God does not exist.

[Deacon Frost]

no propblem deacon how do you belive the universe was created?? hmmm? big bang?

Creation implies a beginning, and a creator.

 

[Angelmax]

-Yes, God does exist outside of reason and logic. Everything you magically come up with exists in a fantasy world inside your own mind. I'm not going to start worshipping your imagination simply because it's creative and thorough, so why are you worshipping the imagination of people from centuries ago?

nice counter argument you intellectual.

Indeed.

-Stop sucking up without knowing anything, or even being able to spell. You have no right to judge who is intellectual and who is not as you're not up to par with our level of thinking. I don't think YOU understand what non-existence is.
If i was on your level of thinking i would be an idiot. YOU are trying to disprove God when your own ideology can be rationally disproved.

You would be?

And while your here, perhaps read the thread and then 'rationally disprove' my ideology.

-Life, without eternal life, is comforting, rewarding, and real. You do things for other people, you smile, you have fun, you enjoy living. You don't just live to serve a random deity

Like i have said before idiot all of those things are invalid in a world where you cease consciousness thinking and existence after death.

So for something to be worth doing it has to have an eternal reward?

 

[lalmvpkobe]

@ angelmax
stfu and get out of this argument clearly your an idiot or you would understand that God can be neither proven or disproven you should leave idfc if your thread the question you ask and your statment in the first post is assinine and by chance sythe saw it and a very great debate started with no merit to you ofc.

oohhh deacon so what do you believe in i got you confused for a want-to-be intellectual that beleives in big bang/other stupid shit.

 

-Stop sucking up without knowing anything, or even being able to spell. You have no right to judge who is intellectual and who is not as you're not up to par with our level of thinking. I don't think YOU understand what non-existence is.
If i was on your level of thinking i would be an idiot. YOU are trying to disprove God when your own ideoalogy can be rationally disproved.

As I've pointed out a billion times: Even if it were the case the claimant's ideology were false, what bearing does that have on his argument that YOUR ideology is false? None whatsoever.

You're insane.

 

[lalmvpkobe]

BURDEN OF PROOF? DUH????

lol despite it being a "fallacy" (human made term ) i stick by it their is no evidence for God unless you want to go into faith/metaphysics but i dont (even then their is no "proof" you have to make a choice and live with the consequences).

God's existence can not be proved for the simple fact him being supernatural means he doesnt have to abide by our logic (proof or disproof)

 

BURDEN OF PROOF? DUH????

lol despite it being a "fallacy" (human made term ) i stick by it their is no evidence for God unless you want to go into faith/metaphysics but i dont (even then their is no "proof" you have to make a choice and live with the consequences).

God's existence can not be proved for the simple fact him being supernatural means he doesnt have to abide by our logic (proof or disproof)

Daily's decided to forumban you because we can't make our your arguments through the general fog of fail and personal insults you exude. Besides, we already addressed these 'arguments' around page 2.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

What are the facts? Where is the evidence to support this theory that the laws of probability bend depending on some attribute of the subject. Is the claim falsifiable?

You can't prove a theory unless you are there to observe it. A theory is simply a set of principles that explain a group of facts or occurences. A friendly person has a higher probability of making many friends than a mean person. So if you become friendly then you are increasing your chances of having friends. If you don't think that this is a plausible theory then I don't know what to tell you.

Evidence, please.

The universe is expanding at an exponential level. The most probable theory is that it all came from one single point. Not saying this is fact because there's no way to prove it, but if you have a better theory then I'm listening.

3. If matter exists, and no solid case can be made for a 'life-span' of matter (not material configurations such as atoms, but matter itself -- particulate spatially exclusive volumetric inertial mass) then it is not rational to assume matter has a life-span.

4. Something with no life-span that currently exists must always have existed.

Matter exists but it also exists in many forms. Scientific models suggest that all the matter in the universe can be condensed to the size of a green pea, as atoms are 99.999x10^13% empty space.

5. There is no reason to believe in a 'birth of the universe'. Such a concept does not follow scientifically from the observable phenomena.

I never said the universe appeared out of nothing and that matter appeared out of nothing. I believe matter always existed, but existed in different forms.

 

[Angelmax]

@ angelmax
stfu and get out of this argument clearly your an idiot or you would understand that God can be neither proven or disproven you should leave idfc if your thread the question you ask and your statment in the first post is assinine and by chance sythe saw it and a very great debate started with no merit to you ofc.

oohhh deacon so what do you believe in i got you confused for a want-to-be intellectual that beleives in big bang/other stupid shit.

If you believe the existence of a deity cannot be proved or disproved, care to explain why you're here?

That is not the point of this thread in any case.

 

You can't prove a theory unless you are there to observe it. A theory is simply a set of principles that explain a group of facts or occurences. A friendly person has a higher probability of making many friends than a mean person. So if you become friendly then you are increasing your chances of having friends. If you don't think that this is a plausible theory then I don't know what to tell you.

I understood your position to be that the laws of probability changed depending on the attributes of the observer. This was not your statement?

The universe is expanding at an exponential level. The most probable theory is that it all came from one single point. Not saying this is fact because there's no way to prove it, but if you have a better theory then I'm listening.

It's a theory that the universe is expanding. Their entire body of evidence is that some stars look more red than the sun and that we pick up noise in the microwave spectrum.

Dark energy/matter really is Russell's teapot + 1. The whole 'theory' is based on a set of unfalsifiable claims.

Matter exists but it also exists in many forms. Scientific models suggest that all the matter in the universe can be condensed to the size of a green pea, as atoms are 99.999x10^13% empty space.

And my model suggests that all the icecream in france can be stuffed into an invisible darkmatter teapot. (fallacy: appeal to authority.)

I never said the universe appeared out of nothing and that matter appeared out of nothing. I believe matter always existed, but existed in different forms.

Well then you differ from the bigbang theologists.

I was very explicit when I pointed out that we are not talking about configurations of matter, but matter itself.

Incidentally, did you actually have a rational objection to my reasoning?

And, seriously, I'm genuinely curious: Where is the evidence that the 'big bang' happened? Dim red stars and some microwave noise, that's all you've got? You pull the beginning of time, a set of impossible invisible unfalsifiable physical entities, and the violation of all established laws of physics out of that? Does no one else think this is tripe?

 

[dam prayer noobs]

I understood your position to be that the laws of probability changed depending on the attributes of the observer. This was not your statement?

Yes, and then I said that our relationship with probability is like that with a God. There are probabilities of good things occuring and bad things occuring depending on your actions, almost as if we are positively and negatively reinforced to act a certain way.

It's a theory that the universe is expanding. Their entire body of evidence is that some stars look more red than the sun and that we pick up noise in the microwave spectrum.

Dark energy/matter really is Russell's teapot + 1. The whole 'theory' is based on a set of unfalsifiable claims.

And my model suggests that all the icecream in france can be stuffed into an invisible darkmatter teapot. (fallacy: appeal to authority.)

How much research have you actually done about the big bang?

I was very explicit when I pointed out that we are not talking about configurations of matter, but matter itself.

Configurations of matter are still matter... You aren't being very specific by just saying matter...

And, seriously, I'm genuinely curious: Where is the evidence that the 'big bang' happened? Dim red stars and some microwave noise, that's all you've got? You pull the beginning of time, a set of impossible invisible unfalsifiable physical entities, and the violation of all established laws of physics out of that? Does no one else think this is tripe?

Dim red stars and some microwave noise? I expected a more thoughtful response from you.

The big bang theory is based on einstein's theory of relativity and the cosmology principle. And not only that, but the theory has been undergoing tests since the 20's, and with new advanced telescopes it still stands to this day. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

And I don't know what you see wrong with the Doppler effect. It scientificially proves that galaxies are moving away from us due to longer wavelengths in their light.

But once again, if you have a better theory I'm all ears.

 

Dim red stars and some microwave noise? I expected a more thoughtful response from you.

The big bang theory is based on einstein's theory of relativity and the cosmology principle. And not only that, but the theory has been undergoing tests since the 20's, and with new advanced telescopes it still stands to this day. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

To be fair it's been undergoing revision for the last 20 years. Everytime a new contradiction springs up they nail a new premise to the front of it. There have been no tests in any valid sense of the word of the big bang theory.

And the theory of general relativity remains unproven as well. I would call it a completely lousy theory except that it does explain some phenomena with some accuracy.

And I don't know what you see wrong with the Doppler effect. It scientificially proves that galaxies are moving away from us due to longer wavelengths in their light.

This is a fallacy.

1. Objects moving away from the observer appear have lower frequency light than they otherwise would.
2. The stars have lower frequency light than the sun.
3. Therefore the stars must be moving away from the observer.

You've not proved the light from the stars is undergoing doppler-shift. This is a classic case of a formal fallacy called: affirming the consequent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

So no, it does not 'scientifically prove' stars are moving away from us, and even if it did, it still doesn't follow that there was a big bang. In fact the more reasonable explanation would be a natural oscillation, just like just about every other observable phenomena in existence.

But once again, if you have a better theory I'm all ears.

For the last time. I don't need a better theory in order to establish the invalidity of an existing one. My holding any theory does not have any influence on the validity of your claim.

Edit: I thought I might add a little more to this, as a point of interest to anyone reading.

In physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is an assumption, or working hypothesis, about the large scale structure of the cosmos, stating that:
On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

An interesting idea, but one which is not consistent with the observed phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament

And some thoughts on the evidence presented in astrophysical arguments:
1. There are 6.5 billion humans on the planet.
2. About 100 of them have been off-world.
3. None of them have left the solar system.
4. Two human probes have left the solar system, just barely.
5. All astrophysical evidence is derived from observation of the sky; with the minor exception of a tiny portion from sensors on probes.

6. Therefore the firmness of all evidence presented in support of any astrophysical theory is entirely dependent on the unambiguousness of the observation constituting the evidence. -- That is: there is no experimental data, so the observations have to be unambiguous in order to be valid evidence.
7. A 'wobble', a 'flicker', a blur, a smudge, some noise, and so on are all ambiguous observations. (Especially given the premise that they are happening very far away with no knowledge of what lay down the line of sight as the light passed.)
8. One lacks sufficient data to produce a strong theory about the origins, workings, or even a detailed structure of the universe.

If you can demonstrate any of the above to be incorrect, or think you can substantiate tbb theory with more evidence, please reply.

 

[Denode]

Big bang is a creation story. A fiction.

This is perfectly simple to demonstrate. The big bang theory holds that there was no 'before' the big bang, because 'the big bang was the beginning of time.'

1. You can't posit a 'beginning of time.' It's a violation of causality, which you've already assumed is valid in order to begin reasoning.

2. The argument that the laws of physics 'weren't in effect' until after the big bang is in contradiction with the premise that the laws of physics are universal, something the very nature of it's being a 'scientific theory' rests upon.

These contradictions (and others) leave belief in the big bang in the realm of faith. There is no proper standard to determine the truth value of the theory, if causality is rejected and the laws of physics are abandoned. You must have causality in order to have reason. The theory is in fact unfalsifiable as well as being a contradiction.

The Big Bang does not claim to be the beginning of time. It says, "Ok, there was a singularity, and it expanded rapidly." It's a way to explain the current state of our Universe, not the actual formation.

You're one of the many who assume it came from nothing, when it in fact claims nothing of the sort.

Even if, rhetorically, you were right, I could still rebute you with the membrane theory.

P.S. So yesterday I had a discussion in class about religion with one of my classmates. She was showing the most absurd circular reasoning I've ever seen (Gods word is real. Why? The Bible says it. Why must I believe the Bible? Gods word is in it.) I pointed it out, and how rediculous it is, and no joke, she said this: "So? That proves nothing." I cut off the conversation at that point.

 

[Personal Jesus]

Saying that 'he isn't limited by logic' is the same as admitting outright that he is an illogical being. And having already assumed that the universe is rational in order to begin rationally debating it in the first place, you are once more in contradiction with yourself.

*sigh*

Omnipotence is not rational, because omnipotence is superior to rationality. Is the Universe rational? To our human minds, yes. To God? Who knows. There's no contradiction in my argument.

 

[Arya]

*sigh*

Omnipotence is not rational, because omnipotence is superior to rationality. Is the Universe rational? To our human minds, yes. To God? Who knows. There's no contradiction in my argument.

The way I see this claim;

Since this is your 'logic', the only way you could logically debate this is if you were a God. Otherwise, your post is to be considered null and void.

EDIT:

Basically, you're "what-if"'ing to argue against a logical claim.

 

[Personal Jesus]

The way I see this claim;

Since this is your 'logic', the only way you could logically debate this is if you were a God. Otherwise, your post is to be considered null and void.

EDIT:

Basically, you're "what-if"'ing to argue against a logical claim.

I'm using objective logic.

God is omnipotent. God, being omnipotent, is unlimited in power. Being unlimited in power, God would not be limited by rationality or logic. The claim that omnipotence is a paradox, is, itself, irrational.

 

The Big Bang does not claim to be the beginning of time. It says, "Ok, there was a singularity, and it expanded rapidly." It's a way to explain the current state of our Universe, not the actual formation.

Go back and review the theory. It does claim to be the beginning of time. It claims that the laws of physics were not in effect until certain epocs in the 'first few seconds'.

You're one of the many who assume it came from nothing, when it in fact claims nothing of the sort.

You can't claim the beginning of time without claiming null-cause. Obviously before time 'begins' there can't be a cause.

Show me a reference to backup your claim that I am strawmaning.

Even if, rhetorically, you were right, I could still rebute you with the membrane theory.

You're joking? Ok. Let's do this. Where is your evidence to support M-Theory? Do you have any?

Omnipotence is not rational, because omnipotence is superior to rationality. Is the Universe rational? To our human minds, yes. To God? Who knows. There's no contradiction in my argument.

You cannot reason about an object which you claim is not a rational object. You already assume the object is rational in order to apply reason to it and enter a rational debate about it. It's a blatant contradiction. Either 'god' is subject to reason, and is therefore a rational being, or you are committing a fallacy by entering the rational debate in the first place. The only choice you have, if this is your position, is to stop talking about it.

 

[wombakage]

BURDEN OF PROOF? DUH????

lol despite it being a "fallacy" (human made term ) i stick by it their is no evidence for God unless you want to go into faith/metaphysics but i dont (even then their is no "proof" you have to make a choice and live with the consequences).

God's existence can not be proved for the simple fact him being supernatural means he doesnt have to abide by our logic (proof or disproof)

SPAGHETTI MONSTER

why even argue? You are just saying that god can do whatever the fuck he wants, so nothing applies to him.

 

[lalmvpkobe]

Im not going to argue anymore as their is no other ideas that I can add. This thread is asking for rational proof of God which can not be given because God isnt rational otherwise what power would he have? Their is no argument that can be said that will convince any of you and their is no way I am able to better explain my feelings on non-existance which is principle in my arguments. It is clear among all Christian belivers that God is not rational therfore as sythe has stated no reason can be applied to Him and no reason can be appliled to prove His existance or disprove it. The only thing im going to ask for before I leave is a personal oppinion on pascals wager (no links to wikipedia please or anything else)
overview on his wager.
1. atheists/others are right=good for then but their is no reward as non existance is met. But if wrong a eternity in hell is the reward.
2. believing in christianity= may not have done things you wanted in life but if ur wrong it wont matter as non-existance is met. But if were right eternal salvation is met as well as not being sentenced to hell for eternity.

 

This thread is asking for rational proof of God which can not be given because God isnt rational otherwise what power would he have?

This is about the 7th time I've pointed out that this is a fallacy.

You cannot reason about a being you claim to be 'beyond reason'. It is a contradiction to do so. If this is your position then you CANNOT ENTER a rational debate without contradicting yourself. All of your arguments will, by virtue of this fundamental contradiction, be false.

 

[lalmvpkobe]

Yah i completely agree with you lol thats what i just said in my last post lol i used way to many words. I put where i agreeded with you in bold text.
l

Im not going to argue anymore as their is no other ideas that I can add. This thread is asking for rational proof of God which can not be given because God isnt rational otherwise what power would he have? Their is no argument that can be said that will convince any of you and their is no way I am able to better explain my feelings on non-existance which is principle in my arguments. It is clear among all Christian belivers that God is not rational therfore as sythe has stated no reason can be applied to Him and no reason can be appliled to prove His existance or disprove it. The only thing im going to ask for before I leave is a personal oppinion on pascals wager (no links to wikipedia please or anything else)
overview on his wager.
1. atheists/others are right=good for then but their is no reward as non existance is met. But if wrong a eternity in hell is the reward.
2. believing in christianity= may not have done things you wanted in life but if ur wrong it wont matter as non-existance is met. But if were right eternal salvation is met as well as not being sentenced to hell for eternity.