Forums → WEPR → Disproving god
| 352 | 61515 |
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
So it seems we got abit away from the topic here. What is the pupose of disprving god? Where not discussing if god is real or not, more why do people argue the fact if he's real or not? Why cna't theist let atheist be, and vise versa?
Yes, sonicheroes95 is right:
here's the thing, god can't be proven or disproven... so believe what you want, because it's what you believe, not what others force on you.
I believe in God and Jesus Christ and if you don't, that is fine with me because everybody has a right to believe in whatever they believe. We are in America, so we all have free speech and freedom to do whatever we do. So that's my verdict.
here's the thing, god can't be proven or disproven... so believe what you want, because it's what you believe, not what others force on you.
Yes, but what justifies that belief? If we are to believe in something that has such an impact in our lives, even if just on a personal level. Isn't it all that more important that we at least can verify and know that such a being exists in the first place?
What is the pupose of disprving god?
I don't particularly see one. Though I do see a point in proving there is one, and verifying the claims made of such a being.
I believe in God and Jesus Christ and if you don't, that is fine with me because everybody has a right to believe in whatever they believe. We are in America, so we all have free speech and freedom to do whatever we do. So that's my verdict.
I have to wonder with that said, do you believe that those who don't follow Christianity will go to hell?
Though I do see a point in proving there is one, and verifying the claims made of such a being.
I was thinking this as well. It seems people don't walk door to door saying "There is no god, how does that sit with you?"
What is the pupose of disprving god?
To learn from humanitys mistakes and move forward from them. At the end of the secend world war we moved away from race ideology due to the 60 million deaths it caused, at the end of the cold war we moved away from communism due to 96 million deaths it caused. Now at the end of the religious era we should move away from religions due to the hundreds of millions killed.
There is no such thing as perfection, the universe by its very own nature is the antithesis of perfection.
doobedoobedobeod
ok moving on, the idea of god has to mean that he is ultimately good. derp if he isnt perfectly good then he can't be a god.
Sorry, but that's NO PROOF!
it's a premise just like half the stuff you type. except i can back up my thinking.
Lack of something is a crappy proof for its nonexistence.
It's also crappy proof for its existence
exactly. you can neither prove nor disprove god.
Sure we do, however we have to understand that simply because something is a fact doesn't mean that there is not a minute chance of it being incorrect. We know gravitational forces are a fact, however there is a possibility that it may be incorrect. However it is true enough so much of the time and in so many situations that we can say that it is a fact.
science cannot be deemed as "fact" if you look at how science defines fact. science is only used to explain
No one who is authentically muslim, jew or catholic, and faith should not be able to quit your faith.
You faith is faith, not based on knowledge
my proposition for you mrwalker82 is too invent a time machine and go back to the past to see what actually happened........i believe in god and nothing anyone says will change that.
Good for you. However this is completely illogical. I could say that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and nothing anyone could ever do will change that. However that doesn't mean that I am correct. I don't believe that anyone is telling you that you shouldn't believe in God, or that you can't. I am simply saying that the reasons most people believe in their chosen deity are illogical and the associate scriptures and dogma are typically contradictory or just plain false.
Do you have a sibling? parents maybe? DO you believe in them? Is it possible to convinece you to not believe in them anymore? Reason should not be able to talk you out of it. Philosophy has discovered that reason is limited and it opens up possibility. and that could be faith in god, faith in ourselves. We donât know if weâre going to succeed. Faith gives motivation. If you really understand yourself, and spend the time to figure out what the hell you really are. If you donât know who you are then faith will lead you in a different direction
and that is what faith is. Good for you wolf for standing up for your convictions.
however i will still sh*t on your intelligent design argument...
Purpose in the natural world:
Because the cell is the limited system, having 16 distinct parts
The cell displays purpose.
Nothing in physical data suggests purpose. The sum of all their relations. Isnât purpose an inference we draw on the evidence.
You know what purpose for things to do, they are inferences data does not tell you what kind of inference you should make.
If we cannot make inferences about people who are close how can we make an inference of inanimate objects.
If I knew there was a god then I would see purpose everywhere. If I donât know there is a god then I cant make the judgment that there is a god.
We donât need purpose to explain everything.
There could be a god, and your argument fails to show that there is a god. We need a refernce to function, or a function in a system. The purpose of the heart is to pump blood.
Electrical signals cause the muscles to contract to cause the heart to pump blood.
We can explain how the heart does that.
The problem of the design argument is that it presupposes what itâs supposed to show.
Things without minds seem to act with purpose. My want to have purpose make it seem to have purpose.
The scientific narrative explains mechanism but cannot explain purpose. You cannot infer that because science cannot find purpose that there is no purpose, that would be inferring from ignorance. The fact that the argument fails does not show that there is no purpose in the world.if there is a god then there is purpose.
Intelligent design, it is a litmus test on how to organize school board. Write textbook. Ect.
Basic idea that lead mr beal to publish his seminal work that the cell has a quality that it has a irreducible quality. If you remove one part of the cell then it doesnât work anymore.
Mousetrap has 5 basic parts, irreducibly complex, and if you remove one part then it stops working
Through gene mutation we confer these traits.
The underlying problem of the ID argument, a trait or new adaptation, might serve as a different function and with the impliment of new traits it becomes all together different.
The spring of a mousetrap dosent only have to function as a spring, could be a paperclip or some sh*t.
Nature of science, is to make a claim that can be shown that it is false.
Urgency
Itâs just the revisiting of design in new clothing. Creationism.
has already been legitimately explained by science, or is pure speculation.
*sigh* science explains. but doesnt prove whether or not there is a god..
While there is no proof for the existence of God, there is also no proof for the non existence of God. This leaves the possibility that God does exist.
yup.
That would be like saying every Christian believes that there were unicorns. Atheists simply do not believe.
no... athiest believe in no-thing. therefore it is a belief in itself. derp derp derp.
When I made this thread, I was a theist, now, i'm not. People here opened my eyes, and I did the rest my self.
so if I "opened" your eyes and shifted your faith in your parents are you saying you would not believe in them anymore?
I don't particularly see one. Though I do see a point in proving there is one, and verifying the claims made of such a being.
actually no there really isnt a point in proving god, would it change people? if a god already exists and you choose not to believe him then there really would be no difference if now his existence is proved since
faith is not just in what you believe but also in yourself. derpaderpdaderpaderpaderp.
wow i spent a good 30 minutes reading through all those comments. never again.
also typed it all in word^^ which explains the weird symbols. if you think i plagiarized go look it up. come at me brah
no... athiest believe in no-thing. therefore it is a belief in itself. derp derp derp.
Maybe some do, but many like myself simply lack belief.
but everytime you tell someone that you are atheist, you align yourself with the ideology of no belief and it becomes a belief in itself.
Maybe some do, but many like myself simply lack belief.
No, you don't believe in God. It's the same as lacking belief.
The only way you can truly lack belief in God while not disbelieving in him is to be ignorant of God or the idea of a higher being all together.
If you lack a belief in God, then you don't believe in him.
I mean, what if I went around arguing with people about unicorns? What if I started saying, "Don't tell me that I don't believe in unicorns, because that is wrong. I merely lack a belief in unicorns."
I suppose someone who "doesn't know if there is a God and doesn't think about it" could also be considered an atheist who simply lacks a belief in God, but anyone who says "there is not enough evidence to suggest that God is real" does choose not to believe in God and therefore they are an atheist by definition of "not believing in God."
Why cna't theist let atheist be, and vise versa?
The problem that I have is with the minority of theist who adhere to a fundamentalist view of religious dogma. These people firmly believe that their beliefs are the only 'right' beliefs and feel it necessary to impose these beliefs on all of society. Furthermore, many of these fundamentalists promote discrimination and fear-mongering toward people with opposing views and lifestyles which are based solely on their religious texts. I have no problem with moderate theist or religious folks of any denomination so long as they keep their beliefs personal. It is when they use these beliefs to promote laws, regulations, and actions which are discriminatory, inaccurate, and/or outright bigoted that I become concerned.
Neither understands what I am saying. I don't believe and I don't not believe. I have no beliefs concerning any god(s) at all. Belief is meaningless to me because it has no value. All I know is that logic points to their being no god, but it is not a belief I have.
All I know is that logic points to their being no god
logic cannot prove whether there is or isnt a god. because logic only offers an explanation. but doesnt prove anything since faith and belief isnt logic based like math... and doesnt adhere to rules.
If you lack a belief in God, then you don't believe in him.
True; however, if my lack of belief is weak (I do not assert the idea that no deity exists) it cannot be said that I don't believe in a god simply that I lack said belief. When dealing with a specific higher power it's basically a black and white situation with both sides being able to state they either believe or do not believe.
You are referencing the extreme christians and generalizing the rest of them as extreme.
Actually there are quite a number of moderates who would behave this way as well. Though many might not be screaming it to your face. It can come out more in the form of eye-rolling and passive aggressive behavior.
you can neither prove nor disprove god.
If God does exist then we could possible prove it. However if there is no God then there will be nothing to find.
no... athiest believe in no-thing. therefore it is a belief in itself.
Sure atheists believe in things, just not deities.
Basic idea that lead mr beal to publish his seminal work that the cell has a quality that it has a irreducible quality. If you remove one part of the cell then it doesn't work anymore.
Actually what this fails to recognize is that those individual parts could have other functions by themselves, which has been exactly what we have seen from every since thing claimed to be irreducibly complex.
so if I "opened" your eyes and shifted your faith in your parents are you saying you would not believe in them anymore?
The major problem I'm seeing with your parent analogy is we can see our parents and independently verify they exist. Now if you had a parent who was never around but you were just told they exist and further evidence suggested that such a relative wasn't even the most likely way you could have been conceived, then yeah you could convince someone to stop believing in that parent.
actually no there really isnt a point in proving god, would it change people?
It may change some, no one could rationally call themselves an atheist for example. And there is always a point in seeking the truth. If there really is a God then there is a point in proving that.
if a god already exists and you choose not to believe him then there really would be no difference if now his existence is proved since
faith is not just in what you believe but also in yourself.
Faith is belief without proof, so what your saying here makes about as much sense as all those derps you seem to like typing.
logic cannot prove whether there is or isnt a god. because logic only offers an explanation. but doesnt prove anything since faith and belief isnt logic based like math... and doesnt adhere to rules.
You can use logic to make the determine one's belief.
If someone said a great new game was just released and you can buy it from them for $100 would you just believe them or would you want to see the game first to know it really exists? What if they refused to show you this game but instead just showed you a walkthrough for it, would that convince you to buy the game from them? What if others who claim to have seen this game each said it was a different type of game? Some saying it's a fantasy rpg, others saying its a sports game, or first person shooter.
Would you really rely on faith and buy this game, or would you doubt it even exists?
You must be logged in to post a reply!