Forums → WEPR → Disproving god
| 352 | 61514 |
So I just have a question to every one. What is the point in proving god to not exist? What makes it worth while to sit and flip out on people, the goverment, schools, kids, parents.....that they are wrong, and science is wrong?
I understand having an oppinion, and trying to get others to beilve that. But Have any of you heard of Pascals wager?
What he said was basically, if you belive in god, and he is real, you lived a good live, and if you belive in god, and he's not real, you lost nothing, but lived a life of good morals, which I will touch on in a second. However, If he is real, and you didn't beilve you go to hell. And if you didn't beilve and he isn't real, then you lost nothing, other then being remembered as a person who didn't care about morals.
I would like you to go read the ten commandments, and the other moral wrongs in the bible. How are ANY of them bad?
All I'm really trying to gather here, is what is the point in tryign to prove god as fake? Why does it matter if you beilve in god? And what do you lose by beilveing in him?
- 352 Replies
Strong atheist with a twist: All gods that matter can be disproved (most theistic ones).
All gods that can't be disproved are irrelevant (deism, pantheism etc.)
I say, atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God, You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
I say, atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God, You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
So is basing all of your claims out of a book and because you "Just Know" and so on and so fourth. I read your post and it gave me a headache from all of your point's that are pointless now since you at some point in the future will realize this too. But you shall rather leave this out and continue to lie to yourself in the essence that you know what is and isn't illogical apparently.
I say, atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God, You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Considering you posted that shortly after I said I was an agnostic atheist, that pretty much makes your whole rant here a load of fail.
I don't claim to know there is no God, given the complete lack of evidence I find it likely he doesn't exist. More specifically claims of what certain gods have done such as say flood the entire world, seem to go entirely against the evidence that is presented. Also if God is like that of the deistic God it's really no better then not having a God in the first place.
sorry I'm not lieing, your lieing to yourself because your atheism is illogical...
What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence?
What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence?
There isn't any faith involved. If there is no evidence something exists why should I believe it does? What would justify such a belief?
How can it be illogical to admit that you don't know something and as result of not knowing refuse to make any claims? That seems like the most logical thing one can do. Agnostic atheists simply state that they don't know if there is a god or not, so they refuse claim one way or the other.
That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence?
What you are saying is similar to an argumentum ad ignoratiam (appeal to ignorance).
An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. Hence, e.g.:
No one has conclusively proven that there is no God.
Therefore, there is a God.
However, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.
That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
I say, atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God, You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
I can say the same thing about any other being, including invisible pink elephants that lay eggs that eventually hatched into the earth.
If you're laying in bed and your door suddenly moves, one may assume the door moved because of a ghost. Would it be illogical to say "I don't know what it was, but it definitely was not a ghost!"
As for disproving God, you fall onto one of two sides.
"Something can not be deemed real until proven."
and
"Something can not be deemed false until dis proven."
You say atheism is illogical because you believe God is real until disproven. If it is impossible to disprove God because he is an omnipotent being, then you believe that there is no choice but to believe in God. This, to atheists, is illogical because you can say the same thing about any make believe character.
I can tell you that vampires are real. Would you believe me? Because you can not disprove vampires, should you have to believe in them? Sure, nobody has ever seen a real vampire, but I can argue that they are merely very good at hiding. When you tell an atheist they can not disprove God, atheists feel the same way as you would if you tried to argue against vampires.
You cant reason with an Atheist, they are angry people who cant handle the fact that there is someone who truly loves them, GOD. They feel they need to be all angry and hostile and unaccepting of the truth of the reality of GODS work in there lives.
what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
In my opinion only prima facie evidence can be considered evidence for God's existence, id est going to heaven, ergo seeing Him.
He said/ she said is not reliable and "miracles" can have multiple explanations (a.k.a. the CIA/Buddha/Aliens/Nature/Bush did it, and all these causes -or perpetrators, if you allow me the expression- are -at least- equally as good as God).
What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
.
God showing himself and demonstrates an ability only he could do such as the creation of a small amount of matter/energy under controlled conditions would be acceptable.
How to Convert an Atheist Part 1
How to Convert an Atheist Part 2
Some of this stuff the video lists in part 1 wouldn't out right convince me, but would be compelling evidence.
Prophecies, Scientific knowledge, or aliens with the same religion as outlined in part 1 wouldn't necessarily convince me but I would regard it as compelling evidence.
All i gotta say is....
Deny Jesus in this life and Jesus will certainly deny you in front of his Father.
There's is nothing to dispute here. What is real cannot be threatened.
God is not bothered, why should I be.
It is the selfishness and stupidity of man that leads them to irrelevance.
Do something that matters people.. Feed a homeless person. give shelter to a cat.. tell someone you love them.. give support to someone who is depressed.. open a book for once in your life.. make somebody smile. Do God's will. It's very easy. Easier than taking advantage of others for your own idiotic desires.
You must be logged in to post a reply!