The argument against God

[Rob]

I can say for an example that Bob the mighty demon made out of candy, who you have to pray to while eating choclates during the full moon, exist. No one can prove that he doesnt exist which, according what the chrsitians argument are, make him real.

I can make a definitive statement about bob the mighty demon made out of candy. He does exist and I've managed to photograph him.
He does say he's gutted about the lack of people praying whilst eating chocolate on a full moon but he's a nice guy and doesn't hold it against us.

I'll bet all you heathen atheists will reject this blatant undeniable evidence.

[Tiberius]

he's a nice guy and doesn't hold it against us.

I can see that from the smile on his candy head

I'll bet all you heathen atheists will reject this blatant undeniable evidence.

I certainly do! I reckon the sweets just fell to the floor like that and we are just "seeing" the pattern.

[Ace Otana]

Many christians say that the existance of God can't be dissporvied. But just becuase it can't be dissporved doesn't make him real.

I can say for an example that Bob the mighty demon made out of candy, who you have to pray to while eating choclates during the full moon, exist. No one can prove that he doesnt exist which, according what the chrsitians argument are, make him real.

I see where you going with this, and you are correct.

Firstly, you can't disprove a negative. God is a negative because there is no studiable material to support the hypothasis. I can say I have an invisible pink apple and it cannot be felt, smelt or be detected in any kind of way. You nor anyone else can disprove it, but nor can I bring evidence to support it.

God is without evidence. Theists can say they have evidence but their version of "evidence" is the complete opposite to the meaning of the word "evidence". Evidence is studiable material, something that can be looked at and studied. Pointing at thin air, people, rock, shadows and sounds does not help support the god claim in anyway.

You are indeed correct. Just because it cannot be disproved doesn't mean it is any more real than santa claws.

There is no other version of evidence. Evidence for the support of superstitious claims must be in studiable material for it to be taken into account.

If god is rejected by science due to lack of evidence then theists should stop moaning and accept that they cannot provide any support for their beliefs. Which means there is a strong possibility that god just doesn't exist.
There have been theists who claim that the bible is evidence, well it's not. Scriptures cannot be used as evidence for a supernatural being.
Theists have used shadows on walls, and once again. This does not class as evidence for the supernatural. Shadows on walls are perfectly natural and the human mind is quiet capable of placing a face over the shadows.
Theists have used stars, galaxies, rocks ect ect. None of them were able to support their claims.

Anyway, they don't seem to have much faith in their god anyway. Since they have lightning rods on their churches to prevent lightning strikes. Funny how they rely on science to protect their places of worship. Why don't they just pray to their god not to destroy their churches? Or doens't prayer actually work.

[Tiberius]

Don't you mean you can't prove a negative? For example:

"There is no gold in my house"

That is a negative statement which involves searching my entire house for particles of gold in order to prove it, so we can say that the proof is impossible to get (at least by our standards). To disprove the negative is easy; you just have to walk into my house and find something gold.

[CoxRox]

One of the 'proofs' or evidences that points to an intelligence or supernatural being that is perceived as 'evidence' by many scientists/mathematicians, is mathematics itself, and indeed the laws of physics. You guys say we are interpreting these 'laws' incorrectly by attributing intelligence behind them. Why is your interpretation the correct one?

[Darwinian]

But the 'laws' of physics are simply human creations themsleves.

The laws of physics do not have to describe reality itself but instead simply explain and predict observations made by humans. They are not laws in a legal sense but instead are simply conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

[CoxRox]

But the 'laws' of physics are simply human creations themsleves.

The laws of physics do not have to describe reality itself but instead simply explain and predict observations made by humans. They are not laws in a legal sense but instead are simply conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

I have trouble understanding how a cataclysmic or chaotic event (the Big Bang) has given rise to so much 'order' ie the 'laws' of physics e.g gravity and how this order is maintained? Stenger is going to be discussing this in his book so I may get a different 'take' on your understanding of these laws.

[Darwinian]

The order that you see is a natural result (i.e. little isolated pockets based on the total amount of disorder in the Universe) of the effect of entropy which at the time of the Big Bang was total.

Most of the Universe is in fact chaotic and is increasingly so as the Universe expands.

As Stenger will expain, the Universe looks exactly as it should if it were not created.

[LukeMC]

But the 'laws' of physics are simply human creations themsleves.

The laws of physics do not have to describe reality itself but instead simply explain and predict observations made by humans. They are not laws in a legal sense but instead are simply conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

I have trouble understanding how a cataclysmic or chaotic event (the Big Bang) has given rise to so much 'order' ie the 'laws' of physics e.g gravity and how this order is maintained? Stenger is going to be discussing this in his book so I may get a different 'take' on your understanding of these laws.

Maybe you ought to look at the universe on an astronomical timescale. Imagine somebody throwing a brick through a window and the pieces of glass are shattering everywhere. After say 0.4 seconds, a micro organism is born which experiences time very slowly (a thousandth of a second is a year to the mico organism). Now imagine how it would feel to be that micro organism, looking around at all the beautiful sparkling shards of glass which are flying slowly away from each other, glistening in the light. You don't know why this glass is here or when it came into existence, all you can see is it VERY slowly moving. How possibly could a chaotic crash have spontaneously been responsible for such beauty- it looks so ordered.

But at the end of the day, it's still a chaotic event if you view it in human time. Imagine looking at the universe in astronomical numbers, experiencing 5 billion years per human second. You'd see a huge expansion with things flying off in different directions, igniting and suddenly rocks are flying everywhere and they're crashing into each other with matter being sucked into little black holes from all angles and things are exploding wherever you look. You'd be thinking "wtf chaos =/". Within 2 and half seconds, you've just witnessed the entire history of the universe as we know it, and I doubt it would look so ordered then.

I don't know, that's just one take on things.

On the other hand you could just imagine dropping a rock into a puddle. To begin with, lots of energy being dispersed in all directions, but after a few seconds as you look on the outer ripple, things look lovely and calm

[Darwinian]

Well said!!