Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

Conceptions of gods that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as gods that have been presented to me .  

Paraphrasing: Conceptions of matter that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as matter that have been presented to me.  Therefore you don't believe in dark matter because no one has any idea what it is.

Sigh  

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?

Because justification wise both are equally as baseless

 
Huh?  

Can you show atheism is true?  

Is there evidence demonstrating a god . No . Then atheism as the lack of propositional evidence of a god is true .

 
Awfully presumptuous and a bit arrogant to say evidence for god does not exist.  All you can say is that evidence has not yet been presented to you.  Or you could say that evidence has been presented, but you refused to see it as evidence.  But to say it does not exist... that's illogical.

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?

Anyone who is honest and wants to understand the world . Considering atheism is not a belief i can't challenge it as such.  If you mean do i consider arguments from theists for theism yup that's why i read theistic literature .

Oh yes, atheism is a belief.  It's a preference and opinion.  Show me how the conscious comes from the unconscious.  You can't.  And since you can't, it's a matter of preference to believe that it did.  Atheists are almost certainly fervently hoping some rationale will come to light one day that will prove their preference, which is antipodal to searching for evidence to disprove their hypothesis.

Either genetic mutations are random or they're mutating along a determined path (ie plan).

Either it is random or it is not.

Nope evolution is constrained by chemistry and physics and biology thus is not random .

Sure, fine, then it's teleological.  Now what?  Because... if it's teleological, the who planned it?  (You're better off accepting randomness.  Trust me )

Besides... John Bell proved randomness.   http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12...andomness/

A cat will not all turn into a bird evolution will permit this .

 

Something can be non random but also non planned . Non randomness has nothing to do with intents.

Non-random is determined.  If it's determined, then what determined it?  If a bacteria mutated, not randomly, but according to determined events prior, then what deterministic mechanism allowed it to evolve to become antibiotic resistant?  That outcome would have had to have been encoded in the big bang.  And it would have been encoded before that (whatever came before that).  In fact, it would have to go all the way back to the beginning of infinity, if it's all determined.  But if it went to the beginning of infinity, then it took forever to get where we are.  So how are we here?  Has forever already past?  That's all nonsense.  It's much easier to accept random mutations and randomness in general.

Oh and excepting the clear evidence for evolution is not faith .

Accepting anything is by faith.

---

Can you show atheism is true?

Yes.

By virtue of the fact that atheism is the response to theism, specifically theistic claims, and thus the fact that those have not met their burden of proof, atheism is proven.

No, that's agnosticism.

Theism - belief god(s) exist in absence of proof that god(s) exist.
Agnosticism - no belief, not sure what to believe.
Atheism - belief no gods exist in absence of proof that no gods exist.

Prove the last one.

You have no understanding how life could come from non-life, yet you believe it's possible with no demonstrable proof or rationale.  (we've had that convo before).  If you don't understand (because you aren't a physicist), then why do you believe what you do?  Because you reject the sky god hypothesis?  So why is that the only alternative?

At best you could say "I have no seen evidence of a god nor any rationale that sways me to suspect there is a god, but I cannot say for sure there is no god."  To go beyond that is a religion.

You want to falsify it? Pony up the evidence that substantiates theism.

I did.  The response was TL;DR along with a pic of a dancing black kid.

[Cyberman]

No, atheism is literally 'a-' (negation) plus 'theism' - 'not theism'. Theism is the belief in one or more gods, atheism is the absence of such belief. Thanks for playing.

[Agnosty]

Agnosty, what are your beliefs about god, exactly?

I don't know what to believe and I believe that is by design

If I miss anyone's post, bump me or something.  I'm not ignoring anyone.

---

No, atheism is literally 'a-' (negation) plus 'theism' - 'not theism'. Theism is the belief in one or more gods, atheism is the absence of such belief. Thanks for playing.

Yawn.  Heard that a million times.

Then define agnosticism.  Can't have two words meaning the same thing.

Nice duck-n-run from the rest of my post, btw.

[Simon Moon]

Conceptions of gods that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as gods that have been presented to me .  

Paraphrasing: Conceptions of matter that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as matter that have been presented to me.  Therefore you don't believe in dark matter because no one has any idea what it is.

Sigh  

False analogy. We know matter exists, it can demonstrated. It manifests in reality.

Gods, not so much. We have drastically insufficient evidence to support any god claim that has been presented. If someone wants to present a new god claim, and support it with evidence and reasoned argument, we will listen and evaluate the claim.

Because justification wise both are equally as baseless

 

Huh?  

True.

All supernatural existential claims are drastically unsupported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. Whether it be fairies or gods.

Is there evidence demonstrating a god . No . Then atheism as the lack of propositional evidence of a god is true .

 

Awfully presumptuous and a bit arrogant to say evidence for god does not exist.  All you can say is that evidence has not yet been presented to you.  Or you could say that evidence has been presented, but you refused to see it as evidence.  But to say it does not exist... that's illogical.

I actually agree with this, somewhat.

But fact is, most of us here are quite aware of all the 'evidence' provided by theists, and it just does not hold up to proper application of critical thinking and scrutiny.

The proof? The vast majority of theists do not accept other supernatural god claims that are not part of their theistic beliefs.

Anyone who is honest and wants to understand the world . Considering atheism is not a belief i can't challenge it as such.  If you mean do i consider arguments from theists for theism yup that's why i read theistic literature .

Oh yes, atheism is a belief.  It's a preference and opinion.  Show me how the conscious comes from the unconscious.  You can't.  And since you can't, it's a matter of preference to believe that it did.  Atheists are almost certainly fervently hoping some rationale will come to light one day that will prove their preference, which is antipodal to searching for evidence to disprove their hypothesis.

Atheism is nothing more than NOT being convinced of theistic claims. How is that a belief?

Even if we can't show you how conscious comes from the unconscious, that would not give credence to god claims. The most honest answer at that point becomes, "we don't know how conscious arose". It does not become, "therefore god did it".

My hypothesis is that theists have not met their burden of proof. I have no justification to believe a god exists. That position for me, is a provisional one. If I was presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I would no longer ba an atheist.

Theism - belief god(s) exist in absence of proof that god(s) exist.
Agnosticism - no belief, not sure what to believe.
Atheism - belief no gods exist in absence of proof that no gods exist.

Prove the last one.

Theism is the belief in a god or gods
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of god(s) is currently unknown, and possible unlnowable
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)

No proof is necessary for the last one. Agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive positions. Most atheists are also agnostic.  

You have no understanding how life could come from non-life, yet you believe it's possible with no demonstrable proof or rationale.  (we've had that convo before).  If you don't understand (because you aren't a physicist), then why do you believe what you do?  Because you reject the sky god hypothesis?  So why is that the only alternative?

All that is necessary to disbelieve a god is responsible for life (or the existence of the universe), is to NOT be presented with demonstrable evidence to support the claim that a god is responsible.

The position that life arose from natural processes, and the position that a god is responsible for life, are not on equal footing. We know that nature exists. We don't know that gods exist. You are the one that is adding an unnecessary entity to the equation.

At best you could say "I have no seen evidence of a god nor any rationale that sways me to suspect there is a god, but I cannot say for sure there is no god."  To go beyond that is a religion.

Congratulations for defining agnostic atheism (somewhat) correctly.

Not being convinced by theist claims that a god or gods exist, is atheism.

---

Yawn.  Heard that a million times.

Then why don't you understand it?

Then define agnosticism.  Can't have two words meaning the same thing.

They don't mean the same thing.

Agnosticism - the position that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and/or unknowable

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

Notice the definition for agnostic does not mention belief or disbelief, only knowledge. Also notice that the definition for atheism only mentions disbelief, not knowledge.

Knowledge and belief are not the same thing.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist. This defines me as agnostic.
I also happen not to believe that any gods exist. This defines me as an atheist.

Thus I am an agnostic atheist.

Byt the way, you can have 2 words mean the same thing. They are called "synonyms". There are entire books and websites dedicated to them. They are called "thesaurus". But in this case, they don't mean the same thing.

[LadyForCamus]

Agnosty, what are your beliefs about god, exactly?

I don't know what to believe and I believe that is by design

lol, thanks for the non-answer, troll.

[The Grand Nudger]

It gets tedious.

[The Valkyrie]

Agnosty, what are your beliefs about god, exactly?

I don't know what to believe and I believe that is by design

If I miss anyone's post, bump me or something.  I'm not ignoring anyone.

---

No, atheism is literally 'a-' (negation) plus 'theism' - 'not theism'. Theism is the belief in one or more gods, atheism is the absence of such belief. Thanks for playing.

Yawn.  Heard that a million times.

Then define agnosticism.  Can't have two words meaning the same thing.

Nice duck-n-run from the rest of my post, btw.

It's not that cut and dry.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't believe in deities but I don't make a definitive claim that they don't exist.

I don't know.  But it seems extremely unlikely.

[Simon Moon]

Agnosty, what are your beliefs about god, exactly?

I don't know what to believe and I believe that is by design

Sorry, but belief is a binary mental state.

Either one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or they don't accept the premise or proposition as being true. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief.

Theists actively accept the proposition that at least one god exists, as being true (belief).

If one does not accept that proposition as being true (disbelief), they are an atheist, whether they use the label of not.

[Agnosty]

Paraphrasing: Conceptions of matter that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as matter that have been presented to me.  Therefore you don't believe in dark matter because no one has any idea what it is.

Sigh  

False analogy. We know matter exists, it can demonstrated. It manifests in reality.

*** dark matter ***  <----  Pay attention.  The evidence so far suggests dark matter is not baryonic, which is an entirely new concept of matter.  I have absolutely no clue how that kind of matter could be conceptualized since it can have no charge (ie no electron or protons).  Do you believe it exists?  Science says it does.

Gods, not so much. We have drastically insufficient evidence to support any god claim that has been presented. If someone wants to present a new god claim, and support it with evidence and reasoned argument, we will listen and evaluate the claim.

I don't believe you and I have evidence to support my belief (this thread).

All supernatural existential claims are drastically unsupported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. Whether it be fairies or gods.

Prove your statement; I don't believe it.

Awfully presumptuous and a bit arrogant to say evidence for god does not exist.  All you can say is that evidence has not yet been presented to you.  Or you could say that evidence has been presented, but you refused to see it as evidence.  But to say it does not exist... that's illogical.

I actually agree with this, somewhat.

But fact is, most of us here are quite aware of all the 'evidence' provided by theists,

How can you claim to be aware of ALL the evidence?

and it just does not hold up to proper application of critical thinking and scrutiny.

Yeah the "TL;DR" was an excellent display of scrutiny.

The proof? The vast majority of theists do not accept other supernatural god claims that are not part of their theistic beliefs.

What others choose to believe has no bearing on absolute truth.

Atheism is nothing more than NOT being convinced of theistic claims. How is that a belief?

I'm NOT convinced there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, therefore I believe there are no pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

Even if we can't show you how conscious comes from the unconscious, that would not give credence to god claims.

Never said it would.  I just asked what the basis for the atheist belief is if there is no understanding of how life can come from nonlife.  If you have no idea how it happened, then why believe it can happen?

My hypothesis is that theists have not met their burden of proof. I have no justification to believe a god exists. That position for me, is a provisional one. If I was presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I would no longer ba an atheist.

You're agnostic because you have no knowledge that a god exists.  An atheist goes beyond simple lack of knowledge with the assertion that there are no gods.  That assertion requires knowledge, evidence, rationale, something.

I don't know why atheists take nomenclature so personally; it's just a label to succinctly convey information about an ideology.  Why does it matter if the label is spelled a+t+h+e+i+s+t or a+g+n+o+s+t+i+c???

fehjgsef = person who believes gods exist
fhadjkbb = person who doesn't believe anything
jgbrjebt = person who believes no gods exist.

Pick one.  Why does it matter how it's spelled?  Why contort atheism to mean agnosticism?

Theism is the belief in a god or gods
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of god(s) is currently unknown, and possible unlnowable
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)

The position that the existence of god(s) is currently unknown = lack of belief.  So atheism = agnosticism.  Now what is the word for people who believe no gods exist?

No proof is necessary for the last one. Agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive positions. Most atheists are also agnostic.

 
Needless and senseless contortion of terms to further ambiguity.

Categorical definitions must be mutually exclusive.

Cats
Dogs
Birds

We don't have half-cats or a smear of definitions.

All that is necessary to disbelieve a god is responsible for life (or the existence of the universe), is to NOT be presented with demonstrable evidence to support the claim that a god is responsible.

If you come home to find a window broken and the pieces arranged spelling the word "jerk", then do you have a reason to believe *some ONE* is responsible?  Why would you?  There is no demonstrable evidence supporting the claim that a living being was responsible.  All you have is conjecture.  Life coming from nonlife is at least as remarkable, yet you choose to not suspect someone was responsible.  What you choose to believe is your preference.

The position that life arose from natural processes, and the position that a god is responsible for life, are not on equal footing. We know that nature exists. We don't know that gods exist. You are the one that is adding an unnecessary entity to the equation.

How do you know that nature is not alive?  Because some aspect of nature, say, a rock, does not seem to be alive?  Is your hair alive?  Hit it with a hammer, does it say ouch?  Hair is part of you and rocks are part of nature and the whole thing is alive.  How do you know that is not so?

At best you could say "I have no seen evidence of a god nor any rationale that sways me to suspect there is a god, but I cannot say for sure there is no god."  To go beyond that is a religion.

Congratulations for defining agnostic atheism (somewhat) correctly.

Whatever you choose to call it, that statement is as far as anyone can logically go.

Yawn.  Heard that a million times.

Then why don't you understand it?

I do understand it.  It's senseless and needless contortion of terms, apparently, for the purpose of engineering ambiguity within the context of an argument in order to gain some advantage in lieu of rationale.  I understand perfectly.

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

Disbelief in gods is the belief that there are no gods.

Notice the definition for agnostic does not mention belief or disbelief, only knowledge.

So the atheist has no knowledge?  Exactly.  It's belief.

Also notice that the definition for atheism only mentions disbelief, not knowledge.

What does it mean to not-believe?  I not-believe you can answer that clearly.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist. This defines me as agnostic.
I also happen not to believe that any gods exist. This defines me as an atheist.

You do not believe gods exist which means you believe gods do not exist.  It's a belief.

Byt the way, you can have 2 words mean the same thing. They are called "synonyms". There are entire books and websites dedicated to them. They are called "thesaurus". But in this case, they don't mean the same thing.

Yes, my bad.  I should have said "category" instead of "word".

---

I don't know what to believe and I believe that is by design

Sorry, but belief is a binary mental state.

Either one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or they don't accept the  premise or proposition as being true. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief.

Theists actively accept the proposition that at least one god exists, as being true (belief).

If one does not accept that proposition as being true (disbelief), they are an atheist, whether they use the label of not.

It's your prerogative to define me by your contrivances, but I reject all labels except the arbitrary one that means I do not know what to believe and that I believe not knowing what to believe is by design.  The purpose of life is to be put in a position of not knowing because knowing everything is hell.  Life is a game of learning, but never being able to know everything.  Life is for 'good' to be always in the process of winning, but never won.  Good cannot exist without evil, but the illusion that it can is the game.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure am glad someone came and cleared all that up for us. Here we were stumbling through our turgid existence completely unaware.