 |
Where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?
Imagine you and I are having a conversation, and you say that the tooth fairy left a dollar under your daughters pillow last night.
I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.
The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.
I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.
Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty... the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.
That is a non answer because just because we can not prove God exists does not mean there is no God.
Neither do you have to prove there is no God but I will still believe just as you believe to not believe.
The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?
There is no proof that there isn't a God, just like there isn't any proof that there is. All the scientific facts in the world can't stop someone from feeling god's love flow through their souls.
I have faith, that's how I know there is a god. I'm assuming that the people that try and prove that there isn't one don't have faith.
Ok, great analogy. What you are saying is that you know that dollar bills are made by humans therefore, a human put the dollar bill under the pillow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Now, lets tweak the analogy a bit. Lets say for instance, that you find a watch in the forest. And I say that it created itself from all the materials after eons they came together and formed a perfect timekeeping mechanism. Of course, you know that is impossible. It must have been created by some human being.
Now, even just one little piece of the universe is a million times more intricate and detailed than a mere human mechanism. And if it took intelligence to make that trinket. How much more intelligence did it take to create the universe?
Yet, you claim that it came to be on its own. I believe the burden of proof is on you.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I will say what I said on the previous thred!
Evidence for Intelligent design.
The Evidence For a Creator is blatant and purely common sence that is IN YOUR FACE . Ignoring this evidence is a display of deliberate and willful ignorance.
You make things so complicated that you fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo below. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?
The only thing that fuels the theory of evolution is the assumption that any thing can happen given a billions of years (that why I scientist convieneintly changed the age of the earth from 70 million to billions of years in oder to make evolution feasible)
So the assuption is that if you take a 100 monkey's, put them on type writers for a billion years , the monkeys will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespear, Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet, Othelo etc... This is the huge unproven and highly improbable assuption the theory depends on. So the thoery reckons after billions of years of chance, we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now.
We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a "victim" of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown... by intentional design and order.
So could such a thing come about by chance? If the earth is as old as "scientists" tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them by chance? NO
So an evolutionis or a believer in the Big Bang would see mount Rushmore and conclude that there is no intelligent sculptor/artist but rather the faces on this mountain appeared from no where, by chance over billions of years, given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion. That conclusion is as ridiculous and as ignorant as the hoax that we all just appeared by accident from no where by chance and evolved over a billions of years. :rolleyes:
So the bottom line is the evidence for an intelligent designer is simple common sense. You dont need someone to tell you or give you "evidence" that an artist sculpted mount Rushmore, if you have a brain and common sense, the evidence is in your face. In the same way the evidence of intelligent design by a creator is in your face if you choose to use your common sence.
Sassy I agree but I want to know HOW all the 'scientific evidence' proves there is no God.
It doesn't! It accually affirms that there is a God. When Dawin came up with is wise evolution idea, cells were thought to be just blobs of nothing. Now Science has descovered DNA which has a wealth of complex information. Our human genetic code, though microscopic, would fill 100 books, each 1200 pages thick. Mathematically, there is ZERO chance life is a cosmic accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
No one can prove that there is a God.
No one can prove that there is not a God.
Why is this simple fact, still being argued?
Sassy T and DeMaria
Outstanding answers .there is little to add . It has been a long time since anyone in science thought the simple single cell was a simple structure. The more humans learn the more we learn the complexity of what we had previously thought was simple .
Because I do not understand why disproving God is considered objective to not have to answer and the other is required to show burden of proof when what they believe proves nothing more than what believers believe. Seems like a contradiction of terms and I would like to know HOW science proves to them there is no God.
It is the old standard dodge. They can make a negative definitive comment "there is no God" and then dismissively claim no need to prove a negative .What they really mean is that they "believe " there is not God. . They should not be making a definitive statement in the first place if they are not simularily willing to admit they have no better rational for their statement of non-belief than I have in my claim . I may say I "believe "God exists and when asked ,the bottom line is admit that it is a matter of faith .
There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.
TOMDER
Exactly
I BELIEVE there is...Quote:
There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...zuni-thumb.jpg
So one can make definitive proof with a simple image?
I'll turn the argument around . I have NO requirement to prove a matter of faith.
Agreed.
THEN WHY is it repeated over and over that Believers NEED to prove!
Don't know, I didn't start this thread. I'm just a religious guy responding.
You little ladies don't seem to know what the word **prove** means.
You BELIEVE that there is a GodAlmighty.
Most people don't BELIEVE that.
Amen brother! I'm currrently working on getting physics, chemistry, and math striken from the american curriculum as they have been showing a tendency to get very complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No one has proved that there is a GodAlmighty, ever. :)
Then why do you Credo and others KEEP say stuff like this??
I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.
The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.
I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.
Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty... the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.
People who have Faith(believe in GodAlmigty, etc)have to admit that it is indeed Faith, their belief, not fact. Religion is called Faith!
Their Faith comforts them and they enjoy it, but it is not fact to be forced onto others.
Where/what is the objective proof that a unicorn was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove a unicorn God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by nohelp4u
Wrong question. It is hardly impressive that we cannot objectively disprove the existence of god, since there are millions and millions of things we cannot disprove the existence of. The question is, upon what evidence should we convince ourselves that there is a god?Quote:
The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?
You made the statement, it is your burden to prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As for me, I have evidence for the existence of God. Do you have evidence for the existence of this thing you've alleged exists?
Whether the tooth fairy, the fang-toothed metagoer with long hair or the unicorn
CAN YOU PROVE THEY DO NOT EXIST?
Agreed. Therefore you have admitted that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
No. It is an excellent question which you have answered above. There is no evidence that God does NOT EXIST.Quote:
Wrong question.
Again, excellent logic. Again, you have admitted that you can't prove that God DOES NOT exist.Quote:
It is hardly impressive that we cannot objectively disprove the existence of god, since there are millions and millions of things we cannot disprove the existence of.
Should you? I don't know what you mean by that particular phrasing of the question. It seems as though you mean, "by what evidence should you delude yourself...."Quote:
The question is, upon what evidence should we convince ourselves that there is a god?
As for me, the evidence pointed me to the conclusion that God exists. The fact of our existence and the wonderful nature of our being, the wonders of creation, they all point to an intelligence far beyond ours.
That is the evidence that leads me to the conclusion that God exists.
Sincerely,
De Maria
No, I cannot. But again, I fail to see why you find this to be an impressive argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Ditto
I fail to see why it IS the non believers MAIN argument and find it an impressive argument
AND THAT IS precisely my point!
Yes, I have. But for the umpteenth time, why do you find this to be an impressive argument for the existence of god? I have also admitted I can't prove unicorns don't exist. Are you impressed by that as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Um, this isn't quite what I said. I stated we can not prove that god doesn't exist, which is different from there is no evidence. We are treading on shaky ground here. While there is no direct evidence for either the existence or non-existence of any god (show me your evidence that Thor doesn't exist), there is loads of evidence to suggest the ancient literature proclaiming these gods existed were wrong on many accounts.Quote:
No. It is an excellent question which you have answered above. There is no evidence that God does NOT EXIST.
There is much evidence to suggest that we share a common ancestor with apes, that Noah's Ark was a fairy tale, that men cannot live to be 700 years old, etc. etc. Of course, none of this proves god doesn't exist and I assume you find solace in that?
Lobroster
YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.
Any logical atheist will admit that it can't be proven that god doesn't exist. The problem starts from your end, when religious people suggest they have proof tat god DOES exist. Things like the bible says so, my uncle was cured of cancer, or my car keys miraculously appeared after being missing 3 days, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I'm not sure why some of you can't comprehend this simple logic. There are zillions of things we could postulate the existence of, which can't be proven one way or the other. But if I tell you the world is run by invisible green gremlins, then the onus is on me to convince you it is true. Somehow, you don't see it that way when it comes to the god you insist exists. It is no victory for you that I cannot prove He doesn't.
Then this is of course true for all gods isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Due to the nature of "objective supporting evidence" there is no such proof for God being the power/force behind the creation of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Your question refers to a negative claim ( proof that God is not ) while the positive claim (proof that God is) has so far never been provided other than in subjective supporting argumentation. The lead question is therefore irrelevant.
There is no need to prove that God does not / can not / is not . There is need to prove that God does / can / is . No such proof exist, other than of a subjective nature !
===
The point is not that there is no proof either way. The point is that theists make an unsupported claim that they can not prove themselves. And now they demand from those who do not accept the theist' claim that they prove the negative version of the theist's positive claim. Totally ridiculous!Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
===
Why SHOULD anyone want to prove that something does not exist, as there is no objective supported evidence for the existence of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I have not seen anyone here who stated that "God" does not exist. The general skeptic line is that there is no objective proof for "God's" existence.
Your question is nothing else than a clincher, a poor and lame excuse for not being able to prove with objective supporting evidence that "God" does exist, although almost all theists indeed claim that "God" exists.
So why should people who do NOT claim that "God" does NOT exist now suddenly have to prove that "God" does NOT exist, specially taking into account that proving a "negative" claim is trillion x trillion x trillion times+ harder than a "positive"claim ?
Is your question in essence not actually an admission of total incompetence for - and complete failure of - actual support for your own deity?
:rolleyes:
·
If De Maria and NoHelp are trying to make the point that because it cannot be proven God does not exist, it means there is some possibility that God does exist, I'm actually Ok with that.
The problem is that they are trying to go one further and imply that this is an argument for the existence of God, which it clearly is not.
Look... The fact we we can't prove God doesn't exist, necessarily means there IS some possibility that a god of some sort does exist. To an unbiased person who thinks logically about it will conclude it is still unlikely as heck, but nevertheless must allow some possibility for it. Personally, I put the odds at being on par with fairies existing. In other words, almost zero, but I'll concede it's not quite zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
No WRONG! I am not trying to say that your lack of proof proves anything other than you have no proof either so why is there an argument on so many boards to PROVE God exists?
That is my point. That we do not have to prove faith which requires believing any more than you have to prove unbelief.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 AM. |