Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely

[vorlon13]

Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely ?

The Hubble Space Telescope has peered to within nano-furlongs of the edge of the universe, the Tevatron in Batavia Illinois (go Batavia!!) has zorched deep inside protons and anti-protons and at both the very largest and smallest scales of the entire universe the God squad has NOTHING to point at results wise and shriek "AHA!, Fucking atheists! THERE is GOD, and not just any GOD, it's the 22nd Street First Baptist Tabernacle of the Holy Flaming Epiphany of Mendota Springs Arkansas GOD, right there in those scientifical results ! PWNED your unbelieving asses, neener, neener, neener!"

So there you have it, we've peered at the edge of the fucking universe, and we have looked deep inside the smallest subatomic particles and guess fucking what ?

There ain't no Abrahamic God of any fucking sort there to see!

[robvalue]

What are these testable consequences for god? How do you know them? How do we distinguish this reality from one without a god?

What is God?

[vorlon13]

Oh, we didn't look in the right proton . . .

[AceBoogie]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

If you want someone here to explain evolution to you, you're probably in the wrong place... unless there's a biologist on the forums here that I'm not aware of.

I'm not one to say that there certainly is no god. I just don't see why people think that a god is necessary. Sure, maybe there is some ultimate being that created everything that we don't yet understand and can't even observe... But I just don't see the need for that explanation. I am willing to accept that we simply don't know everything yet. Maybe we never will know everything. And that's fine.

Or maybe there is no god and everything came about through completely natural processes that we don't yet understand. Maybe the big bang, as we see it, is actually just a neuron firing information inside the brain of a cosmic entity we don't even realize we're inside of. Why not go with that explanation? I mean why cling to the god explanation? It makes no fucking sense. I'm completely comfortable with simply admitting, "I don't know" and stopping there.

What I am almost completely certain of, however, is that your god of the bible, yahweh, does not exist. And I say that with confidence. Is there something out there? Maybe. I don't believe in it and I live my life as if it doesn't exist anyway, but sure, maybe there is some creator out there.

But the christian god? Fuck no. That shit is a fairy tale.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Hubble Space Telescope has peered to within nano-furlongs of the edge of the universe,

This is my new favourite unit of measurement. I plan to use it more often, along with pico-yard, mega-inch, and kilo-ounce.

Boru

[pocaracas]

Ahhh...a creationist... How unoriginal... -.-

"Ah... another proponent of the god-of-the-gaps theory."

Theists are not proponents of the "god-of-the-gaps" theory since the "gaps" you speak of are part of the atheist belief system.

There is so much wrong in that one sentence that I'd probably need a whole thread just to explain and you'd probably remain equally wrong...so why bother?

"if a god is Real, then that god is a part of Reality. If something is a part of Reality, then Science will, sooner or later, somehow, get to it."

Not according to US National Academy of Sciences: “Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

Well, guess what? I'm a non-US scientist, so I don't particularly care for what those people said about the subject. I'm sure there's some political agenda behind it, in order to keep the peace.

"Now, the tricky bit for you believers"

Actually, this question is far trickier for atheists.

Lol.

"The god concept appeared in the human mind thousands of years ago, when no science was really available."

The question here is, how did the concept of God "appear" in the human mind in the first place?

You say these ignorant things and then complain when people say you're ignorant, shouting "ad-hominem!".

I said "the god concept", not "the concept of God".
Notice the difference? No?
Perhaps the ad-hominem is justified, then...

"What is more likely, given what we can all observe nowadays: that the concept was invented by human imagination or that a god actually appeared and imparted the information onto mankind?"

The latter is more likely, given that such a complex, highly intelligent entity could not have been invented by the imagination of primitive, nomadic sheep-herders.

See what I mean?
I could say many things about your reasoning skills, but instead I'll just say: your "concept of God" is the result of an evolution of "the god concept".
And you'll never understand this.

As our scientific understanding has increased, we see now more than ever how accurate the Bible is when it touches on scientific matters. This is far beyond the abilities of the men who wrote it all those years ago.

Funny how the Muslims say the exact same thing about the Quran...

As an example, consider that the Bible demonstrated knowledge of microbiology thousands of years in advance of scientific discovery when it commanded the Israelites to bury their excrement in the ground. This was when when the most scientifically advanced civilization on earth at the time, the Egyptians, were rubbing faeces on open wounds to heal them.

Different practices in different parts of the world are nothing uncommon.
Some of us shit sitting on porcelain, some shit squatting to a hole, and some do it behind a tree.
You seem to be judging ancient civilizations from your own point of view... Not to mention that you may be misrepresenting some...

[Esquilax]

I have had many discussions with adherents of biological evolution, but whenever I challenge them to explain how, for example, abiogenesis occurred, or for biological evolution to happen thereafter, they typically resort to ad hominem. Why? Because they never have a valid response.

It's largely because... well, did you read your OP? All of the things you say can't be explained could have been explained to you within a single google search, and yet you came here to parade around your lack of research like it constitutes a real point. Why do no reading before deciding that no reading on these topics exist, for example?

I do know how evolution works, and no, I am not arguing that at all. I, as a theist, am not the one who is "ignorant of how some thing is caused", you are since you cling to a theory that is inadequate to explain how things are caused.

Evolution isn't meant to explain how things are caused. It's mean to explain the diversity of life via population genetics. Is the theory of gravity "inadequate" on the same grounds?

Neither is what you have described in your post. The beetles remain beetles. They do not evolve into any other kind of bug. That isn't evolution, but merely variation within a kind. So while you claim that "Evolution works because of natural selection", it does no more than what the Bible creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 allows for when it says, "According to their kind".

Okay, so, first of all: evolution, in all of its definitions, do not refer to kinds. "Kinds," in the theistic sense you're describing, is not a thing for evolution. Therefore, your assertion that something isn't evolution on account of kinds is largely irrelevant: evolution does not describe one kind changing into another, and it never has. Do you have a germane point to make?

Secondly though, what's a kind? It's a term that comes up a lot, but when I actually ask theists to define it, they don't. Instead, they'll answer the completely separate question, "what kinds are there?" They'll tell me that there's, for example, dog kind, cat kind, and so on... but that's not what I asked. What's a kind? What is the method by which you delineate one kind for another? We can't have a productive conversation on this without getting there first.

You are right, but what you have put forward here is a reason for why we should examine the evidence and make sure that we are worshipping the right God; it is not an argument for not picking one at all.

If evidence can count toward multiple, mutually exclusive propositions, I'd suggest that you also consider a kind of theistic pareidolia as a possible conclusion. Implicitly, this is the one atheists find most likely.

I did not conflate evolution with abiogenesis. I simply stated that the theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, which it doesn't.

However, I'm not sure why atheists try so desperately to distance evolution from abiogenesis. (Though I have a pretty good an idea why that might be).

Unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life, abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. In other words, abiogenesis is REQUIRED by evolution as the starting point.

Sure, but the point is that not knowing the answer to one does not invalidate the other. Even without an explanation of abiogenesis, evolution is still an observable biological fact. The aspersions you're attempting to cast are misplaced.

I have heard this said several times, but am so far underwhelmed by the "overwhelming evidence".  Please provide a specific example of where the Bible "gets it wrong".  As (according to you) there is overwhelming evidence, it should be easy enough to do so.

How about how the bible describes the origins of the universe completely wrong, to start with?

Yes, but are the eyes of those INDIVIDUAL living entities evolving?

Show me where they are doing so. You cannot.

Are you aware that evolution occurs over populations, and not individuals? This sort of thing is why people got irritated with you.

You are seeking to prove the biological evolution of the eye by looking across life forms that have no relationship to each other!

They do have a relationship, according to the phylogenetic observations that we have at our disposal.

Doing do is as irrelevant as your appeal to the fossil record as proof of evolution.

To make it seem viable you have to presume that things ARE evolving, yet instead what is in evidence is that like is begetting like, and their are proven limitations therein - for instance, a male donkey and female horse can produce the hybrid mule, but the mule is sterile. Same with the Liger [lion/tiger].

You're never going to get one individual giving birth to a completely different species. Whatever offspring results, if it is viable and not a hybrid, will be a member of the parent species. But it will contain small genetic differences that, over successive generations, can result in organisms further down the line of ancestry that are different enough to constitute a different species from the original parent organism.

Where are you doing your research on evolution, if you've done any?

Your commentary about the eye in life forms that have no relationship to one another proves my point. Your seeking to show that the eye has evolved across living entities that, in truth, have no relationship with one another shows that you are doing so on the premise that evolution exists.

Are you aware of our understanding of genetics and morphology, or do I need to explain this to you?

Your so theorizing puts the cart before the horse. All it proves is that that is how they are. From thousands of years ago, the strength and keen sightedness of the eagle was recorded in Scripture. What has changed? Nothing. Has the eagle been evolving into something else? No. Do we see any of the apes evolving into humans? No. Orangutans beget orangutans, gorillas, gorillas, chimpanzees...

Are you aware that what you're asking for is not, in any sense, what evolution describes?

Fossil evidence? A fossil is just that - a fossil. It does NOT evidence any evolving all. That is typical evolutionist dishonesty, contriving something and arriving at the conclusions they want in order to substantiate their preconceived notions.

Do you understand the relationship between morphology and genetics, and the further relationship between genetics and ancestry?

Like, I hope I don't have to tell you that genetic similarity indicates a familial relationship, right? That your genes can establish your parentage through comparison?

While you claim that "variation within a genus that is conserved by natural selection totally counts as evolution," it does no more than what the Bible creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 allows - "totally".

Have you ever seen an animal being created out of nothing?

They are not explained by what is currently known of physics and chemistry - at all.

The FACTS show that Miller-Urey and hundreds of similar experiments DO NOT show that concepts such as abiogenesis are feasible, but are so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

Would you like to do something more than baldly assert that?

Actually, it is YOU who does not have the least bit of understanding of what evolution is required to show in order for it to be considered a viable explanation for how life arose.

So where are you getting your understanding of evolution from?

These are the types of evolution that an individual with knowledge of science need not accept, since the evidence is lacking:

1) Macro-evolution. Seeing one type of animal evolve into an entirely different type of animal. For example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal. This has never been observed and isn't supported by the fossil record, which shows stasis (giving rise to the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis).

Is this a suggestion that we should see, to take your example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal within a single generation?

2) Chemical evolution. Otherwise known as abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life arose from natural chemical reactions. This is unobserved, non-repeatable. The mechanisms of how this was supposed to have happened are currently not established.

Do you really want to be talking about how non-observed phenomena need not be accepted, while also stumping for the genesis account?

This attitude of self-imposed ignorance was well expressed in the Bible:

"In his haughtiness, the wicked one makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God." - Psalm 10:4.

Of course, there is no benefit in self-delusion, particularly when one's life is at stake.

For all your remonstrations about how other people are being rude to you, you certainly don't seem to hesitate to be far more insulting to us in return. A theological sheen does not make this less of a baseless insult.

Not according to US National Academy of Sciences: “Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

Does your god interact with the physical world?

The question here is, how did the concept of God "appear" in the human mind in the first place?

Imagination.

The latter is more likely, given that such a complex, highly intelligent entity could not have been invented by the imagination of primitive, nomadic sheep-herders.

What in "guy that can do anything, yet shares all our views" is so difficult to imagine?

And for that matter... what is your basis for asserting that imagining it back then would be impossible? Do you have one, or did you just say it?

As our scientific understanding has increased, we see now more than ever how accurate the Bible is when it touches on scientific matters. This is far beyond the abilities of the men who wrote it all those years ago.

As an example, consider that the Bible demonstrated knowledge of microbiology thousands of years in advance of scientific discovery when it commanded the Israelites to bury their excrement in the ground. This was when when the most scientifically advanced civilization on earth at the time, the Egyptians, were rubbing faeces on open wounds to heal them.

Microbiology? The bible asserts that the cause of sickness is demons, not bacteria. There are simple observations of feces that one could make, even back then, that would suggest it's not a good idea to have it around you. You really are reaching here.

Eagles hunt prey two miles above the ground, humans do not. So, God created eagles with eyesight to see prey from two miles away. Pretty simple.

Any evidence for that, or did you just say it?

I have plenty - for anyone who is willing to consider the facts with an open mind.  It is the "evidence for Evolution" that I hear so much about that is sorely lacking. And the evidence that is presented simply does not hold up under scrutiny.

Until any of you can actually SHOW where a life form has turned into a different life form [as Evolutionists claimed happened from simple cell structures into all the life forms we see today], then your theorizing here is as unconvincing to me as my beliefs are to you.

I'll take you up on that, but we've gotta start with the basics, apparently. Your answers to my questions will show me exactly how simple I'll have to start, with you.

[Angrboda]

If it isn't testable, there can't be any evidence.

Observable consequences are evidence. We can consider the existence of God to be a scientific hypothesis and look for the empirical evidence that would follow. Many of the attributes associated with God have specific consequences.

And what would those attributes be and how are they testable?

[Tonus]

Until any of you can actually SHOW where a life form has turned into a different life form [as Evolutionists claimed happened from simple cell structures into all the life forms we see today], then your theorizing here is as unconvincing to me as my beliefs are to you.

So... how many life forms have you witnessed being created?

[Cato]

I'd rather he SHOW God, but he knows he can't; telling.