Does God Exist?

[Demagog]

Atheism can also be the position that a deity or deities do not exist. There is no single accepted definition of atheism. But, to be clear, maybe I should rephrase. You do not believe in 99% of gods that mankind has invented.

Maybe I should have worded the title differently... Instead of "Does God Exist?" it should be "Does a God Exist?" because the former seems to pertain to Christianity and perhaps the other two major religions.

[Evil Hamster]

You got this one backwards. Science doesn't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Religion has to prove that it does exist.

If I say there is an invisible pink unicorn living in my house, do you have to prove it? And if you can't prove it, does that make it true?

The burden of proof is always with the person who is making the claim. Otherwise everyone could just make up stuff that doesn't make any sense but what nobody can dispute. Actually that's what religion is all about.

I know I'm WAAAAYYYYY behind on this topic. I've been so busy adminning I actually avoided it until today.

So let me get this straight. Man has known for 10s of thousands of years that God exists- what form that god takes generally varies by geographical location and what people were raised to believe. Still in every culture there is knowledge of some form of spirit that exists. Now "science" comes along and without any proof whatsoever declares God does not exist and religion have to prove He does?

The great religion of "science" doesn't even follow its own standards on that one. Apparently scientists have made up stuff that doesn't make any sense but nobody can dispute.

As for your pink elephant argument- If generation after generation of the SG family knew that it existed over thousands of years then yes, somebody would have to disprove it. But since you're the first to make the claim then it's likely you're smoking some good stuff

[sillyking14]

ahh but it does point to intelligent design. intelligent design is a theory that covers the creation of the world as we know it. from the beginning of the universe, to the creation of the planets, to the creation of life, to the creation of man. now then,
as i understand it the big bang theory is as follows
1. in the beginning (immediately prior to the big bang) all matter/energy in the universe was existent in a single hyper dense point in space
2. suddenly this point exploded, (or expanded rapidly) and the different elements, and literally everything that we know of today began.
3. the heat and energy from this "big bang" caused elements to react, creating suns rocks and such.
4. as time wore on these things moved away from the original starting point. and began colliding, orbitting each other, and so on to create galaxies, planets, and start systems. (but this is actually getting away from the big bang theory.

its the first 2 steps that are key. first the question has to be asked, where did this hyper dense "ball" (for lack of a better word) come from.

there are only 2 possibilities.
1. it was always there
      if this is true, then something had to have set it off. nothing inside of the hyper dense"ball" could have done it. thats the nature of infinity.
2. it was there for only a limited time and it was made somehow.
      it is this part that is really the most troublesome, and there are many hypothises regarding it. i will list some of he ones that i can think of.

a. the universe is in a constant state of flux/reflux. I.E. it is constantly growing , then at a certain point, it shrinks back to the hyper dense ball (what i will hereby call singularity) only to start the process over.
         the problem with this hypothesis is that the phenomenon can't be explained by the "laws of nature." is is not that it hasn't been explained yet by something undiscovered by man. but that it is categorically against the laws of nature. since any change in velocity has to come about by a force, and there is no force that is being exerted, as a matter of fact some scientists believe that the galaxies are accelerating not slowing down. so if this hypothesis is true, then something, must be causing it, something that is able to defy the laws of nature.
b. ok so actually that is the only hypothesis that i can think of off the top of my head. i can think of other hypothesis that use a model different from the big bang to explain the creation of the universe, but that is not the point of my argument.
if you can come up with another hypothesis then please let me know and i will include it.

again, the point is not to prove that the universe was created in the big bang, or that god exists because the big bang is true. the point is that if the big bang theory is true then, when you couple it with the "laws of nature" you have to assume intelligent design. its part and parcel.

furthermore: since some people like syllogistic arguments here is a simple one.
premise: hawkins set out to prove that the big bang theory didn't start with singularity
premise: hawkins is atheistic
conclusion: the big bang theory is not atheistic in nature, it is started by theists.

also, one of the first people to describe the universe as being dynamic (in constant motion) was Einstein, and he believed that this pointed to intelligent design. that little tid-bit is for the people that somehow think that highly intelligent people are primarily atheistic.

[sillyking14]

ita not an argument from ignorance. hes not saying that because we don't know what caused it it must be god. hes saying that as it (and the laws of nature) stands, the Big Bang theory points more toward intelligent design then away from it. not that the big bang theory conclusively proves god, but that it leans more  toward intelligent design.

[sillyking14]

Slowly the "proofs" they offered have been shown to be a sham or not logically consistent,

for example....?

You too are an atheist about 99% of gods that humanity has ever created.

the term "atheistic" specifically means, against theism. (theism being the belief in a god). we are not "atheistic" we simply are "theistic" about a different god.
just thought i'd mention that, doesn't actually have any effect on anything.

But that's the thing that I've been trying to explain for the last couple of pages. Scientists don't need to prove there is no God any more than they need to prove there is no flying teapot somewhere near Mars or pink unicorn in Scaredgirl's house.

yeah, you have said that and we understand what you are saying. what we anna know is why? why is it that scientists are allowed to choose what the burden of proof is? people have believed in God for a very long time, so, when scientists try to take god ot of the equation for any experiment, they have to justify it. and they sre better do a better job than saying "oh well we can't prove he exists so we have to assume he doesn't."

[sillyking14]

but since you asked here's an example:

that is hilarious.

but i can't offer proofs. i mean, i have no credibility, i can say something, and all you need to do to refute it is say, "no that isn't true" especially since it would be my word against yours. that doesn't make any sense. you made an assertion. namely "Slowly the "proofs" they offered have been shown to be a sham or not logically consistent," now prove it. this is exactly the same attitude you take with me when i make assertions without backing them up.

Why Jehovah and not Odin or Shiva?

if you read the old testament it is full of stories in which god proves himself to be the real god and not the others. not that i expect you to actually believe what is written. but that is why.

Scientists don't choose where the burden of proof lies. It simply logically lies with the person trying to make the positive statement of God's existence, because it is logically impossible to falsify an unfalsifiable concept. It's very simple. We would in fact say "we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that the teapot/unicorn exists, so it's reasonable to assume for the moment that it does not". Unless you're prepared to believe in the teapot, the unicorn, and Zeus, that's probably the attitude that you should also assume.

does it? and who decides that it is logical for us to prove that god exists over you proving he doesn't? please tell us how you came to that conclusion. absolute proof of gods existence is as impossible as irrefutable proof that he doesn't exist. so why is it that we have to prove that god exists like i said. the belief in his existence has been around a lot longer than not. after all, there is also "absolutely no evidence to support the theory that he doesn't exist so its reasonable to assume for the moment that he does."
and again with the flying teapot, that is something that was made up as a parody of the creation story it is in fact useless to this discussion, because:
1. the teapot is not said to do anything
2. people have not believed in the teapot for thousands of years
3. nobody has done anything good in the name of the teapot
4. nobody has done anything bad in the name of the teapot
5. nobody claims that the teapot does in fact exist
all-in-all the teapot is simply a null hypothesis that scientists, or really anybody uses because they can't come up with a good reason for to Christians to prove god exists before they prove that he doesn't. (purely assertion, not based on any evidence beyond what i have seen in this discussion.)

Atheism can also be the position that a deity or deities do not exist. There is no single accepted definition of atheism. But, to be clear, maybe I should rephrase. You do not believe in 99% of gods that mankind has invented.

i vote that this specific discussion end since it really has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. it is simply an argument about semantics.

[The conartist]

Let me give another example. Satan is the Great Deceiver. His deceptive abilities are far beyond human powers to understand. Satan wrote the Bible. In fact, everything you believe is a lie from Satan. If you produce Bible passages to contradict this position, that's because Satan put them there to deceive you. God is a fictional character created by Satan.

That damned satan got me with his tom-foolery again! That scoundrel

[The conartist]

Firefox is free!

Wtf?! I want my 50 bucks back!

Ha... that made me laugh...

Really, it made me concerned... after the laugh.

If it did, then the only thing we should be concerned about is your lack a sense of humor.

But then again one guy on this forum believed that lollipops can come out of your disc-drive (no joke) so I guess anything is possible.

He thought that lollipop was a virus or something,ya jerk 

[Belthus]

Do you believe in leprechauns? No? Then you belong to the non-leprechaun religion.

Do you believe in unicorns? No? Then you belong to the non-unicorn religion.

Do you believe in Satan? Yes? Then you belong to the Satan-believers religion.

Perhaps we can agree that one belief, or lack or belief, does not a religion make.

[CB!]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That belief is based on faith, not evidence- so atheism is also a religion.

I realise that this has been refuted already, but I thought I should add:

You're making a definitional mistake and therefore constructing a strawman. Not all atheism makes the positive claim that there is no God. Most atheists do not believe in God's existence because there is no reason to do so.

Do most atheists believe in the big bang? because there's no reason to do that either.

[Daxx]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That belief is based on faith, not evidence- so atheism is also a religion.

I realise that this has been refuted already, but I thought I should add:

You're making a definitional mistake and therefore constructing a strawman. Not all atheism makes the positive claim that there is no God. Most atheists do not believe in God's existence because there is no reason to do so.

[Evil Hamster]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That belief is based on faith, not evidence- so atheism is also a religion.