461 replies to this topic

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 December 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

There is not one peice of evidence which means God cant exist.

That is true simply because you can't prove a negative . . . nice try though!

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 06 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

That is true simply because you can't prove a negative . . . nice try though!

If this was a trial your argument would be thrown out of court because you have no evidence to back up your claim that God isnt real.

However, if we start digging around in philosophy why find logical arguments for the existance of God. We know the arguments are truth because Quantum Mechanics is based on a lot of them. It is a misconception that Buddhism is a religion because its actually a philsophy.

Pantheism is based on the same stuff.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 06 December 2012 - 09:18 PM.

[scowl]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

If this was a trial your argument would be thrown out of court because you have no evidence to back up your claim that God isnt real.

Legal proceedings seek to prove positives not prove negatives. This case wouldn't have even gone to court.

[scowl]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 December 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

There is not one peice of evidence which means God cant exist.

There is absolute proof that nothing can be omnipotent therefore we know that no omnipotent god exists in the Universe.

There has been a preponderance of scientific evidence collected that "God" never have existed as described in the Bible. Religions based on the Bible have been scrambling for centuries to censor, dismiss or explain away the evidence that science has discovered that contradicts its contents.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

If this was a trial your argument would be thrown out of court because you have no evidence to back up your claim that God isnt real.

However, if we start digging around in philosophy why find logical arguments for the existance of God. We know the arguments are truth because Quantum Mechanics is based on a lot of them. It is a misconception that Buddhism is a religion because its actually a philsophy.

Pantheism is based on the same stuff.

I was being kind to you . . . here we go!

Here are 10 slammin' evidences given by an actual attorney:

What are the principle arguments in favor
written by Edward Tabash: Attorney at Law, Honorary Chair, Center for Inquiry-LA


THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN OUR UNIVERSE SHOWS THAT GOD REALLY DOES NOT EXIST

1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist. It’s not just that cows don’t jump over skyscrapers, it’s that they physically can’t. Many believers say that science does not rule out the supernatural. Science applies an empirical method of looking at the evidence in our physical world. Upon examination, the scientific method results in rejecting the supernatural claims of religion the same as it results in ruling out all other paranormal claims. The supposed miracles of the Bible do not have any greater claim on reality than do the claims of UFO abductions. In fact, claims of UFO abductions may be more believable than the supernatural assertions of religion, because a visitation from another planet may not require violation of the laws of nature as do supposed Biblical miracles.

2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now. If miracles occurred in Biblical times, why don’t they occur now? It is highly suspect to claim that all the shock and awe stuff was only performed for the benefit of ancient, primitive people, but denied to us modern folk, today. Miracle claims initially bear witness against themselves, as they claim to violate the very laws of nature that cannot be violated.

3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely. If even Alzheimer’s Disease, or an anesthetic, can totally eclipse consciousness, how much more will self awareness by annihilated by death? Everything we know, all expansions of our field of awareness, come about by sensory input into a physical brain. How can this persist when there is no longer a physical body and brain.

4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World. An all powerful God would be able to get points across and teach lessons and improve our character without placing us in a world of such tremendous suffering. What benefit is there to the Ebola virus that eats away at people’s flesh? Why did we need Auschwitz? Couldn’t something less horrendous have gotten whatever point across that God was trying to make. For God’s existence to be compatible with the evil in the world, there would have to be no occurrence of evil that is gratuitous and beyond justification.

5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World. While one can simultaneously believe in Darwinian evolution and in God, evolution is more likely in a Godless world. Evolution by natural selection is sloppy and wasteful. More than 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. Matches of DNA sequence show that humans and gorillas shared a common ancestor.

6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden. Why is God so stingy with direct evidence? Again, the supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible. Scientific errors in the Bible and its other flaws, including the commanding of atrocities, all make Scripture much harder to believe. A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.

7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right. If God wants us to choose the best mode of either worship or communion, why is there so much reasonable confusion in the world regarding religions? Why do the yogis of India and the Dalai Lama bring back from their meditations a sense of some all-loving cosmic soup, and yet many Christians believe that anyone who tries to approach God, other than through Jesus, will burn in hell eternally? Biblical contradictions also exacerbate the problem of confusion. A loving God should have commissioned a clearer and less confusing Bible.

8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause. As best as we can determine, time and space began with the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no time or space in which sequential causation could have occurred. So, we cannot speak of the universe’s coming into existence as needing a “cause” in the same sense that a tall building in the middle of a city needed a cause.

9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force. Believers claim that the constants in the Universe that made it possible for life to emerge are so unlikely that the stage could not have been set by other than a divine being. However, we have nothing to compare our universe to. We cannot point to a million universes and note that they are lifeless and thus affirm that the appearance of life in our universe was so unlikely that a supernatural force had to jump start it.

10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design. The claim that some biological organisms are irreducibly complex fails to account for the redundant gene, a duplication of an existing gene that can experiment with a new function while the old otherwise identical one continues to do its standard work. The claim that the existence of specifiably complex organisms demonstrates the need for an intelligent designer fails because these can be accounted for by the mutations of natural selection.


BUT! In my opinion THE best evidence for proving that God does not exist is from of His inactions.
There are NO supernatural events happening around us as we speak & breath!

Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

• Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
  
• Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
  
• Look for such evidence with an open mind.
  
• If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
  
• If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.


I won't even go into Professor Richard Dawkins' and his definitive arguments against the existence of a God.


What measly, biased, and unfounded evidence can you put up as defense, Mr. Prosecutor? (oops, isn't that the Judaic title of Satan?)

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

However, if we start digging around in philosophy why find logical arguments for the existance of God. We know the arguments are truth because Quantum Mechanics is based on a lot of them. It is a misconception that Buddhism is a religion because its actually a philsophy.

You've got it ass backwards again. Evidence is the precursor.
Probably why many QM experiments don't support your asinine ramblings.

Edited by Rlyeh, 07 December 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[Mr Walker]

C235, on 06 December 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Joy & sadness are all precious experiences & a necessity balance for survival. As for Rlyeh, He is happy as long as he countinues debating in UM & watching some antiGod cartoons

LOL

I am not so convinced that really painful, debilitating sadness,  that stops a person from being happy, or functioning normally, or drives them to depression and even suicide, is a normal or desirable condition of human life. I  have lived 61 years without ever feeling such pain, or even minor sadness or depression, and if live without it until I die, i will be very happy.

Joy, love, and the good emotions in life, I have always had in abundance, because those are the emotions I choose to recognise and feel.

[Mr Walker]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

I was being kind to you . . . here we go!

Here are 10 slammin' evidences given by an actual attorney:

What are the principle arguments in favor
written by Edward Tabash: Attorney at Law, Honorary Chair, Center for Inquiry-LA


THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN OUR UNIVERSE SHOWS THAT GOD REALLY DOES NOT EXIST

1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist. It’s not just that cows don’t jump over skyscrapers, it’s that they physically can’t. Many believers say that science does not rule out the supernatural. Science applies an empirical method of looking at the evidence in our physical world. Upon examination, the scientific method results in rejecting the supernatural claims of religion the same as it results in ruling out all other paranormal claims. The supposed miracles of the Bible do not have any greater claim on reality than do the claims of UFO abductions. In fact, claims of UFO abductions may be more believable than the supernatural assertions of religion, because a visitation from another planet may not require violation of the laws of nature as do supposed Biblical miracles.

2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now. If miracles occurred in Biblical times, why don’t they occur now? It is highly suspect to claim that all the shock and awe stuff was only performed for the benefit of ancient, primitive people, but denied to us modern folk, today. Miracle claims initially bear witness against themselves, as they claim to violate the very laws of nature that cannot be violated.

3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely. If even Alzheimer’s Disease, or an anesthetic, can totally eclipse consciousness, how much more will self awareness by annihilated by death? Everything we know, all expansions of our field of awareness, come about by sensory input into a physical brain. How can this persist when there is no longer a physical body and brain.

4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World. An all powerful God would be able to get points across and teach lessons and improve our character without placing us in a world of such tremendous suffering. What benefit is there to the Ebola virus that eats away at people’s flesh? Why did we need Auschwitz? Couldn’t something less horrendous have gotten whatever point across that God was trying to make. For God’s existence to be compatible with the evil in the world, there would have to be no occurrence of evil that is gratuitous and beyond justification.

5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World. While one can simultaneously believe in Darwinian evolution and in God, evolution is more likely in a Godless world. Evolution by natural selection is sloppy and wasteful. More than 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. Matches of DNA sequence show that humans and gorillas shared a common ancestor.

6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden. Why is God so stingy with direct evidence? Again, the supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible. Scientific errors in the Bible and its other flaws, including the commanding of atrocities, all make Scripture much harder to believe. A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.

7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right. If God wants us to choose the best mode of either worship or communion, why is there so much reasonable confusion in the world regarding religions? Why do the yogis of India and the Dalai Lama bring back from their meditations a sense of some all-loving cosmic soup, and yet many Christians believe that anyone who tries to approach God, other than through Jesus, will burn in hell eternally? Biblical contradictions also exacerbate the problem of confusion. A loving God should have commissioned a clearer and less confusing Bible.

8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause. As best as we can determine, time and space began with the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no time or space in which sequential causation could have occurred. So, we cannot speak of the universe’s coming into existence as needing a “cause” in the same sense that a tall building in the middle of a city needed a cause.

9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force. Believers claim that the constants in the Universe that made it possible for life to emerge are so unlikely that the stage could not have been set by other than a divine being. However, we have nothing to compare our universe to. We cannot point to a million universes and note that they are lifeless and thus affirm that the appearance of life in our universe was so unlikely that a supernatural force had to jump start it.

10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design. The claim that some biological organisms are irreducibly complex fails to account for the redundant gene, a duplication of an existing gene that can experiment with a new function while the old otherwise identical one continues to do its standard work. The claim that the existence of specifiably complex organisms demonstrates the need for an intelligent designer fails because these can be accounted for by the mutations of natural selection.


BUT! In my opinion THE best evidence for proving that God does not exist is from of His inactions.
There are NO supernatural events happening around us as we speak & breath!

Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

• Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
  
• Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
  
• Look for such evidence with an open mind.
  
• If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
  
• If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.


I won't even go into Professor Richard Dawkins' and his definitive arguments against the existence of a God.


What measly, biased, and unfounded evidence can you put up as defense, Mr. Prosecutor? (oops, isn't that the Judaic title of Satan?)

Unfortunately most of your statements are belief based and factually wrong Eg it depends on your definition but the paranormal and supernatural most certainly are real There are real occurences witnesed and clear tha thave no "normal or natural" explanation, hence for now, they are paranormal or supernatural. Sure they will have a logical explanation when we understand them but at the moment we do not.
Miracles; real, solid, objective and physical, happen today all the time. They are witnessed evidenced and supported by a variety of contextual evidences. again it depends on your definition A miracle is like magic. it is something which happens, perhaps as a result of a technology, but which we have no explaantion for with our current science. Again, as our science evolves we wil be able to understand, then repilicate these miracles.
Modern science has already proven that consciousness is not dependent on a physical brain. It can be stored electronically  it can be transmitted across space, and it can be read by another human being using either implanted electrodes or more recently attachments o n the skin. It can be transmitted to a source to command technologies.

Number 4 assumes a particular form of god; both all seeing and all knowing, but also prepared to keep humans in a childlike state rather than guide them throguh adolescence to adulthood, allowing them even to self destruct if they cannot evolve into a species safe to leave their homeworld.
God is a product of evolution not the creator of it
Human percetion is dependent on individualised human consciousness. Until /unless one becomes one with the cosmic consciousness, one will always percieve god through the filters of ones own experince Because everones experiences differ so do everyones percetions, This is true not just for god but for physical things like cats, How we see, and feel about, a cat depends on many personal factors.
God is not hidden or stingy He is right here, inside us and all around us. Only our failings of perception and attitude hide him from us. And this is as it must be, again, give the nature of human perception. In general god cannot be seen or perceived except by those open to seeing and perceiving him That is not 100% true but generally it is so. Humans are mostly required to believe i god and have faith in him because it is the belief and faith which is important. it is the faith and belief which drives shapes and transforms most humans as much as the physical intervention of god This is a principle of effective parenting also.

I could go on, but have to go and get the cat in.

[Beckys_Mom]

C235, on 06 December 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Yet we can't observe our own world completely. Proving God in science would be like a primitive human looking at the sun. He knew sun existed but how far could he really go in studying it, he couldn't still understand it & this is as far as science would ever hope to go if it is even possible to this extend. yet God may become part of our natural life as words hold no absolute meanings.

I'm not foretelling future. this simply is what i meant when i said science may find God.

Yes, primitive man could observe the sun, but that's all he could do, Given time, look at what we know about the sun now?... What science has been able to observe and study, we have come a long way and continue to go further...  The same goes for God...  If one day we are able to observe god and prove for a fact he exists, then it will just be a matter of time, before we understand more.  

In order for science to prove that god exists, then we must be able to observe god, because of the controversy between religion and athiesm. .Other things in the universe, we know exists without being able to observe them..  We know they exist because we can observe their effects, but with god, he will have to be seen in order to be believed

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 07 December 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[C235]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 December 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Yes, primitive man could observe the sun, but that's all he could do, Given time, look at what we know about the sun now?... What science has been able to observe and study, we have come a long way and continue to go further...  The same goes for God...  If one day we are able to observe god and prove for a fact he exists, then it will just be a matter of time, before we understand more.  

In order for science to prove that god exists, then we must be able to observe god, because of the controversy between religion and athiesm. .Other things in the universe, we know exists without being able to observe them..  We know they exist because we can observe their effects, but with god, he will have to be seen in order to be believed

I already knew you would say that but you should understand that If we could came this far it was because we were blessed with certain capabilities that had allowed us to progress in the world of matter but we certainly have limits to our reach. To understand this limit look around to all these lesser creatures & animals. How much hope is there for them for advancements. They are simply at their limits. unlike us they do not have the ability to craft & use tools nor do they have our brain power. Simply we too do not have what it takes to reach domain of God. Imagine if that primitive human did not have such hands which could allow him to craft & utilities tools to his will. We could spent our life thinking all we like but we would be where we were all alike we could still stare at the sun though. but luckily we have our hands well shaped yet unfortunately we don't have such privilege when it comes to supernature. The meaning is in the word It is out of our reach & the tools we craft no matter how advanced.

[Beckys_Mom]

C235, on 07 December 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

I already knew you would say that but you should understand that If we could came this far it was because we were blessed with certain capabilities that had allowed us to progress in the world of matter but we certainly have limits to our reach. To understand this limit look around to all these lesser creatures & animals. How much hope is there for them for advancements. They are simply at their limits. unlike us they do not have the ability to craft & use tools nor do they have our brain power. Simply we too do not have what it takes to reach domain of God. Imagine if that primitive human did not have such hands which could allow him to craft & utilities tools to his will. We could spent our life thinking all we like but we would be where we were all alike we could still stare at the sun though. but luckily we have our hands well shaped yet unfortunately we don't have such privilege when it comes to supernature. The meaning is in the word It is out of our reach & the tools we craft no matter how advanced.

You can sit there and tell me how limited that you are as often as you wish, but given enough time, anything is possible. ..  There is no way for you to know that this is not possible, you can only think what your limited mind tells you today, but tomorrow is unknown     

Please answer  if you don't mind - You were the one who suggested that hopefully one day science will prove gods existence, so why are you  back tracking ?    ALSO - How do you expect science to prove god ( like you one day hope ) and not observe it ?

What makes you think that over time we cannot go even further than we have done?  It's been shown throughout history, that we have become more advanced and we keep going... Your logic says we will stop because we are limited ..... You may as well say  evolution cant go further either...

[Mr Right Wing]

scowl, on 07 December 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

There is absolute proof that nothing can be omnipotent therefore we know that no omnipotent god exists in the Universe.

There has been a preponderance of scientific evidence collected that "God" never have existed as described in the Bible. Religions based on the Bible have been scrambling for centuries to censor, dismiss or explain away the evidence that science has discovered that contradicts its contents.

What is this so called absolute proof?

Science hasnt got one peice of evidence that God never existed as described in the Bible. What is at odds with the Bible is the picture of reality you've convinced yourself is real.

Example - How do you know the devil didnt drug you and stuff you into a virtual life simulator?

No one has a right to hold any idea as truth because you sir are a mere human being incapable of grasping the ultimate truth.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Science hasnt got one peice of evidence that God never existed as described in the Bible. What is at odds with the Bible is the picture of reality you've convinced yourself is real.

Science has refuted both the creation and flood myth.

Quote

Example - How do you know the devil didnt drug you and stuff you into a virtual life simulator?

No one has a right to hold any idea as truth because you sir are a mere human being incapable of grasping the ultimate truth.

Now that has got to be one of the most idiotic arguments you've presented.

[C235]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 December 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

You can sit there and tell me how limited that you are as often as you wish, but given enough time, anything is possible. ..  There is no way for you to know that this is not possible, you can only think what your limited mind tells you today, but tomorrow is unknown

Please answer  if you don't mind - You were the one who suggested that hopefully one day science will prove gods existence, so why are you  back tracking ? ALSO - How do you expect science to prove god ( like you one day hope ) and not observe it ?

What makes you think that over time we cannot go even further than we have done?  It's been shown throughout history, that we have become more advanced and we keep going... Your logic says we will stop because we are limited ..... You may as well say  evolution cant go further either...

Refer to the story of "Tower of Babel"

What i suggested I had elaborated in my previous post. History has shown no progress maybe even backing in the field of supernature. In my theory science will stop not us! though in your theory you can go as far as you please.

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist. It’s not just that cows don’t jump over skyscrapers, it’s that they physically can’t. Many believers say that science does not rule out the supernatural. Science applies an empirical method of looking at the evidence in our physical world. Upon examination, the scientific method results in rejecting the supernatural claims of religion the same as it results in ruling out all other paranormal claims. The supposed miracles of the Bible do not have any greater claim on reality than do the claims of UFO abductions. In fact, claims of UFO abductions may be more believable than the supernatural assertions of religion, because a visitation from another planet may not require violation of the laws of nature as do supposed Biblical miracles.

2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now. If miracles occurred in Biblical times, why don’t they occur now? It is highly suspect to claim that all the shock and awe stuff was only performed for the benefit of ancient, primitive people, but denied to us modern folk, today. Miracle claims initially bear witness against themselves, as they claim to violate the very laws of nature that cannot be violated.

3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely. If even Alzheimer’s Disease, or an anesthetic, can totally eclipse consciousness, how much more will self awareness by annihilated by death? Everything we know, all expansions of our field of awareness, come about by sensory input into a physical brain. How can this persist when there is no longer a physical body and brain.

4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World. An all powerful God would be able to get points across and teach lessons and improve our character without placing us in a world of such tremendous suffering. What benefit is there to the Ebola virus that eats away at people’s flesh? Why did we need Auschwitz? Couldn’t something less horrendous have gotten whatever point across that God was trying to make. For God’s existence to be compatible with the evil in the world, there would have to be no occurrence of evil that is gratuitous and beyond justification.

5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World. While one can simultaneously believe in Darwinian evolution and in God, evolution is more likely in a Godless world. Evolution by natural selection is sloppy and wasteful. More than 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. Matches of DNA sequence show that humans and gorillas shared a common ancestor.

6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden. Why is God so stingy with direct evidence? Again, the supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible. Scientific errors in the Bible and its other flaws, including the commanding of atrocities, all make Scripture much harder to believe. A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.

7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right. If God wants us to choose the best mode of either worship or communion, why is there so much reasonable confusion in the world regarding religions? Why do the yogis of India and the Dalai Lama bring back from their meditations a sense of some all-loving cosmic soup, and yet many Christians believe that anyone who tries to approach God, other than through Jesus, will burn in hell eternally? Biblical contradictions also exacerbate the problem of confusion. A loving God should have commissioned a clearer and less confusing Bible.

8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause. As best as we can determine, time and space began with the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no time or space in which sequential causation could have occurred. So, we cannot speak of the universe’s coming into existence as needing a “cause” in the same sense that a tall building in the middle of a city needed a cause.

9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force. Believers claim that the constants in the Universe that made it possible for life to emerge are so unlikely that the stage could not have been set by other than a divine being. However, we have nothing to compare our universe to. We cannot point to a million universes and note that they are lifeless and thus affirm that the appearance of life in our universe was so unlikely that a supernatural force had to jump start it.

10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design. The claim that some biological organisms are irreducibly complex fails to account for the redundant gene, a duplication of an existing gene that can experiment with a new function while the old otherwise identical one continues to do its standard work. The claim that the existence of specifiably complex organisms demonstrates the need for an intelligent designer fails because these can be accounted for by the mutations of natural selection.


BUT! In my opinion THE best evidence for proving that God does not exist is from of His inactions.
There are NO supernatural events happening around us as we speak & breath!

Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

• Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
  
• Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
  
• Look for such evidence with an open mind.
  
• If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
  
• If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.


I won't even go into Professor Richard Dawkins' and his definitive arguments against the existence of a God.


What measly, biased, and unfounded evidence can you put up as defense, Mr. Prosecutor? (oops, isn't that the Judaic title of Satan?)

Do you honestly expect a reply?

I am not someone with an IQ of 50 and most people arent. Cows not being able to jump over a building is not evidence that something doesnt exist. Its like me claiming grass doesnt exist because my yard is covered in concrete. Both are logically flawed arguments.

For some reason (which I dont want to know) you are determined to see negative when it comes to religion and this is obvious in your post. You have distorted away, illogically rationalised and engaged in self delusion to convince yourself God isnt real (without evidence). How do you expect the same bull to wash on me?

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 01:21 PM.