Why There is Probably No God

[Valjean]

There is no more evidence for his claim than there is for my claim. In fact, there is more evidence for my claim because there is some evidence for my claim. What evidence doe he have? Seems to me all he has is a personal opinion.

What is his claim?
Atheism, in essence, makes no claim, it's a lack of claim. As for evidence, you don't seem to grasp the concept of burden of proof. Only the one making a positive claim has any need to support it. The one making no claim has nothing to defend.

 

[Jos]

What is his claim?
Atheism, in essence, makes no claim, it's a lack of claim. As for evidence, you don't seem to grasp the concept of burden of proof. Only the one making a positive claim has any need to support it. The one making no claim has nothing to defend.

If the person makes a negative claim doesn't that mean that they also have to provide evidence for that claim?

 

[A REAL CHRISTIAN]

There are many arguments for the existence of god, but nearly all of them are something along the lines of "God is necessary to account for X." "X" could be any or all of a number of things or concepts, either physical or nonphysical, like the universe, or something more specific like the complexity of life, or even "transcendental" concepts like mathematics, logic, love, or beauty. Most theists believe (for whatever reason) these entities or concepts cannot exist without a cause, so they posit a "God" to account for them. But, apparently without realizing it, they have just re-created their own "problem" in an attempt to solve it since "God" is defined to be without cause, and simply taken as a given. It is much simpler to just accept the existence of the universe (along with all of its properties/laws/non-physical concepts) and leave it at that. The simpler explanation is usually correct.

You would have to look into old testament foreshadowing, prophesies ( particularly in Daniel AND DONT GET CAUGHT UP IN PREMELLENIALISM), overall completeness of the bible even though it took 1500 years to write by some 40 (inspired) authors, etc. I find most skeptics have a narrow view on finding evidence for God.

 

[Dell]

Technically, a miracle need not be physically impossible.
We tend to view things as possible or impossible based on our abilities.
Our position -subject to certain physical laws -and our interface/physical body limit those abilities.

What your describing is a perspective from two sides. One side its thought to be inconcievable and the other knows it conceivable, so then it is no miracle at all. The word miracle equates to magic basically.

Take for example omniscience. To know the outcome of a future event because you witnessed the event to know its outcome. That requires the ability to live in a moment forward in time, then live but not relive in a moment prior to the event. Think of the implications if that were possible to freewill. Time would have to be like film, molded into it events that already happed. No doubt this is pure science fiction, then so the ability to be Omniscient and know all things.

BTW.. that's a very old philosophy debate ignored by Christianity for hundreds of years.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That argument is as convincing as my claiming that I have seen The Great A'Tuin. Not very.

I’m absolutely certain of God. You may disapprove of any argument you wish but that doesn’t change that I know God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m absolutely certain of God. You may disapprove of any argument you wish but that doesn’t change that I know God.

If you can't support your claims all you have is belief. And since there are others that are just as sure with very different beliefs than you have only one of you can be right at the most.

And I contend that you do not "know God". As the saying goes, if you know it you can show it. Please learn the difference between knowledge and belief.

 

[Valjean]

If the person makes a negative claim doesn't that mean that they also have to provide evidence for that claim?

Basic atheism dosn't make a negative claim. It makes no claim, just as you make no claims about the Tashlid of Merak 3 -- which I'm assuming you don't believe in, as I just made them up.

You have no burden to defend your a-Tashlidism. A-Tashlidism is assumed until evidence of Tashlids is found.

 

[Trailblazer]

There has never been any verifiable evidence a god exists, however much some claim to have evidence.

True. God is not verifiable.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is his claim?

His claim was that God is a belief.

Atheism, in essence, makes no claim, it's a lack of claim.

I know, but he made a claim, that God is a belief. In other words, he made a claim that God does not exist.

As for evidence, you don't seem to grasp the concept of burden of proof. Only the one making a positive claim has any need to support it. The one making no claim has nothing to defend.

True, but he made a claim, that God is a belief, so he needs to support that claim with evidence.
I support my claims with evidence and the fact that atheists do not like my evidence does not mean it is not evidence. Logic 101.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you can't support your claims all you have is belief. And since there are others that are just as sure with very different beliefs than you have only one of you can be right at the most.

And I contend that you do not "know God". As the saying goes, if you know it you can show it. Please learn the difference between knowledge and belief.

I was exactly like you are once. I eventually overcame my weaknesses and now I see the signs Of God all around me, in the universe and within myself. All to obviius now.

God cannot be known or seen intellectually as the human mind is incapable of grasping God just like a painting cannot know the painter.

Only spiritually and with a pure heart can we know God but not until we develop these inner senses can we perceive God.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Innate human ego-centrism tends to lead us to believe we can not only conceptualize something called "god", but be assured it polices us only and loves certain of us best.

The probability factor decries absolute.
Therefore, what if instead the statement becomes: why we're probably wrong there is no such thing as god. (Which to qualify for such an esteemed identity would have to be incomprehensible to minute human intellects. Ever notice Bible God? We've made "him" , including that gender pronoun, into our image and likeness. Even his adverse spirit, ha Satan, behaves as we do. Get it? )

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is just my personal understanding.

Why cannot there be perfection? Imperfection presupposes that there is perfection for imperfection is but the lack of perfection so perfection does exist.

Ignorance is proof that knowledge exists as ignorance is but lack of knowledge just as darkness proves the existence of light as it is lack of light.

We humans are imperfect but God is complete perfection. Imperfection is proof that there is a Perfect One.

Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean we should deny it. The painting will never know or understand the painter yet he exists and the painting is his proof.

The sign there is a creator is creation itself. Creation cannot have brought itself into existence as it would have had to be non existent to do so and a non existent thing cannot bring existence into being.

Another Being outside existence is the only One Who would have been able to create a self perpetuating universe that operates according to His laws. The universe evolves, we reproduce but existence cannot create. Only God can do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was exactly like you are once. I eventually overcame my weaknesses and now I see the signs Of God all around me, in the universe and within myself. All to obviius now.

God cannot be known or seen intellectually as the human mind is incapable of grasping God just like a painting cannot know the painter.

Only spiritually and with a pure heart can we know God but not until we develop these inner senses can we perceive God.

Don't your scriptures tell you not to make false claims about others?

I doubt if you were ever like me. You appear to only be a desperate believer that cannot support your claims. If you truly know there is a god you will be able to support that claim. If you only believe you will only continue to make false claims.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Don't your scriptures tell you not to make false claims about others?

I doubt if you were ever like me. You appear to only be a desperate believer that cannot support your claims. If you truly know there is a god you will be able to support that claim. If you only believe you will only continue to make false claims.

Was only speaking as a former atheist. I know now how wrong I was then. I used to badger people who believed in God and accused them of being mentally unstable so I know what it feels like to have complete contempt for religious people yet it was that contempt which led me to find God, Baha’u’llah and truth.

Now I have inner peace, contentment and happiness. Have a stable marriage and life, drug and alcohol free with no debts and no gambling addictions.

Inwardly I feel as if I’m seated on a throne of gold and am the wealthiest person on earth. My religion gives me wings of joy.

“He who attaineth to My love hath title to a throne of gold, to sit thereon in honour over all the world; “

Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was only speaking as a former atheist. I know now how wrong I was then. I used to badger people who believed in God and accused them of being mentally unstable so I know what it feels like to have complete contempt for religious people yet it was that contempt which led me to find God, Baha’u’llah and truth.

Now I have inner peace, contentment and happiness. Have a stable marriage and life, drug and alcohol free with no debts and no gambling addictions.

Inwardly I feel as if I’m seated on a throne of gold and am the wealthiest person on earth. My religion gives me wings of joy.

“He who attaineth to My love hath title to a throne of gold, to sit thereon in honour over all the world; “

Bahá'u'lláh

Being an atheist does not th a that one has no flaws. Many are atheists for poor reasons. It appears that now you are a theist for poor reasons.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe" . If you claim to believe in a god then we will need to take you at your word. If you claim "I know" you out a burden of proof upon yourself And when all you can give are weak excuses we can see that you only believe and do not know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not true. But go ahead. Post some evidence for your beliefs. Last time I checked you did not have any.

I am not going to post it but that does not mean I do not have it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not going to post it but that does not mean I do not have it.

That is true. But your constant claims of having evidence and your total inability to produce any indicates that you probably have no evidence. All you appear to have is wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe". For a religious belief that is enough. It is wrong to say "I know" when it is pretty obvious that one does not. It even brings one's claim of "I believe" into doubt since those That do believe would not need to falsely claim that they know.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Being an atheist does not th a that one has no flaws. Many are atheists for poor reasons. It appears that now you are a theist for poor reasons.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe" . If you claim to believe in a god then we will need to take you at your word. If you claim "I know" you out a burden of proof upon yourself And when all you can give are weak excuses we can see that you only believe and do not know.

Apart from my own personal experience which is subjective and I cannot possible share adequately I can offer proofs but as I am trying to convey that as an atheist I was not interested in proofs although I asked door them.

As an atheist the only interest I ever had in demanding proofs was to deny them. I neither had the open mind to investigate or be unbiased or try and see the other person’s point of view.

Opposition was my sole and only aim and intention but I did change so I did finally realise how wrong I’d been.

Our main knowledge of the existence of a God or Ultimate Truth, Nirvana and so on seems to come from Beings such as Krishna, Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, Zoroaster, the Bab, Baha’u’llah and Moses.

Their lives and teachings conquered the hearts of people despite severe opposition, poverty and the utmost cruelty. How is it Their teachings were able to and are still influencing billions and billions and have altered the course of human history?

And Baha’u’llah. How did He know that human civilisation was about to become physically united that well before the UN or internet He based His religion on the unity of mankind. Had the technology not come about He would have been disgraced yet all these technologies are but enabling the unity of mankind.

There is no direction for humanity to go except to unite.

Because They had a power that came from God. Not an earthly power yet They were able to win over kings and Queens.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is true. But your constant claims of having evidence and your total inability to produce any indicates that you probably have no evidence.

It does not indicate that at all. It indicates that I do not have time to post evidence on a forum, evidence that will no doubt be rejected.

I also post on two other forums, I have a full time job, a three hour commute, 10 cats and three houses. And you want me to do your homework for you in addition to all that.

 

[Etritonakin]

What your describing is a perspective from two sides. One side its thought to be inconcievable and the other knows it conceivable, so then it is no miracle at all. The word miracle equates to magic basically.

Take for example omniscience. To know the outcome of a future event because you witnessed the event to know its outcome. That requires the ability to live in a moment forward in time, then live but not relive in a moment prior to the event. Think of the implications if that were possible to freewill. Time would have to be like film, molded into it events that already happed. No doubt this is pure science fiction, then so the ability to be Omniscient and know all things.

BTW.. that's a very old philosophy debate ignored by Christianity for hundreds of years.

It is now equated with magic, but not necessarily -and some definitions do allow for that which is simply presently beyond our own ability or understanding. We now routinely do things once considered "miraculous".

(Interesting note: Man has accidentally turned another element into gold in a nuclear reactor -as in alchemy -once thought impossible and ridiculous. See..... Nuclear transmutation - Wikipedia )

If miraculous means "impossible", there is no point discussing it.

We may have omniscience, etc., on a small scale. As long as we have enough information about a present state, we can predict future states -or make certain a future state will come to pass.

However, we exist on a small scale. One who is essentially all-inclusive -developing from the most simple state and consciously determining future states as increasingly able would not be similarly limited.

The God of the bible is essentially described as having created a level of unpredictability by allowing other individuals to make conscious decisions, but is also able to supersede those decisions because his position enables him to do so.
Regardless of the will of man, etc., he has declared the end from the beginning -partly by predictability of that which he created by rearrangement of that which already existed, and partly by imposition of will superseding that of man, etc. -and will bring about the end determined from the beginning.

"The best way to predict the future is to create it" -Abraham Lincoln and / or Peter Drucker