Atheist Club

How can you prove God exists?

How can I prove it would matter in the end?

We're talking about science. You're talking bollocks. Look it up.

You haven't even answered any of my questions properly. Why can you not disprove invisible unicorns? Why can you not disprove that I own a cat? I can throw a hundred more examples at you, it's just impractical to think that you cannot prove anything, which is why in science, you just don't.

How can you prove God exists?

By showing something that can only be done by an omnipresent deity.

~D-Draw

To be honest I just wanted more excuses to call you Edmunds

LOOK IT UP....


I'm not going to be dragged further into this pointless debate. I would answer all your questions and all your "points" but what's the point? You've already made your mind up. That much is obvious as you already ignored all my other responses so what the fuck carry one. Just look it the fuck up will you before you do?

LOOK IT UP....


I'm not going to be dragged further into this pointless debate. I would answer all your questions and all your "points" but what's the point? You've already made your mind up. That much is obvious as you already ignored all my other responses so what the fuck carry one. Just look it the fuck up will you before you do?

Look up WHAT? If you want me to see sources, provide them, but it doesn't matter, because your logic holds no water.

~D-Draw

Here's a proof... but it's against only the traditional view of God.


God is all powerful.  He is also all knowing.  He also wants us to be happy.

Now, if a God like this exists, we would be happy.  And here's why:

He WANTS something.
He has the ability to do it.
He knows how to do it.

Now, if he has all these traits, there is no reason for us to be unhappy at anytime.  Don't give me that 'free will' stuff, because God (being all powerful) is capable of working around our will to make us happy.... and because he knows everything, he knows a way to do it.

It's pretty simple,

There is no evidence that God exists.  There is no evidence that suggests any of the Gods that humans have believed in is any more likely to be correct than any other. 

An atheist, like me, accepts that given the evidence, the likelihood that God exists is incalculably small, and therefore we must conclude that within all likelihood God does not exist.

It's the same reason we discount the belief of invisible pink unicorns.  We can't prove they don't exist, we all just accept that given the complete lack of evidence, there is no reason to believe they do exist, and in all likelihood, they do not.

It's pretty simple,

There is no evidence that God exists.  There is no evidence that suggests any of the Gods that humans have believed in is any more likely to be correct than any other. 

An atheist, like me, accepts that given the evidence, the likelihood that God exists is incalculably small, and therefore we must conclude that within all likelihood God does not exist.

It's the same reason we discount the belief of invisible pink unicorns.  We can't prove they don't exist, we all just accept that given the complete lack of evidence, there is no reason to believe they do exist, and in all likelihood, they do not.

One question to you Beast: the particular supernatural force such as God is incalculably small, but in total, supernatural or no supernatural is still 50/50, correct?

Either he exists, or he don't. I'm hoping he don't cause then he won't bollock me in purgatory....

Not at all.  There is no evidence to suggest that anything supernatural exists.  How can you calculate odds when there is no evidence to support one out come.

On the other hand, if supernatural things actually don't exist, then we wouldn't expect to see any evidence, so the only evidence we can have for that theory is the lack of evidence; which is exactly what we do have!

Either he exists, or he don't. I'm hoping he don't cause then he won't bollock me in purgatory....

Oh you're going down bitch!

Quote from: Kasroa on April 16, 2007, 06:43:35 PM

LOOK IT UP....


I'm not going to be dragged further into this pointless debate. I would answer all your questions and all your "points" but what's the point? You've already made your mind up. That much is obvious as you already ignored all my other responses so what the fuck carry one. Just look it the fuck up will you before you do?

Look up WHAT? If you want me to see sources, provide them, but it doesn't matter, because your logic holds no water.

~D-Draw

Its not MY logic you idiot.

And search for it yourself. It will leave you feeling more educated and fulfilled, far from the heaving mass of clueless skin and bone that you are now.

I myself am an atheist but I'm willing to accept the idea of some sort of creation, though I agree with Diego that it is HIGHLY unlikely. I sure as hell don't agree with any form of religion, should a "God" exist, it would be greater and bigger than anything we could understand, religion couldn't hope to describe it so what good is any form of prayer? To borrow a phrase from a film I once saw, imagine trying to explain yourself to a grasshopper and there's your equivalence.

Not at all.  There is no evidence to suggest that anything supernatural exists.  How can you calculate odds when there is no evidence to support one out come.

On the other hand, if supernatural things actually don't exist, then we wouldn't expect to see any evidence, so the only evidence we can have for that theory is the lack of evidence; which is exactly what we do have!

I suppose the analogy would be...there is either something, or nothing in this case I have next to me. What are the chances it is nothing?

If any supernatural thing existed, any observeable measureable 'evidence' for it would instantaneously make it a natural part of our world.

Sure, we can play with words and make them mean whatever we want.

By supernatural, I mean anything outside our understanding of what is natural, or could be natural.  I mean some kind of spiritual governing body, some kind of intelligence responsible for the creation of the world.  Or ghosts and that kind of thing.

And search for it yourself. It will leave you feeling more educated and fulfilled, far from the heaving mass of clueless skin and bone that you are now.

I'm not even bothering to respond to this because (a) you're just spouting meaningless ad hominem which is entirely unnecessary and (b) you refuse to list any sources and yet want me to "look it up."

~D-Draw

Its not meaningless ad hominem. You are an idiot I was just pointing it out. Its very meaningful ad hominem.

You haven't even tried looking it up on Google which takes seconds so why do you think I would do it for you?

You have no grasp of science at all. Science never proves anything. Don't you get it yet? Science proposes an idea or a theory and if you can disprove all other proposed ideas and theories and nobody can disprove yours then yours will become accepted. Not proven 100%; Just accepted...Like Newton's laws of motion.

You can't prove God exists. It is impossible because no matter what miracles you saw it will only ever be an accepted idea. How do you know that one day after "proving the existence of God" new evidence won't pop up showing that the being who claimed to be God and perform Godly acts was just an alien life-form or a time-traveller using futuristic technology?

You use pathetic simplified examples such as "I can prove the cat is mine". And even then I can say you are wrong because another guy can always come to me and claim the cat is his. He might show me his papers and they might look more genuine than yours. He might show me a vet bill for the cat from before you supposedly came into possession of it. He might even be able to call the cat over which would imply the cat knew him better than you. It doesn't matter really what his evidence is as long as its better than yours. So if this guy comes along and I believe him over you based on his better evidence well there you go I just disproved that the cat belonged to you and I accept the new theory....until perhaps someone else claims posession of the cat. It has not been 100% proven that the cat belongs to him but until another theory comes along to claim posession of the cat to someone else then i will be inclined to believe the current thinking.

Why not try taking your head out of your arse-hole and think about these things scientifically.

You ask me to disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. That is a ridiculous question because no such theory exists. You can't just invent an animal and then say it exists and then say that you now have a scientific theory. Like I said you have been hanging around this conspiracy theory forum too long and can no longer tell the difference between real science and conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory relies solely on "conclusive proofs". Science does not. Science relies on first looking at evidence and then theorising as to an explanation for the evidence. Conspiracy theory relies on arriving at a conclusion and THEN looking at the evidence and taking the bits that you like, discarding the rest. This has clouded your judgment and made you think that this is how science works and that is why we're having this discussion now.

Its not meaningless ad hominem. You are an idiot I was just pointing it out. Its very meaningful ad hominem.

You haven't even tried looking it up on Google which takes seconds so why do you think I would do it for you?

You have no grasp of science at all. Science never proves anything. Don't you get it yet? Science proposes an idea or a theory and if you can disprove all other proposed ideas and theories and nobody can disprove yours then yours will become accepted. Not proven 100%; Just accepted...Like Newton's laws of motion.

You can't prove God exists. It is impossible because no matter what miracles you saw it will only ever be an accepted idea. How do you know that one day after "proving the existence of God" new evidence won't pop up showing that the being who claimed to be God and perform Godly acts was just an alien life-form or a time-traveller using futuristic technology?

You use pathetic simplified examples such as "I can prove the cat is mine". And even then I can say you are wrong because another guy can always come to me and claim the cat is his. He might show me his papers and they might look more genuine than yours. He might show me a vet bill for the cat from before you supposedly came into possession of it. He might even be able to call the cat over which would imply the cat knew him better than you. It doesn't matter really what his evidence is as long as its better than yours. So if this guy comes along and I believe him over you based on his better evidence well there you go I just disproved that the cat belonged to you and I accept the new theory....until perhaps someone else claims posession of the cat. It has not been 100% proven that the cat belongs to him but until another theory comes along to claim posession of the cat to someone else then i will be inclined to believe the current thinking.

Why not try taking your head out of your arse-hole and think about these things scientifically.

You ask me to disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. That is a ridiculous question because no such theory exists. You can't just invent an animal and then say it exists and then say that you now have a scientific theory. Like I said you have been hanging around this conspiracy theory forum too long and can no longer tell the difference between real science and conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory relies solely on "conclusive proofs". Science does not. Science relies on first looking at evidence and then theorising as to an explanation for the evidence. Conspiracy theory relies on arriving at a conclusion and THEN looking at the evidence and taking the bits that you like, discarding the rest. This has clouded your judgment and made you think that this is how science works and that is why we're having this discussion now.

This is the best post I have ever seen on this site. It gets to the root of the issue on EVERYTHING discussed seriously on this site.

No, that is not sarcasm.
Bad. Ass.
































Not.

Oh look the little retard has started following me around again. The little retard that promised it was going to ignore me. What if I throw a stick or a bone or something? Maybe that will make it go away.

Following you around implies a series. Failure. Oh and, ignoring you is easy. Enjoying you is more difficult. Your posts are rarely original.

I enjoy watching you think that I care.

I enjoy watching you think that I care.

I enjoy you attempting to prove that to everyone but yourself. 

Quote from: Insincere Dave on April 17, 2007, 12:43:21 PM

I enjoy watching you think that I care.

I enjoy you attempting to prove that to everyone but yourself. 

That's the part you don't get. I don't give a shit what everyone else thinks and that includes you. I'm talking to you and I was before when i said you are following me around. Yes it does imply a series. I implied that because that's exactly what it is. Failure for you shit-for-brains.

Want links to it? Why would you want any evidence that you're following me around when we both know its true? Nobody else cares so why would I post evidence for them?

So are you going to stop following me around forever looking up to me and trying pathetically to belittle me? You never will belittle me because I am a lot smarter than you.

But carry on caring....its understandable. I mean you always thought you were clever. You thought your forum warrior emo crap was the smartest invention since Tom's comb-over. Why don't you get some anti-depressents and then you can join me in the real world where forum smeg like you are ten a penny. Nothing you say or do is original and that is why you saying my posts are rarely original is so ironic. You, in your sad little world endeavour to be original with each and every post but come off looking a caricture of yourself. Endlessly grinding away trying to be something you'll never be.

I get so much enjoyment out of your feeble attacks. Especially seeing as not only did you start it off but you carried it on without me even having to respond in kind. What an amazing little troll-turd you are. Well done, your mother must be so proud.

Hey, you two, quit squabbling like little children.

No.

Yes you will fucking behave or I'll kick your arse to Scotland