28-02-2002 19:37									#1
	... Therefore God does not exist. Tired of ads?

It was funny to read all the possible justifications an atheist can find in a theist argument about the existence of God.

Off course, most of them are only funny elaborations without any shred of reality, but some of them are indeed used.

It was enlightening to see how easy they can be ridiculed by those who do not believe in the existence of God.

I've always been thought that God exists, i've in many occasions tried to understand wheter or not I could reason His existence. It is part of the dominant culture in my country, my parents believe in it, but i've, in many ocasions tried to understand how could I explain something assuming that God does not exist.

The chalenge I pose here to all atheists is to try and prove, through reason, logic and known facts that God does not exist.

Anyone care to give it a try?

	28-02-2002 19:45									#2
	Got spare money?

Civnation exists.
Therefore God does not exist.

	28-02-2002 19:57									#3
	Got spare money?

Eli: Sid is God.
Therefore God must exist.

	28-02-2002 19:59									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The main argument is that gos is like a pink unicorn living on the dark side off the moon, you cannot prove his existance nor disapprove it, as his is so huge a term that there is no point in doing so where he exists or not - the term god is out of our reality and we cannot use any means available to us to prove him or dissaprove him. The @theory of everything@ still does not exist therefore God might exist, but if he is for all purposes in life as elusive as the pink unicorn than he might just as well not exist.vAt least modern science does not need god for any of its axioms. Therefore atheists think that God indeed might not exist. They might be wrong however, but that is not the issue, you cannot see any works of god on this earth that cannot be explained conventionally (or at least to be beieved to be outside present scope of understanding) is the normally the idea that is believed in nowdays in the west.

	28-02-2002 19:59									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

Bananas exist

	28-02-2002 20:01									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

how do you know that?

you can eat a banana

	28-02-2002 20:16									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Bananas exist

Next thread:

Logical Realist with "The Solipsist's Banana"

	28-02-2002 20:18									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Zopperoni Next thread: Logical Realist with "The Solipsist's Banana"

I might actually read that one.

	28-02-2002 20:34									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If a banana who has grown on banana tree unnoticed, then falls on the soil because getting too spoiled (still unnoticed) and finally turn to dust and oblivions (always unnoticed).

Has those Banana really existed ?

	28-02-2002 20:43									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Don't be an idiot- you cannot argue the existance of banana by using the presumption of his existance

	28-02-2002 20:48									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ifd we want to refute the existance of Bananas we have to prove that their existence are absurd !



How to begin ?

	28-02-2002 20:50									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

OneFoot in the Grave:

I agree with you.
In what science is concerned, questions should not be answered in the ways so many times defended by the once dominant Catholic Church:

How does it work?
It works like this:... (then stating what was establish, usually by tradition and not by any clear biblical writing or whatever. certainly not by science)

Why?
Because God wanted to, and one should not question God's ways.

There is no theological reason why we should not investigate further God's Creation. If in the process we find out that Adam and Eve is just an story with a message, thank God for that. Of course this is current doctrine, not always followed, by the way.

For me, it is just as dificult to prove with all certainty that God exists as it is that God doesn't exist. What I really dislike is that, by failing to present a satisfying proof of Gods existence, those that believe in God have to endure the mockery of those that do not believe it. Even if when they haven't themselves a solid proof or reasoning that clears all doubt about their argument.
I mean, we are all equally rationally-capable individuals. If there was such a clear reason we would be most likelly to proclaim it.

	28-02-2002 20:55									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

For me those who "Believe" and does who not "Believe" are generally at the same level.
When a member laught at the members of the other groups, that is just that isn't really convinced to believe in the right things.
Those who have the truth Faith don't care about those puny rethorical fights.

	28-02-2002 21:36									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

--"Anyone care to give it a try?"

No. You can't prove a negative. Asking people to try is just silly at best (if you don't know exactly what you're asking), or petty and childish (if you do know).

The burden of proof is on those who claim he does exist, not on those who claim he doesn't. If he doesn't interact with our reality in any way, then for all intents and purposes, he does not exist (that pink unicorn theory that's already been mentioned).

If he does interact, then surely you've got evidence...

In the end this, for me, comes down to Ockham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity) and Rand's Razor (which changes entities to concepts and adds nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity). Until I see evidence to the contrary, the simpler explanation is that there is not a god, and it is the more likely case.

Wraith
"Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the Creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying."
-- Dr Pepper

Last edited by Wraith on 28-02-2002 at 21:47

	28-02-2002 21:43									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: For me, it is just as dificult to prove with all certainty that God exists as it is that God doesn't exist. What I really dislike is that, by failing to present a satisfying proof of Gods existence, those that believe in God have to endure the mockery of those that do not believe it. Even if when they haven't themselves a solid proof or reasoning that clears all doubt about their argument. I mean, we are all equally rationally-capable individuals. If there was such a clear reason we would be most likelly to proclaim it.

I wouldn't claim that all Christians use arguments like those on Therefore, God exists. Most don't really try to promote or construct a logical argument, they "just believe".

But, when attempts to actually construct an argument keep going awry: well, it certainly suggests there's a fundamental obstacle to all such proofs, and the nonexistence of God is a very good example of such an obstacle.

One of the arguments against the existence of God is the Problem of Nonbelief: if there is an omnipotent God who wants us to accept and worship him, why is this not obvious? Why are there "unbelievers"? Superman is a fictional example of a non-omnipotent but fairly powerful being who has no difficulty convincing people that he exists: why can't God do that?

Possible answers:

1. God is incapable of demonstrating his existence to all.
2. God is unwilling to demonstrate his existence to all.
3. God does not exist.

In the case of the Biblical God, there are Biblical verses which indicate that God has both the power and the desire to reveal his existence to all. Therefore these indicate the nonexistence of the Biblical God.

Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief

	28-02-2002 21:55									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

(edited: Previously directed to the wrong guy)
Bodyless

I can remember another possible answer:
God, altough He would like you to believe, made it possible that you don't:
- By not giving you full knowledge of everything
- By generally only hinting His existence.

Also, the Biblical God didn't established any particular deadline for people to get to know Him. And you will find in the Bible plenty of references to the fact that no-one (other than Jesus, and that is in the New Testament) really knows God in all His reality. How can, such a statement be coherent with the notion that God really want us to know Him? The point in the answer to such a question rests of the When and of the How. And that, the Bible is not the least clear about.

Believing in an afterlife also helps a bit, when a Christian tries to reason with the question of When and How.

Last edited by Ecowiz Returns on 28-02-2002 at 22:33

	28-02-2002 22:10									#17
	I'll give it a try... Support Apolyton

1. Proof through Generalized Incompetent Worship (I)
1) All Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition.
2) Therefore, all Christians are lackwits.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

2. Proof through Generalized Incompetent Worship (II)
1) All Christians are responsible for the Crusades.
2) Therefore, all Christians are lackwits.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

3. Proof through Generalized Incompetent Worship (III)
1) Fundamentalist Christians are dumb.
2) Therefore all Christians are dumb.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

4. Proof through Fundamentalism (I)
1) The Bible contradicts itself in several places.
2) Therefore the entire Bible is wrong.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

5. Proof through Fundamentalism (II)
1) A lot of Christians do not literally interpret the Bible.
2) They're not allowed to pick and choose which passages are relevant.
3) Therefore all Christians who do not literally interpret the Bible must be hypocrites.
4) Therefore God does not exist.

6. Proof through Putting God to the Test
1) If God exists, then He should prove his existence to me.
2) God has not proved His existence to me.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

7. Proof through Burden of Proof (I)
1) I believe that there is no God.
2) You cannot prove my belief wrong.
3) The burden of proof lies on you.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

8. Proof through Burden of Proof (II)
1) You believe that there is a God.
2) You cannot prove that your belief is correct.
3) The burden of proof lies on you.
4) Therefore God does not exist.


That's all I can think of for now...

	28-02-2002 22:13									#18
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Wraith In the end this, for me, comes down to Ockham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity) and Rand's Razor (which changes entities to concepts and adds nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity). Until I see evidence to the contrary, the simpler explanation is that there is not a god, and it is the more likely case.

I have no evidence that Wraith exists, therefore I must apply Occam's Razor and assume that he does not exist.

Silly argument

	28-02-2002 22:55									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I always liked Hume personally, take a look at his essay "On Miracles," its not light reading but its worth taking a look at:
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/D...OfMiracles.html

	28-02-2002 22:57									#20
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"Anyone care to give it a try?" No. You can't prove a negative.

Oh yes I can, lots and lot's of times.
In fact, usually it is much easier to find proof of not existence than of existence.
Like the one: I never experienced the existence of God, therefore He doesn't exist.

quote: Originally posted by Wraith Asking people to try is just silly at best (if you don't know exactly what you're asking), or petty and childish (if you do know). The burden of proof is on those who claim he does exist, not on those who claim he doesn't. If he doesn't interact with our reality in any way, then for all intents and purposes, he does not exist (that pink unicorn theory that's already been mentioned). If he does interact, then surely you've got evidence...

Oh but I have evidence! Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in.
Evidence that comes from the testimony given on the words and actions of one Man that coherently demonstrated the He could be the Son of God. I also have evidence on the words and actions of those who followed Him, particularly after His death, when no particular rational reason can explain why they would keep, follow and proclaim the words and actions of someone that suffered the most humiliating death in the Roman Empire.
Of course, I believe those men and women, and those who wrote their testimonies were honest. Therefore I believe them.

Atheists, however choose not to regard those testimonies as truthfull. I don't understand why.

quote: Originally posted by Wraith In the end this, for me, comes down to Ockham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity) and Rand's Razor (which changes entities to concepts and adds nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity). Until I see evidence to the contrary, the simpler explanation is that there is not a god, and it is the more likely case.

Entities are not to be multiplied nor integrated .
By how much are we multiplying God?
With what is God being integrated?

If there is no need for God, why are so many of our questions still answered based upon His existence?

	28-02-2002 23:22									#21
	Suffering from ads?

Incidentally, arguments 8, 15-17, 24, 31, 53, 55, 57, 61, 64, and many others, from the "Therefore, God exists" thread can be easily turned whoppsie-daisie.

Proof through Prissiness:

1. In the Bible, God does lots of bad stuff.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Bad Stuff:

1. There's a lots of bad stuff happening in the world.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Ageism:

1. Lots of little children believe to God.
2. Therefore, losing faith in God must be part of growing up.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Ageism, part II
1. Lots of old people believe in God.
2. Therefore, belief in God must come from fear of death.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Karl Marx:

1. Religion is the opium of masses.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Ayn Rand:

1. A=A. Rationality.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Liberalism:

1. Many conservatives are Christian.
2. I'm liberal.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Too-Easiness:

1. There's still a lot of stuff science can't explain.
2. However, using God to explain them would be too convenient.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

	28-02-2002 23:53									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang I always liked Hume personally, take a look at his essay "On Miracles," its not light reading but its worth taking a look at: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/D...OfMiracles.html

Thanks
It's reallly difficult to read, particularly for a someone not that proficient in English.
But it is very interesting reading.
It has strong arguments against an acritical acceptance of testimonies which are important to ponder and afirms that only through Faith can one assert the existence of God. These were, at least, the arguments that I found more interesting, on this first skim over the text.
Thanks again.

	01-03-2002 00:21									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

there is no direct evidence for God, whether the biblical God or any other.

There is, however, some direct evidence for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. After all, if I put a tooth under my pillow and there *is* a quarter there the next morning. Therefore, children who believe in the tooth fairy are more rational in that belief than are adults who believe in God.

Believing that there is no God (of any type -- obviously there is no Christian God) is just as irrational as believing there is a God. Some people seem to be using the irrationality of atheism as support for their equally irrational belief in God.

In general, you'd all do well just to ask Jack the Bodiless his opinions and adopt them as best you can. In my years here he has always been unassailably rational on this issue.

	01-03-2002 00:43									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

When it comes to debates about God's existance I try to forget religion, dogma and beleif entirely. It detracts from the facts.

I think more relevant questions go along the lines of "Why is nature the way it is?". If the ultimate axiomatic answer is "just because", it is as unsatisfactory an answer as saying "because God made it that way". All you do is replace "God" with "Science".

If you believe that science will lead to our ultimate understanding of axiomatic laws, then you are believing we shall one day be omniscient and therefore be our own virtual Gods - for any God would understand His creation.

	01-03-2002 01:49									#25
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I believe in the natural way the universe, solar system, and the earth were formed.

I also believed that life on Earth was not created by God, but through evolution.

But, I do believe that God chose humans as the creatures who would receive his gift of the soul and spirit.

In essence, I believe that while God was not the creator of anything, he gave humans the gift of soul and spirit.

	01-03-2002 02:00									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Oh but I have evidence! Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in. Of course, I believe those men and women, and those who wrote their testimonies were honest. Therefore I believe them.

See, one of the problems with the NT, is that they were written after Jesus died. How do we know they didn't embellish the truth? If they embillished the truth, how hard is it to think that they may have added false things?

Also, none of those miracles have been recreated. If you can claim that they have happened, then I may as well claim I can see ghosts, only, noone can be around while I do it.

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. God created a good world (being all together good, he couldn't do anything but)
4. There is evil

or alternately

1. In the beggining there was only God (and nothing)
2. God created the world out of nothing
3. You cannot get anything from nothing
4. God does not exist

	01-03-2002 02:07									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: You cannot get anything from nothing

I would disagree and there is such a thing as a free lunch.

	01-03-2002 02:28									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How pray tell, do you get anything from nothing?

If it is nothing, by definition, there isn't anything there. It's not like you have an empty banl account, you don't have a bank account at all.

	01-03-2002 02:47									#29
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Many scientists and other technocrats are virulently atheist and anti-theist while hypocritically embracing natural philosophy uncritically. The true intellectual path is to be open-minded about both God and science, because neither can be taken as absolute. Equal chaos ensues under technocracy and theocracy.

	01-03-2002 02:52									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Zopperoni Next thread: Logical Realist with "The Solipsist's Banana"

Banana Solipsist - could almost be a kind of ice lolly

Why bother considering God as feasible? The concept is a completely arbitrary and artificial one, and it is amazing why so much time and life has been wasted on it in the history of mankind