Evidence Against God

[genkaus]

Its interesting how in three pages of discussion not a single one of our dedicated theists has shown his face. I guess that answers my query about their position.

What am I? Chopped liver? Frodo's tackling the issue on an adjacent thread, 'Theistic Claims and Proof'. Haven't seen Drich or Godschild though.

Not a "dedicated theist" - not in the sense I used the word.

[Abishalom]

If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists? Evidence does not actually talk to you. It depends on your worldview on how you perceive the evidence. But you have to rationalize heavily to come to conclusion that with all the complexities and intricacies (to the minute details) we see around us suggests that God did not do all this. Just my 2 cents.

[Reforged]

If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists? Evidence does not actually talk to you. It depends on your worldview on how you perceive the evidence. But you have to rationalize heavily to come to conclusion that with all the complexities and intricacies (to the minute details) we see around us suggests that God did not do all this. Just my 2 cents.

Fair enough, show us some supernatural evidence. :-)

[mediamogul]

Here are some arguments for the non-existence of god:

Ontological Argument:
We cannot conceive of a non-existent being more perfect than the god who does not exist. Because we can conceive of a perfect non-existent being he must not exist otherwise he would be an imperfect non-existent being by existing.

First Cause:
All things capable of causing themselves to exist do not require a cause. The universe caused itself to exist and therefore no god caused the universe to exist.

Watchmaker:
Complexity and order require a designer. The idea of god contains within it complexity and order and therefore was designed by something. That something is man.

Pascal's Wager:
God either exists or does not. Man has no way of knowing with certainty whether god exists and therefore must make a choice to believe or not believe. One must roll the dice and select a random god off the list of religions. There can only be one or no "correct" religion and the odds are significant that one will choose the wrong religion due to the vast majority of religions being false. If one chooses the wrong religion one will be living a lie and subordinating oneself to harmful and false beliefs. If one chooses not to believe in god then one has the freedom to live in the manner they please, free from dogma and with a healthy, happy, skeptical mind in the dignity of being undeceived. Plus, what have you got to lose?

[Adjusted Sanity]

If one chooses not to believe in god then one has the freedom to live in the manner they please, free from dogma and with a healthy, happy, skeptical mind in the dignity of being undeceived. Plus, what have you got to lose?

You can still believe in god and be free of dogma and deception as well. you just have to know it's only belief.

[mediamogul]

If one chooses not to believe in god then one has the freedom to live in the manner they please, free from dogma and with a healthy, happy, skeptical mind in the dignity of being undeceived. Plus, what have you got to lose?

You can still believe in god and be free of dogma and deception as well. you just have to know it's only belief.

Those were meant to be satirical.

The evidence against the existence of god is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of god. There aren't even facts that could reasonably support the hypothesis, never mind elevating it to the status of a scientific theory. It does nothing to explain anything and is therefore an unnecessary. Occam's Razor prevails.

[Minimalist]

Its interesting how in three pages of discussion not a single one of our dedicated theists has shown his face. I guess that answers my query about their position.

What am I? Chopped liver? Frodo's tackling the issue on an adjacent thread, 'Theistic Claims and Proof'. Haven't seen Drich or Godschild though.

Not a "dedicated theist" - not in the sense I used the word.

I think what you mean is "committed theist," Gen. As in, they should be committed to a mental hospital.

[Adjusted Sanity]

If one chooses not to believe in god then one has the freedom to live in the manner they please, free from dogma and with a healthy, happy, skeptical mind in the dignity of being undeceived. Plus, what have you got to lose?

You can still believe in god and be free of dogma and deception as well. you just have to know it's only belief.

Those were meant to be satirical.

The evidence against the existence of god is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of god. There aren't even facts that could reasonably support the hypothesis, never mind elevating it to the status of a scientific theory. It does nothing to explain anything and is therefore an unnecessary. Occam's Razor prevails.

Dammit I see it now. Satire fly's over my head if I don't pay attention and skim. God actually seems like an appropriate thing to use the razor on. Death is seriously the only way to answer the god question. And I am not testing that hypothesis. I couldn't publish my findings anyway. Zombies aren't a valued part of the scientific community.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?

Code:

It doesn't.Nor does it prove he exists.

I make no claims,need prove nothing and have not slightest interest in trying to prove the negative. I will of course be so thrilled I will probably just shit, either way. That is because so far,in all of recorded history,nobody has managed to prove or falsify the existence of any god.


Carl Sagan was actually wrong when he said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" It is indeed evidence, but not proof per se. However,an absence of evidence is a pretty strong implication of reality.

[Abishalom]

If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists? Evidence does not actually talk to you. It depends on your worldview on how you perceive the evidence. But you have to rationalize heavily to come to conclusion that with all the complexities and intricacies (to the minute details) we see around us suggests that God did not do all this. Just my 2 cents.

Fair enough, show us some supernatural evidence. :-)

What is supernatural evidence? All we have is natural evidence and it suggests that it was created by some higher power (God). The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt guilty/nonexistence. So in other words to claim that God does not exists you would to possess all possible evidence (we do not have). So the best you could do is prove that all the natural evidence we have suggests nonexistence unanimously without a hint (reasonable doubt) that God did it.