Existence of God disproved!

Sliver said:
No. You couldn't be further from the truth. You're making this whole thing far more complicated than it needs to be. I don't use faith for anything. I'm a sceptic. If someone makes a claim, I evaluate it and decide weather or not to accept it.

Examples:
My friend tells me he has bought a puppy. Do I believe him without going to his house to check ? If I do, then you might assume this to be faith, but it isn't, it's trust. Why ? Well because I've known my friend for many years and I know he's a generally trustworthy person who doesn't make stuff up. Plus, buying a puppy isn't extraordinary. Another thing to consider is, what if he did make the puppy story up, how would that effect me when I found out ? Well it wouldn't affect me. It's not a big deal.

My friend tells me he has an invisible dragon is his back yard. Do I believe him without going to check ? Of course not. This time he has made an extraordinary claim. If I use faith and take his word for it, this means I now believe in dragons and people are no doubt going to ridicule me. As a sceptic, I would demand evidence for his dragon claim and till such time he provides it, I reject his claim.
Click to expand...

This is your whole issue, you are so adamant that faith doesn't come in to it that you become blinded by that which means you ultimately don't fully understand or appreciate the scientific principles you so rely on.

The fact that you are in denial so much about faith is amusing to watch because you state that your belief in science matches a dictionary definition of "faith" yet lose your mind at the suggestion that you have faith in anything.
 
Didn't D.P. start a thread about this in SC about 2 months ago when the paper came out and then it descended into a kedgefest ****storm.

@ Dolph I have tried explaining to him twice before and he just can't get his head around it. You're wasting your time.
 
Last edited:
spoffle said:
This is your whole issue, you are so adamant that faith doesn't come in to it that you become blinded by that which means you ultimately don't fully understand or appreciate the scientific principles you so rely on.

The fact that you are in denial so much about faith is amusing to watch because you state that your belief in science matches a dictionary definition of "faith" yet lose your mind at the suggestion that you have faith in anything.
Click to expand...

I have faith that today and tomorrow and the next day This God will continue to kill many many many innocent African babies.

Because he works in mysterious ways.

because religion can't explain why their god would do such a thing.

Or because god is a sick ****

Or he doesn't exist.
 
Dolph said:
How does this disprove god? At the most generous, it demonstrates that a deity is not required.

The level of both scientific and philosophical misunderstanding and misrepresentation in this thread is quite concerning.
Click to expand...

It is a jsmoke thread, now come on, what were you expecting?
The first lines in the link, talk about Christians running scared. Lets face it, they are probably more likely fleeing ISIS than they are a scientist with a theory.

People with 'faith' can always trace back and use the line, 'well what created that?' say a big bang, they could suggest 'God' started the process. No scientist can disprove this, and no Christian can prove this, thus they call it faith.

Lets leave it at that, you either have faith, or you do not have faith, both can work well in conjunction with Science, unless your faith happens to be of the fundaMENTAList Christian variety, and you don't understand the concept of allegory and parable. (Even though their chosen messiah taught through this concept)

Dawkins is as vehemently antireligious as fundamentalists are religious. I doubt either is totally right, and jsmoke thread certainly isn't going to help the argument in either direction.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
It is a jsmoke thread, now come on, what were you expecting?
The first lines in the link, talk about Christians running scared. Lets face it, they are probably more likely fleeing ISIS than they are a scientist with a theory.

People with 'faith' can always trace back and use the line, 'well what created that?' say a big bang, they could suggest 'God' started the process. No scientist can disprove this, and no Christian can prove this, thus they call it faith.

Lets leave it at that, you either have faith, or you do not have faith, both can work well in conjunction with Science, unless your faith happens to be of the fundaMENTAList Christian variety, and you don't understand the concept of allegory and parable. (Even though their chosen messiah taught through this concept)

Dawkins is as vehemently antireligious as fundamentalists are religious. I doubt either is totally right, and jsmoke thread certainly isn't going to help the argument in either direction.
Click to expand...

I could swear I had blocked you, oh wait, I'm not logged in.
 
Dolph said:
Scepticism is a starting position, there is nothing wrong with being a sceptic, but it is not a position derived from evidence, but from philosophy, and ultimately, is not a position that can be taken on the basis of anything, it is a starting position, and not the only one available.
Click to expand...

Scepticism may not be the only available starting position but it's certainly the most useful one because it allows us to focus on ideas that have the potential to produce results, rather than those that lead to philosophical tail-chasing. There's not much difference between dismissing the idea of a Creator than dismissing the idea of Zethor being at the origin of the Universe. Or the keyboard on which I'm typing, it does seem to have a mind of its own sometimes.. Maybe I should write a book about it, who knows what will happen in a few hundred years?

Our imagination is virtually unlimited which means someone probably imagined the atom before it was first observed. But, at the time, it was just an idea among an infinity of ideas and if we want learn the true nature of reality, we should follow the clues, not go on voyages to nowhere.


Castiel said:
I can create a robot, but that doesn't mean I am subject to the limitations of that robot.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. Just like you, the robot will never accelerate to a speed faster than the speed of light and it is affected by gravity or the electromagnetic force, among many other limitations.
 
Zethor said:
Our imagination is virtually unlimited which means someone probably imagined the atom before it was first observed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Greeks were the first with the idea.

The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old one, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The word "atom", in fact, was coined by ancient Greek philosophers. However, these ideas were founded in philosophical and theological reasoning rather than evidence and experimentation. As a result, their views on what atoms look like and how they behave were incorrect. They also couldn't convince everybody, so atomism was but one of a number of competing theories on the nature of matter. It wasn't until the 19th century that the idea was embraced and refined by scientists, when the blossoming science of chemistry produced discoveries that only the concept of atoms could explain.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
 
jsmoke said:
I could swear I had blocked you, oh wait, I'm not logged in.
Click to expand...

Interesting you could reply without being logged in, but no matter. So far your only contribution to your own thread has been.

jsmoke said:

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”
I knew they would work it out one day.
Click to expand...

In light of what everyone else has said where, do you believe that those who think God exists, would think the atoms came from?

How does your initial reference in any way dictate a change in policy of whether a God/creator exists or does not?
Specifically, which scientists do you think have now changed their minds? As you said you knew they would get it one day?
They first though God had a magic touch to start the amino acids, and which now think all that was needed was time and light? Who has had the revelation you are suggesting has occurred?
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Interesting you could reply without being logged in, but no matter. So far your only contribution to your own thread has been.



In light of what everyone else has said where, do you believe that those who think God exists, would think the atoms came from?

How does your initial reference in any way dictate a change in policy of whether a God/creator exists or does not?
Specifically, which scientists do you think have now changed their minds? As you said you knew they would get it one day?
They first though God had a magic touch to start the amino acids, and which now think all that was needed was time and light? Who has had the revelation you are suggesting has occurred?
Click to expand...

Although the existence of God cannot be disproved, do you not find it odd that the further we go down the rabbit hole, the less "godly things" we find? Why do you think the majority of scientists, particulary those that study the Universe (physicists, chemists), don't believe in God? Your questions are meaningless in the context because, in time, they will get answers through the scientific method, as they have in the past, and you'll react by hiding God behind the next layer of answered questions, as others have done before you..
 
I would say there is a lot of evidence for an Agnostic belief.
Given that current science thinking suggests a big bang type start to the universe, there is currently no proof for or against a creator for that event, or that the event itself isn't our 'God'.
 
Zethor said:
Although the existence of God cannot be disproved, do you not find it odd that the further we go down the rabbit hole, the less "godly things" we find? Why do you think the majority of scientists, particulary those that study the Universe (physicists, chemists), don't believe in God? Your questions are meaningless in the context because, in time, they will get answers through the scientific method, as they have in the past, and you'll react by hiding God behind the next layer of answered questions, as others have done before you..
Click to expand...

Would that it be true that I actually believed in a God, at this stage I my existence I don't think I do, but I wouldn't discount the existence of one, as I can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom