Evidence Against God

[genkaus]

I said no such thing. I said the evidence does not actually speak to you, so therefore it would depend on your worldview on how you would perceive the evidence. You might be thinking too hard.

I asked you what evidence you'd need to prove to you that god does not exist. You didn't address the question. What you did say was that whether or not some evidence is perceived to be against god would depend upon your established world-view. Since I assume that your world-view is based on god, then no evidence that can ever be shown to you could be perceived against god.

If I'm wrong, then all you need to do is tell me what evidence you would require as proof against god's existence?

Please provide the logic for this conclusion. If you actually read my post you will realize I did no such thing.

Read it yourself. You've repeated it here as well. You said, "it would depend on your worldview on how you would perceive the evidence". Which means that with different world-views, same evidence would be proof for different and probably contradictory things. Therefore, useless.

[Abishalom]

I've already read both of the articles. I doubt yall have based on what yall are claiming. The question was about atheism being the default position of babies. We talking about children being PREDISPOSED to such beliefs.

From the article...
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...laims.html

[Ace Otana]

From the article...
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose"

Pattern seeking primates with a very active imagination plus the natural desire to fill in missing gaps of knowledge.
Can't help but seek patterns where there are none. Nuff said, you're on ignore.

[Abishalom]

I asked you what evidence you'd need to prove to you that god does not exist. You didn't address the question. What you did say was that whether or not some evidence is perceived to be against god would depend upon your established world-view. Since I assume that your world-view is based on god, then no evidence that can ever be shown to you could be perceived against god.

If I'm wrong, then all you need to do is tell me what evidence you would require as proof against god's existence?

Ok. Well obviously to definitively prove that God does not exist we would need all possible evidence. Which we do not possess. Therefore, we cannot definitively prove this. So what we can do is evaluate all the known evidence. You would have to prove unanimously that all the known evidence points to no God. I guess a start would be prove that the universe and everything in it had no beginning.

Read it yourself. You've repeated it here as well. You said, "it would depend on your worldview on how you would perceive the evidence". Which means that with different world-views, same evidence would be proof for different and probably contradictory things. Therefore, useless.

Yes I did say that, but I asked for the logic of your conclusion (you said I changed my position). Anyway...Don't you see that now? Did you know that when it comes to the origin theories they are diametrically opposed (mutually exclusive) to the biblical account. So you have to ask yourself an honest question. Why do these theories on origin (evolution, big bang, abiogenisis, ones concerning the order of the formation of stars and planets etc) have an EXACT opposite account on the beginnings from the biblical account?

---

From the article...
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose"

Pattern seeking primates with a very active imagination plus the natural desire to fill in missing gaps of knowledge.
Can't help but seek patterns where there are none. Nuff said, you're on ignore.

This sounds like rationalization. Is this in the article?

[Faith No More]

So what we can do is evaluate all the known evidence. You would have to prove unanimously that all the known evidence points to no God

Not true. All that would have to be proven was that the evidence did not conclusively point to a god existing. This would mean the logical conclusion would be to lack a belief in god, which is exactly what being an atheist entails.

Why do these theories on origin (evolution, big bang, abiogenisis, ones concerning the order of the formation of stars and planets etc) have an EXACT opposite account on the beginnings from the biblical account?

Being that it was written by men living thousands of years ago with little to no working knowledge of the cosmos, they got everything completely wrong from a scientific standpoint.

[downbeatplumb]

Is this person saying that babies exit the womb believing in god?

If so them I am an oddity for I never believed in god.

The default position for me has always been non-belief.

It know that the thought process that leads to a god is a childlike thought process.

the argument goes like this.

Fish live in water

So

The purpose of water is to be where fish can live

Something gave water that purpose and made it so the fish could inhabit it

Therefore god

Assigning things 'purpose' stops having to think too deeply about them.

[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. :-)

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.

So... you don't have any "supernatural evidence"? Is that what you're saying? It seems suspiciously close to that.
Look, its a very simple question. Did I sound like I was claiming anything? The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something exists and before you say you aren't, you are. You're going on about how natural evidence doesn't cut it for the supernatural, well fine.
Do you have any supernatural evidence or not.

Wipe away the tears, sweat and shame and try again. Honestly, its fine. I'll wait. :-)

[Abishalom]

Not true. All that would have to be proven was that the evidence did not conclusively point to a god existing. This would mean the logical conclusion would be to lack a belief in god, which is exactly what being an atheist entails.

That's false. To prove definitively nonexistence of God you have to evaluate all evidence and it must be unanimous. Why? Because to prove a negative conjecture (nonexistence) you must exhaust through all possible evidence. You're trying to reverse roles. My stance is not to convince you whether God exist or not. It is my belief that He does. To take nonexistence as the default position you would have go through all known evidence (since we do not have all possible evidence) and unanimously prove this position. Even if that were the case. Can you prove that any evidence proves that that the universe and all matter in it was not created (without rationalization)?

Being that it was written by men living thousands of years ago with little to no working knowledge of the cosmos, they got everything completely wrong from a scientific standpoint.

You're right in that it was written thousands of years ago. But you did not honestly contemplate my question. I did not ask for your rationalization of it. I asked for a logical reason for why modern science theories on origins are diametrically opposed (exactly opposite) to the biblical account.

---

Is this person saying that babies exit the womb believing in god?

If so them I am an oddity for I never believed in god.

The default position for me has always been non-belief.

It know that the thought process that leads to a god is a childlike thought process.

the argument goes like this.

Fish live in water

So

The purpose of water is to be where fish can live

Something gave water that purpose and made it so the fish could inhabit it

Therefore god

Assigning things 'purpose' stops having to think too deeply about them.

You learned this line of reasoning as you grew older. My point in posting the article was to demonstrate that by default we believe that things have a purpose, there some higher form intelligence than us etc. As you got older you may have been able to condition yourself away from this predisposition, but it never changes the fact that humans naturally have this kind of perception of the world around them.

[Jaysyn]

Jaysyn claimed that atheism was the default position of babies. Obviously he was wrong.

You are completely fucking deluded if you think that is what those articles were about.

I'm done with you. Talking to you is like arguing with a speak in spell, only the toy makes more sense.

[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.

So... you don't have any "supernatural evidence"? Is that what you're saying? It seems suspiciously close to that.
Look, its a very simple question. Did I sound like I was claiming anything? The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something exists and before you say you aren't, you are. You're going on about how natural evidence doesn't cut it for the supernatural, well fine.
Do you have any supernatural evidence or not.

Wipe away the tears, sweat and shame and try again. Honestly, its fine. I'll wait. :-)

Exactly. What is supernatural evidence? The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I am making no claims. I believe that God exists, and that He created everything. I gave my reason (or proof) for this belief. The only claims being made is by the prosecutors(God does not exist or the evidence concludes nonexistence).