Evidence that there is no God

Originally posted by Clean Cut
Since when does God have to prove His existence to you? All of creation reflects as a mere pixel in the palm of His hand and within that pixel stands you, waving your finger, stomping your foot, demanding answers from Him. What a laugh. You have absolutely no idea who your dealing with, do you? Tell you what………you keep waving that finger and stomping that foot………see how far you get.

Calm down.

Originally posted by Palynka
Calm down.

Am I ranting? Hmmmmm? Perhaps.........ok, deep breath. Aaaah!! That's better.

see, I'm curious...
1) Apart from a load of people that believe in some form of religion thus lending to it credibility with numbers, ie: millions can't be wrong can they? (though they certainly can of course!...ask small groups of people what is the answer to 10 ÷ 0, and you'll notice that in the majority of cases they will probably all concur with the same wrong answer.)
2) Or the respective *books of truth* of each religion (written by the sort of creatures that are not above inventing stories to silence those who seek answers to tricky questions, and thus hiding their own ignorance.) that are no more detailed, pedantic, or exhaustive in their accounts of the origins of life than a story book written for 6 year olds (none of which being any more credible than their competitors)
3) Or the threat of being ostracized if one doesn't subscribe diligently to a particular faith system
4) Or their indoctrination with a particular religion when they are at an age where they lack the intellectual maturity or credibility to challenge what their elders tell them
5) Along with the childish promise that one shall be damned to a hell (that no live person has ever seen or recieved an accurate acount of what it is from any creature that has experienced it) if they don't follow a particular god

...Where is the justification for this un-questioning belief in a supreme deity given that the concept is not even testable?
Why do people laugh at those who believe in leprechauns, fairies, hobgoblins etc... when the empirical evidence, and wealth of physically accurate data to support their existence is the same in size as that which supports the existence of a supreme deity?
Why does the existence of a god even need to be disproven? Many would argue that they don't need to disprove the existence of magic pots, or Santa's elves!...what is the difference? (apart from such answers like everybody knows Santa is made up etc... for I would say that I know that God is also made up! (though I am as capable of proving this as I am of proving that there is no such thing as invisible pink unicorns))

For those who do not believe in God, what do you think about the Bible, a book with over 40 authors, written over hundreds of years with the same message?

What about intelligent design? Scientist acknowledge the fragility and amazing intricity of our universe and home planet Earth.

We understand that everything must have a beginning and an end. The explanation that everything "always was" does not suffice. Someone started the gases that collided and made the universe. Where did those gases come from?


These are questions and statements that point to some sort of God.
Can anyone give solid answers for these statements that instead point away from a God? The person who started this thread said there was no evidence of God. I believe all these statements I made give evidence of a God.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
For those who do not believe in God, what do you think about the Bible, a book with over 40 authors, written over hundreds of years with the same message?

If you think that the whole Bible carries the same message then you didn't read it or are just not very intelligent.

What about intelligent design? Scientist acknowledge the fragility and amazing intricity of our universe and home planet Earth.
Intricacy is not an indication of intelligent design. Counting to a million does not take more intelligence than counting to 10. An infinitely intricate (and very beautiful) pattern can be created by a formula with three terms in it. (look up mandel bro set on the internet.)

We understand that everything must have a beginning and an end. The explanation that everything "always was" does not suffice. Someone started the gases that collided and made the universe. Where did those gases come from?
No, only some ignorant people 'understand that everything must have a beginning and an end'. And if you think that the universe was made from colliding gasses you just don't know what the word universe means.

These are questions and statements that point to some sort of God.
Can anyone give solid answers for these statements that instead point away from a God? The person who started this thread said there was no evidence of God. I believe all these statements I made give evidence of a God.
So far your statements are evidence that evidence coming from you is not worth listening to.

The Bible carries the message of Jesus. Where do you see the Inconsistencies?

What do you mean "only some ignorant people 'understand that everything must have a beginning and an end?'" What evidence suggest that everything must not have a beginning and an end?

Someone who wrote in was correct in asserting that counting to a million is not complicated. What do we say about somthing such as our DNA, all our cells working together to perform a simple function such as eating. A spider making a web, is all that really simple? If everything is really that simple, how come we as humans stink at predicting weather even with all our fancy equipment? Life is very complicated.


Can someone please convince me otherwise of all this!

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
The Bible carries the message of Jesus. Where do you see the Inconsistencies?

So all 40 books carry the message of Jesus? Go back and read them again.

What do you mean "only some ignorant people 'understand that everything must have a beginning and an end?'" What evidence suggest that everything must not have a beginning and an end?
I have not seen any evidence either way. So why assume that only one must be true? Keep in mind that what applies to physical objects within the universe is unrelated to the universe as a whole. Your claim is like saying: "All people have mothers therefore chairs must have mothers."

Someone who wrote in was correct in asserting that counting to a million is not complicated. What do we say about somthing such as our DNA, all our cells working together to perform a simple function such as eating. A spider making a web, is all that really simple? If everything is really that simple, how come we as humans stink at predicting weather even with all our fancy equipment? Life is very complicated.
You did not read the bit about mandel bro sets I see. Complexity arises simply from a vast number of very simple formulas just as a million (a more complicated number than one) can arise from adding a vast number of 1s. We all know and agree that the universe is complex but complexity is not an indication of intelligence.

Weather cannot be predicted because it is a chaotic system not because it is complex. It has been scientifically proven that the weather cannot be predicted beyond a certain accuracy because of the laws of physics not because it is too difficult or because our equipment is not 'fancy' enough. The simple position and velocity of an atom cannot be known - again this is not a sign of complexity but a physical law "Heisenberg uncertainty principle"

Can someone please convince me otherwise of all this!
That depends on whether or not you listen to what people say.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that the thread title will get lots of views but why not!
In the Qu'ran thread I stated that I am personally certain that there is no God and one of the many reasons for that is that in my opinion there is significant evidence that there is no God. Several people said they would be interested in knowing what that evidence is.
I don't think a t ...[text shortened]... , it makes me sure that there isn't a God who exists and is trying to communicate with me.

WHEN MAN FIRST FELT AN EARTH QUAKE,HE CREATED A GOD

What books do not carry the message of Jesus? Please tell me so that I can find the error of my ways. I don't have time to read the entire Bible in a short time period. Since you are so well informed and convinced the other way, I would be glad to hear from you on that.

Chairs are not alive. Humans are. Please choose a clear analogy.

My choice of weather as an example of intelligent design was poor.
Here is a website of a speech that reflects a much better example of intel-design.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that the thread title will get lots of views but why not!
In the Qu'ran thread I stated that I am personally certain that there is no God and one of the many reasons for that is that in my opinion there is significant evidence that there is no God. Several people said they would be interested in knowing what that evidence is.
I don't think a t ...[text shortened]... , it makes me sure that there isn't a God who exists and is trying to communicate with me.

read

"coversations with god"

by neal wealch

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
What books do not carry the message of Jesus? Please tell me so that I can find the error of my ways. I don't have time to read the entire Bible in a short time period. Since you are so well informed and convinced the other way, I would be glad to hear from you on that.

Chairs are not alive. Humans are. Please choose a clear analogy.

My cho ...[text shortened]... much better example of intel-design.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

Behe is a hack. Intelligent design merely boils down to "I don't believe it, so it can't be true".

Originally posted by Palynka
It is sufficient that it is observable by at least one class.

Your criticism could be made to a multitude of processes that involve more than one field of science. And yet I'm sure you wouldn't reject them as 'scientifically observable'.

[b]My claim is that the level of reality on which God's actions can be seen is not one that the sciences study. ...[text shortened]... scussing its effects. Are they visible/perceivable? If yes, why are they not identifiable?[/b]

It is sufficient that it is observable by at least one class.

No, it isn't.

As I said earlier, 'science' is not one monolithic discipline. Perhaps there was a time when scientists thought there could be a "Grand Unified Theory" of science, but that is no longer the case. 'Science' is a set of disciplines (many of which are disputed as 'sciences'😉 that purport to share a common methodology (and even that is contested with many sciences); they "slice" reality differently. Phenomena that are observable in one scientific discipline cannot even be observed in another, let alone explained. A physicist cannot produce a physical explanation for the Great Depression simply because the term 'depression' is meaningless within his domain. Sure, he could isolate a set of physical observables and call them 'The Great Depression', but he would already step "outside" his discipline doing so.

The term 'miracle' is meaningless to a scientist (most disciplines) because it simply cannot even be defined in that domain; therefore he cannot (without stepping outside the scientific box) even observe them.


Your criticism could be made to a multitude of processes that involve more than one field of science. And yet I'm sure you wouldn't reject them as 'scientifically observable'.

In many contexts it is obvious which scientific displine is being spoken about. But, as I pointed out earlier, there are already several phenomena/aspects of reality that none of the sciences can observe and yet we accept them without question.


Perhaps. But I'm discussing its effects. Are they visible/perceivable? If yes, why are they not identifiable?

See earlier on 'miracle'. If you followed my discussion on the miracle of Barnabas, hopefully you have understood the reason by now.