How Can you prove that God exists or not exist

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Proof of God in 3 sentences:

1. Design of the Universe and its organisms;

redundancies, flaws, and vestigal limbs/organs show lack of design... or a very UNINTELLIGENT designer

2. Divine Revelation that shows us the attributes of God;

non-argument. there are conflicting divine revelations.

3. Prime mover - in our cause and effect Universe, God was the cause of our existence.

Is that clear enough?

no, it's not clear enough. it's like you're spewing out the same garbage arguments that the way of the banana uses.... arguments that have been thoroughly destroyed

quote: Originally posted by Heronumber0
Proof of God in 3 sentences:

1. Design of the Universe and its organisms;

redundancies, flaws, and vestigal limbs/organs show lack of design... or a very UNINTELLIGENT designer

Plants that photosynthesis - brilliant design. Food chains, food webs and the way that they interact - brilliant design. The self adjustment of the Earth to external or internal imbalances - brilliant design.

quote:
2. Divine Revelation that shows us the attributes of God;

non-argument. there are conflicting divine revelations.

Divine Revelation that points to the development of the Earth or to human characteristics and motives, even to your ardent atheism, from a Divine perspective - brilliant metaphysics.

quote:
3. Prime mover - in our cause and effect Universe, God was the cause of our existence.

Is that clear enough?

no, it's not clear enough. it's like you're spewing out the same garbage arguments that the way of the banana uses.... arguments that have been thoroughly destroyed

The Prime mover argument has not been destroyed. It may be deductive and crude, but I have yet to see a refutation that is convincing.
You must try harder Madnessin mysoul.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
quote: Originally posted by Heronumber0
Proof of God in 3 sentences:

1. Design of the Universe and its organisms;

redundancies, flaws, and vestigal limbs/organs show lack of design... or a very UNINTELLIGENT designer

Plants that photosynthesis - brilliant design. Food chains, food webs and the way that they interact - brilliant design. The self adjustment of the Earth to external or internal imbalances - brilliant design.

Appendicitis -- flaw. Cancer -- flaw. Down Syndrome, Alzheimer's, Siamese twins, two headed cows -- flaw.

Ever hear the saying that 1000 monkeys sitting at typewriters for 1000 years will turn out the complete works of William Shakespeare?

A universe with all the key building blocks given at least 15,000,000,000 years can turn out ever-complex life. Life that needs no otherworldy creator. Life that came about its own self, and has grown and changed and diversified until the planet you see about you came to be.

The reason we have so much diversity and food chains, and food webs, is because there have been several nearly total extinctions of the planet's plant and animal life. Every time a mass extinction has happened, the engine of evolution further diversified, filling every niche in every ecosystem with something that can live there.

That is not proof of god, that is proof that life itself is implacable and in a permanent state of change.

quote:
2. Divine Revelation that shows us the attributes of God;

non-argument. there are conflicting divine revelations.

Divine Revelation that points to the development of the Earth or to human characteristics and motives, even to your ardent atheism, from a Divine perspective - brilliant metaphysics.

I'm afraid not. All perspectives are from that of man. There is no proof of god, and the Cosmic Watchmaker theory is not valid.

The true meaning of the phrase Divine Revelation is in reference to the various religious texts. Madness asks which one you think is the TRUE revelation? The Bagavad Gita? The Quran? The Bible (which version, there have been over 20)? The Torah? The Apocrypha?

quote:
3. Prime mover - in our cause and effect Universe, God was the cause of our existence.

Is that clear enough?

no, it's not clear enough. it's like you're spewing out the same garbage arguments that the way of the banana uses.... arguments that have been thoroughly destroyed

The Prime mover argument has not been destroyed. It may be deductive and crude, but I have yet to see a refutation that is convincing.
You must try harder Madnessin mysoul.

It is not up to the refuter to disprove the existence of a god or gods, it is up to the person who claims it exists. The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. You can't see a refutation that is convincing because you are caught in the illusion.

Who created the creator?

If the answer is: the creator has always been, then why can't the universe always have been? Why add on something other?

My theory is that people say man was made in god's image. Which is a reversal of the truth: that god has been created in man's image. As a species we are egocentric and arrogant, self-involved and self-absorbed. We want to be the center of the universe. So we created a god that we say created us because he loves us more than anything else in an INFINITE universe. Now that it's been proved the sun doesn't go around the earth and our planet is not at dead galactic center, a great number of people have switched their religious conviction that we are the center of the universe, and started believing that aliens are here watching us, because we are just oh so interesting with our petty bickering, our delusions, our inhumanity to man.

So, IMO you have not proven there is a god. Would you like to play again?

[edit on 31-5-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
quote: Originally posted by Heronumber0
Proof of God in 3 sentences:

1. Design of the Universe and its organisms;

redundancies, flaws, and vestigal limbs/organs show lack of design... or a very UNINTELLIGENT designer

Plants that photosynthesis - brilliant design. Food chains, food webs and the way that they interact - brilliant design. The self adjustment of the Earth to external or internal imbalances - brilliant design.

Appendicitis -- flaw. Cancer -- flaw. Down Syndrome, Alzheimer's, Siamese twins, two headed cows -- flaw.

If the Divine Designer has created the Laws of meiosis as well as the Laws of Physics. If the Laws of meiosis lead to Siamese twins or other flaws that you have pointed out. Are they in significant numbers, or are they in a minority? If the latter then you can judge that the design is, for the most part, perfect. Where there are problems, it is up to us to use our knowledge to circumvent them. The Designer has done His job, it is up to us to trace the design and then, even to improve upon it, if we can.

A universe with all the key building blocks given at least 15,000,000,000 years can turn out ever-complex life. Life that needs no otherworldy creator. Life that came about its own self, and has grown and changed and diversified until the planet you see about you came to be.

Prove it! You can't. There have been many debates about this on ATS and there is still a problem in explaining the evolution of consciousness and language, although I choose to go along with the increased brain size theory at present.

The reason we have so much diversity and food chains, and food webs, is because there have been several nearly total extinctions of the planet's plant and animal life. Every time a mass extinction has happened, the engine of evolution further diversified, filling every niche in every ecosystem with something that can live there.

I agree that genetic bottlenecks have occurred in the past. However, that tends to limit the gene pool not to diversify it. You have a de facto
limited gene pool and limited further diversity. Isn't this how the human race achieved its present form?

That is not proof of god, that is proof that life itself is implacable and in a permanent state of change

I'm afraid not. All perspectives are from that of man. There is no proof of god, and the Cosmic Watchmaker theory is not valid.

The true meaning of the phrase Divine Revelation is in reference to the various religious texts. Madness asks which one you think is the TRUE revelation? The Bagavad Gita? The Quran? The Bible (which version, there have been over 20)? The Torah? The Apocrypha? .

I would go along with the three monotheistic religions and I would further add that God does not leave His highest Creation in disarray without guidance. We must analyse all three texts for evidence of scientific facts that were not known at the time of the Revelations but that have been elucidated recently. Would that give you proof? I suspect it would not.

It is not up to the refuter to disprove the existence of a god or gods, it is up to the person who claims it exists. The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. You can't see a refutation that is convincing because you are caught in the illusion.

Who created the creator?

Old question. Same answer: We live in a Universe where we can attribute effects to causes. It has sense in THIS Universe. However, we can hypothesise the existence of a 'supra' Universe where these relationships do not occur and the effect is built into the cause. The Prime Mover theory again. How can you prove that there are not other Universes? Do you see the problem? It is like a frog explaining to a goldfish what dry land is like. You cannot comprehend what is beyond so you limit yourself to the materialistic world.

So, IMO you have not proven there is a god. Would you like to play again?

[edit on 31-5-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

Please don't say play. These are seroius convictions that can change a person's life. This is not a game but literally a matter of life and death to many of us. However, can we have a reasonable argument? Of course we can. Over to you.

Originally posted by Heronumber0



If the Divine Designer has created the Laws of meiosis as well as the Laws of Physics. If the Laws of meiosis lead to Siamese twins or other flaws that you have pointed out. Are they in significant numbers, or are they in a minority? If the latter then you can judge that the design is, for the most part, perfect. Where there are problems, it is up to us to use our knowledge to circumvent them. The Designer has done His job, it is up to us to trace the design and then, even to improve upon it, if we can.

No, that is a disingenuous answer. Perfection is perfection. If there was a designer who made a perfect design it would be PERFECT without these flaws. Ergo, there is no supernatural designer, there is the design of natural selection which requires no intelligence to get moving.

A universe with all the key building blocks given at least 15,000,000,000 years can turn out ever-complex life. Life that needs no otherworldy creator. Life that came about its own self, and has grown and changed and diversified until the planet you see about you came to be.

Prove it! You can't.

Prove there is a god. You can't. Just because science can't answer a question yet, does not believe it won't. It just doesn't have the information yet.

You will never be able to prove there is a god because the statistical probability is greater that he does NOT exist than that he does.

The reason we have so much diversity and food chains, and food webs, is because there have been several nearly total extinctions of the planet's plant and animal life. Every time a mass extinction has happened, the engine of evolution further diversified, filling every niche in every ecosystem with something that can live there.

I agree that genetic bottlenecks have occurred in the past. However, that tends to limit the gene pool not to diversify it. You have a de facto
limited gene pool and limited further diversity. Isn't this how the human race achieved its present form?

No, it is not. We are the end product of MILLIONS of years of evolution. I think you need to study up on natural selection before you use the science argument against an atheist. There's no point arguing something you don't understand -- as you've told others in other threads.

That is not proof of god, that is proof that life itself is implacable and in a permanent state of change

I would go along with the three monotheistic religions and I would further add that God does not leave His highest Creation in disarray without guidance. We must analyse all three texts for evidence of scientific facts that were not known at the time of the Revelations but that have been elucidated recently. Would that give you proof? I suspect it would not.

No. The books were written by men. The bible was written by people years after Jesus supposedly lived and is absolutely chock-a-block with contradictions, not just in the Old Testament, but about the life of possibly-fictitious Jesus. The two accounts of Jesus's birth in the New Testament are not even historically accurate -- the authors of the two gospels were desperate to make this Jesus guy fit the prophecy of Micah so they twisted and turned and made stuff up that is actually quite easy to refute with modern historical evidence.

I have the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- it is just as valid as the bible, because it was written by people to explain a belief system they imagine.

Who created the creator?

Old question. Same answer: We live in a Universe where we can attribute effects to causes. It has sense in THIS Universe. However, we can hypothesise the existence of a 'supra' Universe where these relationships do not occur and the effect is built into the cause. The Prime Mover theory again. How can you prove that there are not other Universes? Do you see the problem? It is like a frog explaining to a goldfish what dry land is like. You cannot comprehend what is beyond so you limit yourself to the materialistic world.

LOL you theists are great at semantics. There is nothing outside the universe. The whole concept is everything that exists. Your creator cannot exist outside of the whole of creation -- it is a contradiction in terms.

So, IMO you have not proven there is a god. Would you like to play again?

Please don't say play. These are seroius convictions that can change a person's life. This is not a game but literally a matter of life and death to many of us. However, can we have a reasonable argument? Of course we can. Over to you.

I don't believe we can have a reasonable argument. Faith is the opposite of reason.

I think the fallacy you are trying to convince me of can be shown erroneous in this fashion:

Theists (especially ID proponents) say that it takes something big and complex to make something simple -- you don't see a pot making a potter.

Evolution and science states the opposite. Extreme complexity is the end result, not where things begin.

You cannot prove that god exists or does not exist. Just like I cannot prove or disprove the existance of fairies and banshees.

That is true, Darkside, but the statistical probability against god's existing is much higher than the statistical probability that he does.

No, that is a disingenuous answer. Perfection is perfection. If there was a designer who made a perfect design it would be PERFECT without these flaws. Ergo, there is no supernatural designer, there is the design of natural selection which requires no intelligence to get moving.

I have a problem with this one and I will have to reflect on it. However, intermediates in the design are never perfect are they? Are humans the final stage of evolution? You and I both don't know the answer.

Prove there is a god. You can't. Just because science can't answer a question yet, does not believe it won't. It just doesn't have the information yet.

You and I will never have the answers to the basic questions trying to look millions of years in the past and use inductive or deductive reasoning. Science can carry on for another million years and, unless you have a time machine, can only GUESS at original conditions.

You will never be able to prove there is a god because the statistical probability is greater that he does NOT exist than that he does.

I see that atheists are also capable of semantic obfuscation. Which events do you base your statistics upon? Have you heard of what Fred Hoyle said about the formation of an aeroplane from its components?

No, it is not. We are the end product of MILLIONS of years of evolution. I think you need to study up on natural selection before you use the science argument against an atheist. There's no point arguing something you don't understand -- as you've told others in other threads.

I want to stick to the human species. Your own atheist scientists state tht a genetic bottleneck created the present human race. The Eve theory looking at mitochondrial DNA and the genetic clock appears to point to at least one genetic bottleneck. Obviously you also need to do your reading because a bottleneck even with genetic drift, still leads to a limited gene pool.

No. The books were written by men. The bible was written by people years after Jesus supposedly lived and is absolutely chock-a-block with contradictions, not just in the Old Testament, but about the life of possibly-fictitious Jesus.

How can you deny the existence of Jesus? There are numerous documents referring to his life and message. Now who has disingenuous arguments?

LOL you theists are great at semantics. There is nothing outside the universe. The whole concept is everything that exists. Your creator cannot exist outside of the whole of creation -- it is a contradiction in terms.

Again, this is beyond your purview and mine. However, God has stated His prime mover event quite adequately in the Scriptures. So He exists. As I said, you will never know what is beond the Universe so you deny that there is anything. Without a shred of scientific proof that you demand from us.

Theists (especially ID proponents) say that it takes something big and complex to make something simple -- you don't see a pot making a potter.

Evolution and science states the opposite. Extreme complexity is the end result, not where things begin.

Another false argument, I just need to refer to first principles again. We are back to the Miller-Urey experiment which has been proved to be an inaccurate reflection of initial conditions. Again, you atheists are in the dark and rely on the Scientific method to save you. I was trying to accommodate Science with Faith but you will never accept anything a theist says so I guess you're right. We can't have a reasoned argument.

there is no way to prove that ANY of the hypothesized deities exists
there is also no way to disprove that they exist, and there is also no need to

HOWEVER, this does not mean that both sides have an equal probability of truth. you can find evidence against perfection in existence: tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, cancer, aids, ebola (did god create aids and ebola? if it did it's a prick) etc.

and again, hero, prime mover doesn't = omnipotent. if there was a first cause, that doesn't mean that cause is omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent.

the prime mover argument does nothing to prove the existence of anything but a first cause, it doesn't prove any attributes of that being

I've posted this in another thread:

After viewing many religious threads, I have come to these conclusions:

1. Until theists can come up with a viable argument to 'physically/tangibly' prove that God exists, there is NO point in playing the same old record on the turntable.

2. Belief in itself, is not a tangible thing.

3. Constructive debating/arguing with a non-theist about the above 2 points will not sway staunch non-theists when the subject of 'belief' or any such 'holy' book is used as reference.

4. Proposed biblical subjugations via these holy books, for the purpose of eliciting guilt responses of non-theists, only broaden and highten taut responses from non-theists to prove conclusion #2.

5. The discussion of religion must be appoached with 'Caution'.

I'm just going to answer the Fred Hoyle thing, because it's perhaps the most popular argument for a creator, and an erroneous one. This is the argument from improbability. When looked at properly, the argument from improbability does not prove that god exists, it very nearly proves he does NOT.

ID proponents, Hoyle included, state that the probability of life evolving on the earth is no greater than the chance that a great wind swooping through a scrapyard will spontaneously assemble a 747. This argument is made by people who do not understand natural selection. Natural selection is the OPPOSITE of chance. It is properly the alternative system TO chance, rather than that of a designer.

Dawkins gives a great analogy: Theists and non-theists alike are looking at a mountain -- the mountain representing natural selection. On one side it is sheer and unscalable. On the other side, it is a very gradual slope, easily climbed, but long.

There is a marvel of natural evolution at the top, take your pick, the eagle's eye, the Dutchman's Pipe, whatever.

The theist side can only see straight up to the top along the sheer face -- they only see a huge leap with no understanding of how to get up there.

The evolution camp sees the back of the mountain, a series of very small, very slow movements inexorably upward arriving at the apex and the eagle or the pipe or whatever.

What the IDists and theists are overlooking is the power of accumulation. It's incorrect to look at the end result as the entire process. It is a very long series of slightly improbable changes (mutation) over a very long period of time that produces the designs you see today. This is evolution.

A great wind did not sweep through the earth and assemble everything you see today; it started very small, microscopically small, and built on from there over an unimaginable length of time that we can only think about abstractly. The geological timescale and natural selection fit together because they go together. Small changes over a vast period of time drives evolution.

The next argument that is brought up in this vein is the argument from irreducible complexity, which is probably where we're going to go next.

This is the argument that, the eye sees or it does not. The wing flies, or it does not. That there are no intermediary stages. This is likewise incorrect.

All sorts of invertebrates have eyespots. They can sense light and dark, and that is about all. There are animals further up the evolutionary scale that see very blurry images through a very crude eye, and more complex eyes that only see in black and white. There are our eyes that see in color with binocular vision, and there are the eyes of eagles which put our eyes to shame. These are all stages of evolution, that can be seen and demonstrated here around us in our own time, no fossil record necessary.

The idea that the wing cannot have evolved over slow stages is also wrong. There are birds with wings that are all but useless except for fluttering down from a high perch. There are gliding animals with barely anything resembling a wing at all. There are birds with marvelous wings that can keep them aloft even when they're sleeping on migratory routes. A vestigial wing on a bird's ancestor could have kept it from being killed from a small height. Generations down the line, this advantage has resulted in selection for larger wings, so that the descendants of the original birds can survive falls from greater heights. The birds with the largest wings again had the best survival rates and could pass their genetic material down. This went on for millions of years, and eventually produced the marvel of natural engineering we see today in eagles, condors, even the common house sparrow.

The idea of natural selection is counter-intuitive, and this might be where people are getting stuck. We are creators ourselves, of our tools, toys and gadgets. We think that it takes a complex being to make a less complex thing.

Natural selection runs counter to this idea: life starts off small and insignificant, and gradually becomes more complex over vast time scales.

And my hands are tired, perhaps it's time to tag in madness.

Ducky's theory (taking a funny approach):

Is that the Best you can give?

Holy moly!

Let's start from scratch:

OMG...look at the little friggin shrimps over there...look at the theists trying to figure out 'life'...WOW (swallowing saliva now) look at the stinkin wittle ingrates...."You've got to be kidden me..."

'Picken up from George Carlin...this guy makes a pretty plauible stand:

Bull Ka Ka Religion

I love this guys approach to life! I love his attitudes!



[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Ducky's theory (taking a funny approach):

Is that the Best you can give?

Holy moly!

Let's start from scratch:

OMG...look at the little friggin shrimps over there...look at the theists trying to figure out 'life'...WOW (swallowing saliva now) look at the stinkin wittle ingrates...."You've got to be kidden me..."

'Picken up from George Carlin...this guy makes a pretty plauible stand:

Bull Ka Ka Religion

I love this guys approach to life! I love his attitudes!



[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

I also want to submit this song:

Play it if you dare? The Logical Song!

[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

nobody has to prove that god DOESN'T exist. saying god doesn't exist is merely stating that there is no logical reason to believe in the existence of said being, it's a negative statement.

Back up your claim. You say he does'nt exist where is your evidents. To say God does'nt exist means to say God is not alive, he is not here. You may say there is no logical reason to believe, But I think its very logical. And thats not even smart thinking. To say that there is a God and punishiment for sins is not a negative statement its reality.

Originally posted by slymattb

nobody has to prove that god DOESN'T exist. saying god doesn't exist is merely stating that there is no logical reason to believe in the existence of said being, it's a negative statement.

Back up your claim. You say he does'nt exist where is your evidents. To say God does'nt exist means to say God is not alive, he is not here. You may say there is no logical reason to believe, But I think its very logical. And thats not even smart thinking. To say that there is a God and punishiment for sins is not a negative statement its reality.

I suggest you go to your local junior college and take a course in elementary logic and critical thinking. The burden of proof is on the one who declares a postulate. Theists claim there is a god. They have the task of giving proof.

As a non-theist, I don't waste my time proclaiming "there is no god." Rather, I don't bother including the concept in my life because I've not been shown that it furnishes any additional information, serves any function, or helps me to live a reasonable life. I have strong ethics so I don't need to have some authority tell me what I should do; I understand the scientific explanations for evolution, and the progress of the universe so I don't need silly, flat-world religious stories; I'm perfectly happy to recognize that there are many questions not yet answered, so I don't need mythological fairytales to give make-believe answers; I realize that like all other living things, I'm a short term phenomena, nearing the end of my existence, so I don't need the fake security blanket of an "eternal life."

One of my ethical rules is to avoid hurting anyone. Occasionally I've not lived up to that rule. I won't call it a sin, but certainly a lapse. As soon as I've realized it, I had the job of making restitution. The whole religious forgiveness by praying is a childish cop-out.

I'm fascinated with the adult theists who have grown past believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy but who haven't yet grown past the mythical creature they call god.

Occam

Originally posted by slymattb
You may say there is no logical reason to believe, But I think its very logical. And thats not even smart thinking. To say that there is a God and punishiment for sins is not a negative statement its reality.

you may think it's very logical... but you can't back up your assertion that god exists with any sort of logic or reason.

ay think it's very logical... but you can't back up your assertion that god exists with any sort of logic or reason.

And here we go again going off topic. I might point out I am not the only one. I give and gave logical reason, you just dont like the reasons. You want me to back up a claim when we both know that is not what is suppost to happen proof would destroy faith, and free will. With proof there would be no faith or free will.

The fact remain you cannot back up your claim either, just because a couple of men decided to say that believers must proof it, does'nt mean anything. You make a claim, back it up. You have not back up your claim or even tryed. I back up claims to the way I believe it. I just will not waste words.

sly, if i have to disprove the existence of your god, why don't you have to disprove thor, the flying spaghetti monster, baal, amateratsu, horus, or poseidon?

the second i have to disprove your 1 deity, i have to disprove the other million... and you do too.

if i'm making a claim, so are you. actually you'd be merely making 1 less claim than i am. you're claiming that every single other god doesn't exist.

[edit on 7/27/07 by madnessinmysoul]

All I am saying is far as who should prove what. I say the same as you did. You make a claim back it up. You said all over and over he does not exist and yet you cant even think of disproving the matter. I on the other cant prove God, But I can show ways that God will prove himself, in ways. Look around you again.

Originally posted by slymattb
All I am saying is far as who should prove what. I say the same as you did. You make a claim back it up.

i'm only making a claim that you cannot back up the statement "god exists"
if the existence of something cannot be proven, it remains in the realm of the hypothetical and fictional

You said all over and over he does not exist and yet you cant even think of disproving the matter.

again, i'm only asserting god MOST LIKELY doesn't exist on the basis that you cannot prove "his" existence.

I on the other cant prove God, But I can show ways that God will prove himself, in ways. Look around you again.

again, you cannot prove it, therefore it probably doesn't exist