461 replies to this topic

[Setton]

freetoroam, on 30 November 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

You see, this is what confuses me among the happy clappy lot. There is no proof at all that god exists, but you still insist on it. Fine, i respect that, but please do not tell me he does when you can not show conclusive proof that he does.
I have the conclusive proof he does not exist: there is absolutely no evidence found throughout history to back you up,  all you have to back up your theory is what is in your head and what is written in a novel...and that just aint good enough for me.

Where did I tell you god exists? Please, if you're going to act all offended, at least get your facts straight.

As an extra, you do not have proof god does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quote

You can not spin this one round when you have NO proof.

you can not ask someone to prove something is, when there is nothing to prove in the first place and nothing to prove it with!

I honestly have no idea what that last sentence is meant to be about. On the off chance that it's the usual 'you can't ask someone to prove something doesn't exist' then that's outright wrong. The only way you can say something is definitely the case is to disprove all other possibilities.

[Biff Wellington]

I know I'm late on answering the OPs question, but I believe that The Universe always has been & always will be. Life has continued to evolve from different states & is created from different environmental states.

[Arbenol68]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is a terrible argument. Whoever said it (was it Carl Sagan?) probably thought it sounded good as a writer. But it isn't accurate. It would be better to say

"Absence of evidence is not proof of absence"

But that doesn't sound as good. The fact of the matter is that absence of evidence is often very good evidence of absence.

Imagine coming home from a night out and your better half states "oh my god, we've been burgled". There's no sign of any forced entry. As far as you can tell, nothing has been taken. And the place appears just how you left it. You can't prove beyond any doubt that nobody has been there whilst you were out, but the absence of any evidence to the contrary is pretty strong evidence for the absence of any burglary.

The god that many people believe in can be subject to the same scrutiny. The complete absence of any evidence for a personal god, who answers prayers, heals the sick, performs miracles, etc is very strong evidence that this entity does not exist.

Edited by Arbenol68, 30 November 2012 - 07:33 AM.

[Setton]

Arbenol68, on 30 November 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

This is a terrible argument. Whoever said it (was it Carl Sagan?) probably thought it sounded good as a writer. But it isn't accurate. It would be better to say

"Absence of evidence is not proof of absence"

But that doesn't sound as good. The fact of the matter is that absence of evidence is often very good evidence of absence.

Imagine coming home from a night out and your better half states "oh my god, we've been burgled". There's no sign of any forced entry. As far as you can tell, nothing has been taken. And the place appears just how you left it. You can't prove beyond any doubt that nobody has been there whilst you were out, but the absence of any evidence to the contrary is pretty strong evidence for the absence of any burglary.

The god that many people believe in can be subject to the same scrutiny. The complete absence of any evidence for a personal god, who answers prayers, heals the sick, performs miracles, etc is very strong evidence that this entity does not exist.

Good point.I've no idea who first said it. It's a common phrase among re-enactors is all I know However, it still does not allow anyone to categorically say there is no such thing as god. Just as the lack of concrete evidence should prevent believers saying there definitely is a god. It can't be proven either way.

(Although the fact that nothing has been taken or damaged and no-one is hurt would in fact be proof that you have not been burgled I do take your point though.)

Edited by Setton, 30 November 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Where did I tell you god exists?

Do you believe god exists...?

[Setton]

Beckys_Mom, on 30 November 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Do you believe god exists...?

I do believe it, yes. Not necessarily the god of the Bible but a god. You'll notice I don't say it's definitely the case though.

Edited by Setton, 30 November 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

I do believe it, yes. Not necessarily the god of the Bible but a god. You'll notice I don't say it's definitely the case though.

What's the difference?  - You either do believe  or  you don't believe  ...Using the word - Definitely or not, doesn't mean a thing in what you have said...

[Emma_Acid]

Coffey, on 29 November 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

You didn't explain how it was "created" int he first place.

I do not follow a religion, but I find it hilarious how Atheists and Scientists both NEVER anwer the question properly. All you did was explain how you think it works. Not how it started.

The question isn't "answered properly" because its never asked properly. What do you mean by "how it started"? You mean time? The laws of physics we know today? Our observable universe? The four dimensions we live in? Each one is a different, highly complex area, that doesn't have a definitive answer and may never.

The idea that there was no universe, and then there was a universe is utterly out of date.

Coffey, on 29 November 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Yes and none of those observations, experiments or maths have proven there is no god either. Where as some of those have shown signs ther eis an unexplainable link between everything.

God is unfalsifiable by definition. You will never disprove it, which is what makes it a thoroughly unscientific concept.

And saying "there is a link between everything that is unexplainable  is both unacceptably vague and verging on a God Of The Gaps argument.

[Setton]

Beckys_Mom, on 30 November 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

What's the difference?  - You either do believe  or  you don't believe  ...Using the word - Definitely or not, doesn't mean a thing in what you have said...

Of course it does. Saying 'I believe there is a god' is very different to saying 'there definitely is a god'. The first leaves room for the possibility that the speaker may be wrong. The second is a definitive statement and should therefore be backed up with evidence. A belief does not need to be.

I'm perfectly happy to answer questions about my beliefs although I fail to see what relevance it has to the topic.

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Of course it does. Saying 'I believe there is a god' is very different to saying 'there definitely is a god'. The first leaves room for the possibility that the speaker may be wrong. The second is a definitive statement and should therefore be backed up with evidence. A belief does not need to be.

Okie dokie

[Tesla II]

I think we were part of some cosmic process here on earth which accidently or not created a building blocks for first microbs to begin their epicly long evolution...
So accidently or not life was created out there on similar earths... basicaly we are not alone for sure. Second theory is that parts for life were already here when earth was first created all it needed was ignition from a meteor or asteroid. Hey im guessing as much as scientists do...

[Coffey]

Emma_Acid, on 30 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

The question isn't "answered properly" because its never asked properly. What do you mean by "how it started"? You mean time? The laws of physics we know today? Our observable universe? The four dimensions we live in? Each one is a different, highly complex area, that doesn't have a definitive answer and may never.

The idea that there was no universe, and then there was a universe is utterly out of date.

The whole universe, how it became into existence. The point is not the question being clear, it's the answer that is unclear when an Athiest or Scientist is discussing it. They never just say "I don't know".... Which they don't.

I do not believe in god, so I am unbiased in this. I also do not completely out rule a possibility. It is jsut as much ignorance to out rule the possibility of god as it is to believe there is one.

Emma_Acid, on 30 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

God is unfalsifiable by definition. You will never disprove it, which is what makes it a thoroughly unscientific concept.

And saying "there is a link between everything that is unexplainable  is both unacceptably vague and verging on a God Of The Gaps argument.

The link is proven by physics and biology actually.

Imaginarynumber1, on 29 November 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

So an as of yet unexplained mechanism in quantum physics means god? Please. Talk about reaching.
I don't fully understand fluid dynamics. Must be god, right?

Those have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about, please study physics and Biology better before attempting to post your opinion as facts.

Alienated Being, on 29 November 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

We don't have observations, experiments or maths to disprove leprechauns, faeries, pixies, gnomes, elves, or dragons either.

We do actually, so thanks for proving my point. lol

Archaeology and Biology both disprove those so far.  Where as both do not disprove God.


Again just to make a point I do not believe in god.

Edited by Coffey, 30 November 2012 - 12:17 PM.

[Emma_Acid]

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

The whole universe, how it became into existence. The point is not the question being clear, it's the answer that is unclear when an Athiest or Scientist is discussing it. They never just say "I don't know".... Which they don't.

It isn't valid a question, as anyone with a working knowledge of modern physics will tell you. We simply don't know what "the whole universe" even means.

The last 15 years of physics has shown us that even our concepts of "nothing" and "beginnings" probably don't mean anything.

I repeat: the question "where did it all start" is not a valid one.

You can ask: "when did our 4 dimensions come into being?" but this isn't the same thing. Neither is "when was the beginning of time?", as this isn't necessarily the same thing as the beginning of the universe.

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

I do not believe in god, so I am unbiased in this. I also do not completely out rule a possibility. It is jsut as much ignorance to out rule the possibility of god as it is to believe there is one.

I do not necessarily disagree with that.

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

The link is proven by physics and biology actually.

How is the link between physics and biology prove there is something "unexplainable" going on??

Edited by Emma_Acid, 30 November 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[Coffey]

Emma_Acid, on 30 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

It isn't valid a question, as anyone with a working knowledge of modern physics will tell you. We simply don't know what "the whole universe" even means.

The last 15 years of physics has shown us that even our concepts of "nothing" and "beginnings" probably don't mean anything.

I repeat: the question "where did it all start" is not a valid one.

You can ask: "when did our 4 dimensions come into being?" but this isn't the same thing. Neither is "when was the beginning of time?", as this isn't necessarily the same thing as the beginning of the universe.

My point was aimed more at the atheists on here and most scientists you see in interview son the subject. It's jsut a general observation. They tend to go off the subject with their answer. Surely you have seen this?

Emma_Acid, on 30 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

How is the link between physics and biology prove there is something "unexplainable" going on??

I'm not good at explaining things. So it's better i don't try. lol I'll probably end up saying something completely different to what I mean.

So here is a video to one example:




So us observing changed the outcome? It's unexplainable and makes no sense using what we know.


A very interesting read which includes the above:

http://urbantitan.co...eryday-reality/

These do not prove god at all or even hint at it, it's more the point we don't know everything and therefore it means nobody can really say how the universe was created and if there is more to our "reality" than we know.

[Rlyeh]

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

So us observing changed the outcome? It's unexplainable and makes no sense using what we know.

Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it.