Evidence Against God

[FallentoReason]

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.

It is not man that seeks god through science but god that seeks man throughtout history i.e. religions.

Have a lurk around the forum for the reasons why god hasn't shown itself to us.

[Ace Otana]

What is supernatural evidence? All we have is natural evidence and it suggests that it was created by some higher power (God).

How does it suggest that a higher power was required? You'll need to demonstrate that this 'god' exists before you can assert that he/it was the cause. Otherwise your argument can't stand. It's like building a house without a foundation.

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).

I haven't claimed that god doesn't exist. I simply lack the belief that he does. I don't know whether a god exists or not, I have simply rejected the claim due to inconsistencies and a total lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

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.

The evidence and understanding of the cosmos actually shows that a god isn't required. Doesn't disprove god, it demonstrates that he isn't needed.

Can't disprove what hasn't been proven. Try and disprove the tea pot that's orbiting the sun or the invisible dragon in my garage.

[Abishalom]

How does it suggest that a higher power was required? You'll need to demonstrate that this 'god' exists before you can assert that he/it was the cause. Otherwise your argument can't stand. It's like building a house without a foundation.

A house without a foundation is one built of the assumption of no God. Why do you think scientists fail to answer so many questions (especially ones concerning origins)? They rationalized God out of the picture.

I haven't claimed that god doesn't exist. I simply lack the belief that he does. I don't know whether a god exists or not, I have simply rejected the claim due to inconsistencies and a total lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

You may believe that you do not claim that God does not exist (through rationalization). But I am aware of the "weak" atheist position. You accept nonexistence by default. However, nonexistence is not the default position. It parallels the position of the prosecutor who must prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt a guilty verdict (nonexistence). Based on what is required to prove this position (all possible evidence or at least all known evidence definitively backing this position) it holds the burden of proof.

The evidence and understanding of the cosmos actually shows that a god isn't required. Doesn't disprove god, it demonstrates that he isn't needed.

What exactly do you mean by the evidence shows that He isn't needed? How so? This sounds like a bunch of rationalization of naturalism.

Can't disprove what hasn't been proven. Try and disprove the tea pot that's orbiting the sun or the invisible dragon in my garage.

What are you saying? Let's not go in circles my friend. The evidence and understanding of the cosmos suggest a beginning of the universe. Either God did it or He didn't. What do you suppose?

[Phil]

Why do you think science fails to answer so many questions (especially ones concerning origins)?

Science has plenty of answers about life's emergence. Either you refuse to hear them because of your preconceived god bias or you really haven't bothered to look. Synthetic life was made in 2010 and a synthetic virus was made in 2003. This is 2012 so you are behind the times 9 years in one case and 2 in the other.

[Abishalom]

Why do you think science fails to answer so many questions (especially ones concerning origins)?

Science has plenty of answers about life's emergence. Either you refuse to hear them because of your preconceived god bias or you really haven't bothered to look. Synthetic life was made in 2010 and a synthetic virus was made in 2003. This is 2012 so you are behind the times 9 years in one case and 2 in the other.

Where did I say science did not have plenty of answers? I said science (should have said scientists) fail to answer so many questions), which is absolutely true. If you compare our known knowledge to all possible knowledge, we have an insignificant amount. Why do you think this is so? It seems to me that they are rationalizing God away through naturalism.

P.S. That is nice to know that scientists have created synthetic life in a lab through controlled conditions. But that just proves that life was CREATED. Either God did it or He didn't. What do you suppose?

[Ace Otana]

A house without a foundation is one built of the assumption of no God. Why do you think science fails to answer so many questions (especially ones concerning origins)? They rationalized God out of the picture.

We use evidence remember. You don't. There is no evidence for god's existence, nor is there evidence to suggest that some higher power is needed. Formation of planets, solar systems and the like are the result of gravity. Where does god come into it?
Your claim, your burden of proof. All I've done is rule it out.

You may believe that you do not claim that God does not exist (through rationalization). But I am aware of the "weak" atheist position. You accept nonexistence by default. However, nonexistence is not the default position. It parallels the position of the prosecutor who must prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt a guilty verdict (nonexistence). Based on what is required to prove this position (all possible evidence or at least all known evidence definitively backing this position) it holds the burden of proof.

Get busy disproving the orbiting tea pot then, and the invisible dragon in my garage.

What exactly do you mean by the evidence shows that He isn't needed? How so? This sounds like a bunch of rationalization of naturalism.

We can explain how the cosmos works. We don't need to make up some god thing to explain it. See Stephen Hawking on - Does god exist? It's really good. Goes into detail on it.

You're creating a strawman. That has nothing to do with my post. The evidence and understanding of the cosmos suggest a beginning of the universe. Either God did it or He didn't. What do you suppose?

It has everything to do with the post. You can't disprove what hasn't been proved to begin with. Otherwise you should have no trouble disproving the orbiting tea pot or the invisible dragon or the flying spaghetti monster.
You wanna know what I think on how everything got here? This is my answer - ?
A question mark. Because I really don't know. There is no reason to think a god was responsible, no evidence to suggest such a being exists.

[Adjusted Sanity]

Just because we don't know everything else does not mean god fills that gap.

[Phil]

Why do you think science fails to answer so many questions (especially ones concerning origins)?

Science has plenty of answers about life's emergence. Either you refuse to hear them because of your preconceived god bias or you really haven't bothered to look. Synthetic life was made in 2010 and a synthetic virus was made in 2003. This is 2012 so you are behind the times 9 years in one case and 2 in the other.

Where did I say science did not have plenty of answers? I said science (should have said scientists) fail to answer so many questions), which is absolutely true. If you compare our known knowledge to all possible knowledge, we have an insignificant amount. Why do you think this is so? It seems to me that they are rationalizing God away through naturalism.

P.S. That is nice to know that scientists have created synthetic life. But that just prove that life was CREATED. Either God did it or He didn't. What do you suppose?

I suppose, no I actually know that you are asking me a really dumb question that my answering is something you won't like. But since you asked, I suppose you are retarded.

[Jaysyn]

P.S. That is nice to know that scientists have created synthetic life in a lab through controlled conditions. But that just proves that life was CREATED. Either God did it or He didn't. What do you suppose?

You just fucked up. The synthetic life in question was created from nonliving biogenic chemicals in conditions mimicking the primordial earth. NO GOD NEEDED!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!1!!!!!

Edit: Fixed chemical type.

[Phil]

You just fucked up. The synthetic life in question was created from nonliving organic chemicals in conditions resembling the primordial earth. NO GOD NEEDED!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!1!!!!!

Chemicals are inorganic. What you appear to mean is that it was made from biogenic chemicals. The biogenic chemicals are CHONPS. (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Sulfur)