A scientific reason to not believe?

[Ryantology]

I thought I would be challenged by academic people. I guess not.

If you had any interest in academic standards, you would realize your claim is unfalsifiable and reject it. Drop your pretenses, please.

A scientific reason not to 'believe' is that there is no evidence that God exists. It is as simple as that.

[journeyinghowie]

Produce some evidence for your god.

l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God

[Annik]

So all you have is bullshit conjecture?

[cratehorus]

google is your freind

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas' collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune. He summarizes the fourth argument:


The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by a comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.

That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion.

—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation" (Carlo Rovelli). The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[Gilgamesh]

l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

In this universe, we can observe facts. The facts only apply to this universe. Who's to say whatever was the cause for this universe didn't follow the same rules as this universe? Also, who's to say this universe ever had a causation?

If to assume what you say is true up until 'god', can you please define what a 'god' is?

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

This looks like argument #1 to me. See above for a refutation.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

I don't even understand this, although, judging from the ending bit of the paragraph, I'd say it's borderline argument #1.

4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

Everyone has different standards, though. Even if everyone had the same standard, how is that evidence for a 'god.' Also, define 'god.'

5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God

The definition of design:
"Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system"
I don't see that when I look at a bird. When I look at a bird, I see evidence for a bird.

If to assume everything in existence came with a blueprint to prove it was indeed designed, I'd need a definition of the designer and then evidence to support the claim that what you described is indeed what designed these things; basically, define 'god.'

[Creed of Heresy]

Can anyone give me a scientific reason not to be a "believer"?

Sure.

Can you posit any proof of god's existence?

First, before you do, apply the cross-examination of the so-called witnesses in the bible. Please keep an open mind while reading the gospels. Get back to me about that.

Also stop your "I WANTED TO SEE RATIONAL DISCOURSE" when you're saying things like "can anyone give me a scientific reason to not be a believer." See, we can't actually utilize the scientific method to argue against god because god, in your words, exists outside the realms of science [IE; logic, rationality, tangibility].

Disingenuous of you to state such things. It'd be like me asking you "is there religious evidence to prove god doesn't exist?" You can't argue for irrationality with rationality and vice-versa.

[Voltron]

Can anyone give me a scientific reason not to be a "believer"?

Wait, you want me to give you scientific evidence that snakes don't talk and bushels don't give commandments? How about you provide evidence that they do.

[KichigaiNeko]

is this your intro thread??

[Welsh cake]

I feel like no one around here actually knows why they are atheist.

It seems to me that its just a bunch of people with anti-religious sentiment talking about how much they hate religion for whatever reason.

I don't see much real evidence for me to become an Atheist.

I thought you atheists were better than that. I thought I would be challenged by academic people. I guess not.

Do you want to have a conversation? Or not?

When you strut into a forum like a condescending douche who thinks he knows all the answers, expect to be shown the door like a condescending douche who thinks he knows all the answers.

[downbeatplumb]

is this your intro thread??

I suspect it is also his exit thread.
He made it so he can go back to his fellow sheep and tell them how he vanquished the terrible athiests. I think its a right of passage.