Hey Everyone.

[Samson]

For starters how do you scientific folks prove the non-existence of God and why do you non-scientific folk do not what to beleive in him if its a wuestion of beleif for you?

We do not try and prove the non-existence of god, we simply have no evidence for a god, and have dismissed it because of the non-evidence.
To use a scenario of a godhead, would be even a far more guessing leap than any hypothesis we are working on today.

Now, that's not to say there are not those choice few out there which have been doing everything they can to sway the studies...(Creationist), but so far, every angle they have presented has been proven wrong.

I personally do not believe Science will be able to prove there is no god, just as much as the religious in trying to prove there is...

Again, Scientist or not working on trying to prove the non-existence of a god. If you believe that, then you truly have that idea very wrong.

[Darwinian]

For starters how do you scientific folks prove the non-existence of God and why do you non-scientific folk do not what to beleive in him if its a wuestion of beleif for you?

We can't prove the non existence of God as you can't prove a negative. Neither are we required to as it is not us who is making any form of claim.

The one who makes the claim has the onus to provide evidence. Where's yours?

[Minimalist]

Science... Well it never really proves anything totally cos its all based on the laws of chance and probablility..

Learn about things before you talk about them. It will help in the long run.

Meanwhile....asserting "Goddidit" as an answer to every question is the height of stupidity.

For starters how do you scientific folks prove the non-existence of God

As the proponent of a theory YOU have the duty to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. Not us to disprove what is merely your silly superstition.

[Violet]

Philosophy enables me to find a rational and probable answer in ten minutes... that would take science years to deduce. However, it is only with science that we can be reasonably certain of the truth in our universe (by testable evidence), and still be open to changing that 'truth' to new knowledge.

Faith, on the other hand, cannot change... lest it be destroyed utterly. One absolutely cannot join together both faith and rationality, as it is only by not thinking that one can have faith. To make faith into a virtue, is to make a virtue out of not thinking.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Science... Well it never really proves anything totally cos its all based on the laws of chance and probablility

That statement alone demonstrates that you know very little about science. Have you never considered being *informed* as the way forward?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I personally do not believe Science will be able to prove there is no god, just as much as the religious in trying to prove there is...

Idiots try to prove the existence of God. Religion specifically states that there can't be verifiable proof.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I personally do not believe Science will be able to prove there is no god, just as much as the religious in trying to prove there is...

Idiots try to prove the existence of God. Religion specifically states that there can't be verifiable proof

But that religion states it as so doesn't mean it is correct.

Kyu

[Samson]

fr0do, that's a load of pure mess.....The religious do not state there is anything to prove, because in their minds, it's already been proven...

[Violet]

For starters how do you scientific folks prove the non-existence of God and why do you non-scientific folk do not what to beleive in him if its a wuestion of beleif for you?

We can't prove the non existence of God as you can't prove a negative. Neither are we required to as it is not us who is making any form of claim.

The one who makes the claim has the onus to provide evidence. Where's yours?

Disproof of God (as an omnipresent, omniloving, omnipotent, all-powerful, unconditionally loving, jealous, and original god) is more than easy [for a philosopher anyway]. It cannot exist in any of those forms, at least not when it is the SINGLE god christians envision it to be.

Shall i explore some of the simplest ones? Why not: All-powerful.

Can an all powerful god create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift? This is a simple sword, as if he cannot create such a rock: he is not all powerful. And if he cannot lift the rock he has created: he is not all powerful. All-powerfulness cannot exist. Not in a gardener, not in a government, and not in a god.

How about another... unconditionally loving. Actually, the bible itself disproves that your god loves unconditionally, as we can see from his favoritism of one small group of humans, to his obsession with humans alone. To love (which is the most conditional of all emotions) unconditionally, is to love a rock as much as a dog, a dog as much as a human, and that human as much as another human, and that human as much as evil itself, and that evil as much as rocks. To love everything the same amount, to love murder as much as significant others... that is unconditionally loving. And that... is impossible.

[Minimalist]

Religion specifically states that there can't be verifiable proof.

Again, how convenient for the guy who has no proof.