundation of existence.
Why? Is it because you like the idea of a Supreme loving being or is it because you have evidence of one? Just because you want there to be a God so you can go to heaven and live forever does't make it so. I want to be 6 feet tall with a full head of hair, but the reality is less appealing. Do I pretend I'm 6 feet tall with a full head of hair? Reality sucks, but it's better than wearing a wig and lifts. The idea of God causes many more questions than answers. Where did God come from? Wouldn't a compassionate God end suffering? Why does God need praise? Is he narcissistic? The religious don't want you to ask such questions because you may end up seeing reality.
I don't "believe" in the existence of a Supreme Being as such. I do, however, have a deep inner sense that the life we witness in everyday experience may not be all there is to existence.
Such an inner sense take us into the realm of spirituality, a realm which science acknowledges as being present in the human experience but for which science has yet to find conclusive evidence of its existence from a rational perspective. There are scientists, however, who see room for spirituality in humanity's quest for knowledge and see recent discoveries in quantum theory as possible connections between objective and subjective observations.
Note that I am not making claims for any absolute; I am instead making comment on existence as a field of possibilities. In the field of possibilities, as you may guess, there are no limits. Science has admitted that the telescope has yet to reveal limits and the microscope has fared no better.
The controlled high-speed collision of quarks has revealed nothing - no thing - at their core. In that revelation lies the possibility that spirituality may be in a legitimate position to speak in the world of science.
Why does it have to be a being why couldn't Nature be the ultimate intelligence.
No one has yet found a way to express God in human parlance. I agree that Nature is representative of God but, in accordance with ideas that I find most interesting, is not all there is to God. I find it amusing to contemplate that the creature, given a thimble's content from the ocean of consciousness, has the audacity to assume that it has invented the creator.
I'm comfortable in the fact that he knows better in matter of quantum physics, however in matter of the existence of a supra intelligence, he used an assumption.
It doesn't mean that I am an inferior thinker given his assumption is based upon nothing.
If your life experience has led you to conclude that there is no God, then you are right. If my life experience has led me to conclude that there probably is a God, then I am also right. I don't see a reason for our respective views to become a device for measuring the quality of our thinking.
Then objectively, reason and rationale are not part of your thinking process. You can't refer to god as a being and keep a clean-cut reasoning. When a plant stays without water for few days and suddenly it revives thanks to the rain, you can't explain it by god's intervention.
Everything on earth has a rational explanation even if our knowledge of science is limited. But to associate it to god is to acknowledge our limitation.
Your opening sentence is as incendiary as it is incorrect. You are judging my thinking process based on the structure of your own thinking process. That, I believe, betrays an interesting absence of objectivity, reason and rationale on your part.
The rest of your post creates no distress in my mind. The scientific explanation of how things work is a report of what has happened. Science reports; it does not create. What happens between now and the next moment comes from the field of infinite potential and is unknown because the factors that will influence it are as yet unknown. Science is aware of this field but has no explanation for it. And, to my knowledge at this time, no scientist has yet claimed to be its inventor.
No, your thinking process is based on thinking processes and has nothing to do with one person, and is absent of objectivity, reason and rationale. That was the point made.
Strawman arguments based on false premises.
This comment, which I consider to be condescending and laden with bait for contention, is of no interest to me. So, sorry, Troubled Man, this fish ain't bitin'.
Sorry, but you can't both be right. You've made a positive claim for the existence of God and since there is no evidence whatsoever for any gods and your so-called "life experience"is just your own projection of your beliefs, you most likely are wrong.
I think it is easier to demonstrate through our daily experiences the inexistency of god versus its existence! For once, it would be nice to give the earth or Nature the credit to the evolution of our world .
Hi, Troubled Man. So you want to jump into this little mud puddle and stir the waters some more? I'm finished with the conversation for the most part, but I thought I should at least acknowledge your response.
On the subject of personal experience, I am not fond of telling another person he is wrong outright; I generally give allowance that he is probably right in the context of his personal view of things. And from that perspective, so am I.
That's what I was telling Max. Max cannot prove that there is no god and I cannot prove that there is one. Since there is no proof one way or the other, Max will find "proof" to satisfy himself that his view is correct and I will do the same for me. Comprendez vous?
This does seem like a perfectly reasonable statement, until you realize it's up to the person making the statement in the first place to supply the proof. If you say there is a God you must supply evidence to back up your claim. I could say that the earth was created by giant beetles, but I would have to back up my claim. You can't prove that giant beetles didn't create the earth, but you don't have to, I have to supply the evidence.
So, your statement that we can't disprove each other is invalid because you have to supply the evidence for your statement.
I know you like to show off your debating skills, Rad Man. You always do good work, too. You're missing the point here, though. I wasn't attempting to prove anything. I thought I was entering a conversation with Max but it turned out he just wanted to air a pet opinion. I wasn't interested in being his foil so I attempted to leave the conversation on a pleasant note. Max didn't get it and now I find myself dodging arrows from all you warriors as I try to find the door.
Well thanks. I think that was actually an intended complement. I haven't had one of those in a while. I've been called a bunch of choice names lately the least of which was childish. I never ever mean any harm, I'm always just trying to articulate my thoughts. Carry on.
Yup, it was a compliment; I have witnessed you holding your own in a debate more than once. I don't necessarily agree with the things you say (I'm often suspicious that YOU don't necessarily agree with the things you say!) but I admire your tenacity and ability to stay on point.
In this case, my opponents are trying to convince me that there is no god while I am trying to convince them that I believe they are entitled to their view. At the same time, I am making the declaration that I am entitled to my view, and further, that the point is moot since there is no proof either way. The lads on the other side are choosing to throw around tired old rhetoric instead of meeting me on that point.
I should also point out that I argued for the existence of god from a perspective of probability. The other side is arguing for non-existence as an absolute. So, while I am a seeker open to new ideas, they are zealots interested only in propagating their preset views.
Yes, I understand. You have just put forth a compelling argument for evidence to support a claim as opposed to personal experience because you both can't be right. Well done.
Unfortunately though, you don't follow your own argument while Max was attempting to point that out.
I hope god is more fortunate than to depend on 'people's life experience' for his existence.
Jomine, you're sneaky devil and I admire the cleverness with which you bait your hooks. I know you know the comment you responded to wasn't about the existence of god, so I appreciate your effort to draw me out. Good work.
I'm trying to respond to the brothers here in a spirit of camaraderie but they keep drawing their sabres. When they do that, I begin to think that they're just Christian soldiers who've been eating from the bowl of another dogma. They're flogging a horse that's been dead for so long it's practically a fossil. I'm sure you're aware that the conversation regarding the essence of life and the nature of reality moved beyond the framework represented here quite some time ago.
If men created god, then instantly there is proof.
Man can only create from what already exists -be it tangible or intangible- objects, thoughts, etc.
Hi James. Is this bait to get Mark Knowles off your Hub? LOL!
No, man created the unicorn and the tooth fairy. There was a time when these things did not exist and now they do or at least the concept does.
Umm, yeah, about that:
Unicorns existed -archeologists have unearthed reptilian creatures with single horns.
Granted the fables add rainbows and wings. As for fairies, well, I have seen enough of Village to confirm their existence, in part. Not sure about the dentistry side. And yes, Santa Claus did exist, although his caucus name of Nikolai, was changed and added to his kindness a story of a light speed chariot, drawn by deer, that delivers gifts one day per year to the world. Well nearly two days to be precise, as the same day falls twice on the planet.
Unicorns existed? Sure single horned mammals still exist (Narwhal), but not a single horned horse with special powers.
Fairies do not exist and I won't take your word for it.
Does the Santa Claus that lives forever and knows who is bad or good exist?
Santa and God are so much alike. Both are fables, both may have started from some truths and both have been exaggerated to be God like creatures and both are lies.
Hey listen, incase your interested I've got some prime real estate available in the southern Florida region at a bargain price. You seem like the perfect mark, ahhh I mean person to take advantage of this exceptional deal. No need to see the land for yourself, just send me a big cheque and it's all yours.
Shakes head. Do you people have any sense of humor...at all?
A guy has to tell you he is being sarcastic, before the joke is told.
Any tighter wound and both sides of Theos are gonna pop out a diamond.
But then they'd start fighting over that too.
Hey, I never know anymore. I had some poise the question "if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys, why didn't they become humans too". I wanted to go Ha aha aha ah. But if she was at all serious it would be insulting and that's not my thing. People do believe in ghosts and such, I just thought you were one of those. Sarcasm needs to be cranked way up in these forums. I just reread your post and got it. Sarcasm, from one of my favourite comedians in Caddy Shack. "looks good on you though (eyes roll)".
I do believe man created god. He was created to keep humans in line. The Bible is clearly only a work if fiction from a time where women were worth less than men and considered their property. The ten commandments don't apply to women, only to men (don't covet thy neighbor's wife, it never mentions husband)
If man didn't exist, who would be asking the question?
man hasn't yet created god.
lots of blueprints tho.
god save us we build this invention to scale .
Which cause is your tirade supporting? Your argumentation has noting rational. Am I supposed to debate you?
Listen so far religions were created by men. Priests created god associated to its fear to control men. When Copernicus asserted that the earth was round the clergy and its inquisition refuted his allegations thus showing a lack of objectivity. Since it was proving that he was right. Had we believed the pope, we would be plunged in obscurantism still.
I'm judging your thinking process through a rational standpoint. And how dare you say oh, through my life experience I met god. It is a joke. I can ask you, where are the evidence of your allegation? I would use my reasoning capacity to criticize the rationalization of your thought. What made sense to you doesn't in my eyes. What about saying I experienced a spiritual journey that made me connect with another dimension! It would be more believable than your personal meeting with god.
And once again, it's not because a 1000 ago, people named what they did not understand because they were uneducated (only priest had access to knowledge) that in 2012 we still make god relevant in our existence. With our easy access to knowledge, I hardly believe that people can still pray for any divine intervention. What a joke!
Every christmas, Santa came at my place as a child. Then I realized it was my parents. I grew up.
I don't see in what way the combination of all elements constituating our solar system can't self-regulate without a man-made blessing! Billions years ago it worked well without us!
Santa came to you house as a child? Wow, I really wish I had been there to see that. And then the child became your parents? That's a miracle! See? there really is a God!
Congratulations on growing up.
As for the rest of your emotional outburst, I really don't know what you're talking about. I guess you really didn't read my posts. If you did, you're tendency to project your own thoughts onto other people is more advanced than I thought.
Let me clarify it for you god is not nature. Nature is nature. He doesn't express himself through nature because he doesn't exist. Nature is tangible. God is not. It is an ideal representation of yourself. If a plant can appear on a land thanks to the synergy of the elements composing earth so as human beings. Why couldn't the agency of the world come from the intelligence of Nature? It has its own organization, its interdepence, its laws... To limit it to god it is to deny the power of Nature.
Tribes believed that volcanoes in eruption were the expression of god's wrath, science came and liberated us from feudal belief. God has nothing to do in the conception of earth or of our cosmos.
Okay, Max. Thank you for clarifying things for me; I'm grateful for your attention.
I must warn you, though, that I'm a really slow student. As I wander along in my befuddled state, I'll ponder the non-existence of the god who so vividly exists in your mind. I promise, I'll puzzle daily over the contradiction of the non-existent entity that so persistently nags at your consciousness.
But don't worry now, Max. You've done an amazingly great deed today. As slow as I am, there's no doubt that the clear picture you've painted of god's non-existence will one day emerge in my foggy mind in all its brilliance and glory.
Best wishes to you as you carry out your mission to enlighten the world.
You see that's the difference between you and I. My reality is rough. I don't live in a fantasy and poetic world "As I wander...befuddled state". Are you the new Rasputin? I don't have time to waist to ponder on the inexistency of god. The world doesn't need me to enlighten it.
I often wonder who is the most troubled, those who believe in something that doesn't exist or those who are offended by something that doesn't exist.
Hi Repairguy! You do have a way of putting your finger on the pulse of things. Would you agree that the problem in this conversation is that we are failing to identify exactly what it is that doesn't exist?
Between praying and babbling, your explanation is quite limited! By a lack of argumentation. It's so much easier to hide behind nonsense!
Hi Niteriter, I hope you're well, too. Having read all the comments, and as an atheist, I think the position you've adopted makes absolute sense.
That's what I was telling Max. Max cannot prove that there is no god and I cannot prove that there is one. Since there is no proof one way or the other,
The reality of this statement often infuriates my fellow atheists, because it's true!
I do believe your shirt is intact.
It is such a relief when you finally show up to defend me! Now that you've preserved my shirt I am indebted to you for life. But then, if our soulmate deal is still intact I guess there'll be many opportunities to repay you.
Was merely defending a logical and thoughtful position.
Our soul mate deal is still intact. Nevertheless, I feel it is only fair to point out that as our journey thorough HP and life progresses, and you get to know me better, you'll feel that shirt was damn expensive.
Oh I think I just went through this with Niteriter. And yes I does upset Atheists, but not because of why you think it does. It's because if someone makes a claim (like God created everything) then the burden of proof is up to that person. So it's up to believers to prove the existence of God, not up to no-believes to disprove God's existence. Example: If I claim giant beetles created the earth 50 years ago it would be up to me to prove it, not you to disprove it, because I could disprove all the evidence for an older earth by saying the beetles planted those fossils to confuse us or some such thing. I one makes a claim it's up to that group to supply proof for that claim.
Well, firstly Rad Man, and to be fair, you don't really know what I was thinking, do you?
Secondly, I really dislike that stance. It's a way of relieving all atheists of any responsibility when it comes to evidence, empirically or otherwise. I openly confess to being an atheist, and as soon as I make that statement, I'm making a statement about my *beliefs*. Interestingly, the only time I'm asked for evidence which supports my beliefs is when I challenge the religionistas about theirs. You can chip away at a theory, but you cannot replace it with another theory which is equally unqualified.
If you are finding flaws in religious beliefs, that's fine, I do. However, it is tautology to suggest that just because theory a(religion) is deeply flawed, theory b (atheism) is a truism. Both are unqualified.
Really? I would make the assumption that you are making a statement about your understanding, not your beliefs. If it were your beliefs, they probably wouldn't have any credibility.
I can see that you don't have any credibility as an intellectual.
My understanding leads to my beliefs. And your right, beliefs, just like opinions, have little credibility when they stand alone. Just as I believe it is absurd to say that god existed and had powers akin to that of superman, I also find it absurd to say that a bloke named god, jesus or the spaghetti monster never existed with absolute certainty. They may well have, but I doubt very much they walked on water, will invite us into the kingdom of heaven if we follow them, or could feed 5k with just a couple of fish.
Did men create god, or the illusion of his superpowers?
And if Mary ever really existed, she was no virgin!
Thanks for that, you reminded me of the way I once thought. I would often say "There is no God, but how can I say that for certain and expect others to admit they can't say there is a God for certain".
I think that uncertainty was brought on by all my years in Catholic school. I became a bit diplomatic, because I keep think "I'm okay, you're okay" and if you're okay your thoughts are valid.
I still think "I'm okay, you're okay" but I think they may be okay, but lied to, even though it may have been an unintentional lie.
I agree. I don't necessarily think their thoughts are valid or invalid, just not the same as mine. A religious person is willing to have faith in a massive unqualified rumour, and I'm not.
I also believe religion has been used for centuries to control society, it's just seen it's day now that we have CCTV, which just like god is all knowing and seeing.
I think that's why the emphasis on his superpowers is so entrenched in the psyche. If society is convinced that their every action is being watched by an invisible entity, they are far more likely to conform- and therefore, are far easier to control.
I really have no problem with religion if it makes people happy, obedient and hopeful. The problem arises when religious groups try to tell other what is true and right and what is not. When they spread lies that go against known facts to purposely persuade others to do and think as they do. Someone told me the other day that anatomically modern humans have been around for more then 10 millions years because that's what genesis says, and adds that at that time humans were giants and then that that is exactly as palaeontologists have discovered. That is when I say hold on.
I'm with you there. I also find it pretty disturbing when religious groups want to combine church and state, that prospect really frightens me.
Unfortunately, some people find solace in ignorance, they know they're ignorant which is why they wish to pummel us into their way of thinking. It makes them feel better about themselves.
I watch that church and state issue in the state with fascination because we don't have the same problem in Canada. It's pretty much a non-issue as per an elected's religion. Most don't know the Prime Ministers religion and for that matter most don't even know his wife's name. It seems such a big issue in the states.
People associate the creation of our world to god. The fact that Nature suffices to itself to regenerate, to create new species...; The fact that men created god as a certainty, it is enough. Why would I have to prove god's inexistency if men originated him. I just have to accept it as a truism.
Since men created god it belongs to the opposite party to prove the veracity of their assertion that is god does exist.
Gee, Max, when you started off with the idea of Nature regenerating itself, I was hopeful that we had a point to hang our hats on. But then you went and reduced it to rubble again by going back to your same old rhetoric.
I'd be really interested if you could meet me here: Define the entity that you say doesn't exist. I'm looking for your definition, not the one that has been worn threadbare by the Christian belief system.
If it doesn't exist, why would I define it?
Because you brought it up.
Way back at the beginning of this thread you said, " 'Men created god, the rest has to be proven' This famous quote originated from a French singer/composer/musician called Serge Gainsbourg corresponds to my idea of God. Any thoughts as for the rightfulness of his quote?"
The part of your statement that I would like to draw attention to is, "This famous quote... corresponds to my idea of God."
So there you are. You've admitted to possessing an idea of God. And not just any old god either; it's a capital "G" kind of god! I think it would improve this whole conversation if you would describe your idea of god... sorry... God... to us. After doing that, I think it would be more helpful still it you could tell us, in detail related to your description, why your idea does not exist.
Do you see the problem Max? You have an idea of God, an idea burning so intensely in your mind that it spurs you to tell everyone about it. Then you turn around and argue vociferously that your idea does not exist. The general framework of the thing seems rather paradoxical to me.
You don't have to accept anything, that's the point. And, although I do not disagree that there is a strong probability that man created God, I cannot say that that is a certainty, this is your belief system talking here. All further deductions that you are making stem from your belief system. Therefore, you cannot logically conclude that the nonexistence of God is a truism. Tautology.
Good girl, Holly! I have to duck out of here for a couple hours so I'm counting on you to fend off the Philistines while I'm gone. I have complete confidence in you. Good luck!
If it's only a strong probability, you are not an atheist. You have a slight margin left to belief, hence your "I cannot say that that is a certainty". It is your belief system and therefore limited. In that case, given your limitation in your certainty and logically the presence of doubt, how can you ascertain that men created god isn't a truism?
I kinda knew you'd come back with something like that. I'm an atheist because I believe,based on what I've read and personal experience, that the existence of God is highly improbable. Moreover, there is a slight margin for error, rather than belief. I'm aware that belief and faith are two separate entities, however, even if it could be proven that a God did/does exist I'd have to ask myself this question; based on the scriptures and his teachings, would God be someone whom I would have faith in, or believe in? Proving he once existed is not the same as proving that he had super powers or was inherently good. Therefore, I would have to answer that this being would not be someone whom I could have faith in or believe in.
I agree that because I cannot say with absolute certainty that God did/does not exist, my position stems from my belief system. It's because I have reached this conclusion via my belief systems that I can ascertain that men created god isn't a truism. A truism is an obvious AND factually accurate truth. While this may be an obvious truth to you and I, neither of us could say we have irrefutable evidence supporting our positions.
I don't see in what way I couldn't be certain of my belief. The fact that you are doubting on his existence or inexistency doesn't change the fact that in my system of belief his inexistency is factual. As a proof I use what we call mother Nature (will extrapolate with the universe) as the only factor to influence our earth and us. I can ask you what is your proof that none assertion is true? Or can you destroy my example in opposing an example that verifies your system of belief and that will consequently annul mine, and comfort you in your belief. Because so far you are telling me that men created god is not a truism.
Now given that you are doubting you can't bring evidences that will support your opinion and logically you can't counter argument because you are lingering between two believes. Your constant skeptism can't point out an assertive finger at me condemning the truism, men created god.
I'm not, for one minute, saying that you shouldn't be certain of your belief, honestly. It's just that when I challenge the religionistas, I challenge their beliefs and ask them to bring their factual evidence to the table. They don't have factual evidence, not really. Then, I also have to ask myself what factual evidence I have, for my beliefs. I have none, other than pointing out flaws in their beliefs. *Slaps self for the double standards*, as atheists, we can't just keep saying that the burden of proof lies with the Christ/Mohammed/spagetti monster believers.
When we open or barge into forums, or start forums claiming that Christ never existed, or is a human construct, the burden of proof lies with US.
proof I use what we call mother Nature (will extrapolate with the universe) as the only factor to influence our earth and us. I can ask you what is your proof that none assertion is true? Or can you destroy my example in opposing an example that verifies your system of belief and that will consequently annul mine, and comfort you in your belief. Because so far you are telling me that men created god is not a truism.
I will still reiterate that men created god is not a truism, because we do not have factual evidence which indicates so. However, I *believe* that men created god. That doesn't make it a truism. If you have such evidence bring that to the table as opposed to philosophy.
I can ask you what is your proof that none assertion is true? Or can you destroy my example in opposing an example that verifies your system of belief and that will consequently annul mine, and comfort you in your belief.
In the main, my beliefs are pretty much the same as yours, it appears. However, you feel that your irrefutable evidence is the lack of evidence on the part of the religious, and that's all we have. No assertive finger, just fact!
When there is no evidence of the existence of god, scientists proved that the birth of the earth was the conjunction of natural elements. When living microorganisms dated from the ice age can still be found in the ice cap, when the evolution of the animals has its rational explanation as the birth of humanity. To deny it is to go against reason, against science.
Who is "we" when you say "we do not have factual evidence". You speak in the name of a scientific group that stated that men created god is not a truism. You don't have irrefutable proof contradicting that men created god and that it is a truism.
And I can as an atheist assert that men created god because of my belief based upon science. To believe is also to develop critical thinking. Is the explanation that was offered to me by the scientific community rational or not? I still have my own judgement. For you to deny it is to make me inferior and therefore you are superior. You hide behind a protective "we" and you know the truth. It is your sole argument, a bit weak to my taste.
The burden of proof is proper to the judicial therefore incongruous in our discussion.
So, this is actually all about what you yourself can bring to the table in regards to evidence. What about what others can bring that you may not be aware?
The history of religions
The amount of religions
The physical laws of nature
Discoveries of mankind
There IS so much evidence collectively that can show most if not all religions are not valid or credible.
I don't think it infuriates atheists, but it certainly would have atheists sit up and take notice of such a statement.
Of course, it's not really about proof, it's about evidence. And, considering how much evidence there is that not only demonstrates the universe doesn't require or show any gods whatsoever, it would be a logical fallacy to make any such claims. Not only that, it ignores the fact religions have evolved from one to another, precluding the one before it. It ignores the facts science has discovered showing many religious "facts" as being completely bogus. It ignores the fact there are so many different religions with different messages to different people, showing quite clearly religions evolved geographically.
Hence, there is so much information and knowledge acquired that would place the concept of gods to such a ridiculously low probability, we can place them alongside the other religions that once ruled the known world but are now myths.
To give the belief in gods any weight of credibility when compared with our reality or even give it equal weighting to atheism would be disingenuous, at the very least.
You have a big surprise coming. I can't wait to see the look on your face.
I think I've more or less answered this post in my post above. And yes, it is about evidence, but we require evidence to support our theories.
For a troubled man, you did not lose your rationale!
by FootballNut21 months ago
No matter what way you look at it.If God created life, then Satan the devil was born through God's creation, this makes GOD responsible for Satan's existence. So blame GOD for all things bad, instead of just shouting...
by cooldad6 months ago
What if this happened today. All the news networks, all the world leaders, all the scientists, all the leaders of churches announced that it was proven that God does not exist. Proven beyond any reasonable...
by Alexander A. Villarasa15 months ago
There I said it.....for if there is anything at all in the universe that could indirectly prove God's existence, the DNA is it.The Higgs-Boson particle may just be what scientist says it is, the basic unit of all that...
by Retrohawaii6 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
The Copernican Principle as a philosophical notion posits that humans occupy NO privileged or exceptional position in the universe. This has been the prevailing/reigning paradigm of scientific and societal...
by Vapid Maven5 years ago
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.