God does not exist.

[lalmvpkobe]

They're not following the scientific method. There is nothing scientific about hypothesizing new entities, failing to test said hypotheses then introducing them as new premises to an existing theory and claiming the theory to be once again valid. This is a theological doctrine preservation methodology, it couldn't be further from scientific.

You think I'm joking?

Definitions of dark matter on the Web:

• (cosmology) a hypothetical form of matter that is believed to make up 90 percent of the universe; it is invisible (does not absorb or emit light ... wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Definitions of dark energy on the Web:

• In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of ...

Definitions of neutronium on the Web:

• The supposed material composed entirely of neutrons that composes a neutron star en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neutronium

Blackholes, neutron stars, space-time and just about every other damn entity in the theory is hypothetical too.

The big bang theory is just terrible, unscientific theological garbage. If you want a model of the which can substantiate most of its claims (as far as I have seen) try the electric universe theory.


The big bang theory is invalid by virtue of its internal contradictions, of which there are many; a few of which I've already outlined in this thread.

One thing to remember about reasoning is that a train of reason all goes in the same direction. If you can show the back of the train is going in the wrong direction, the front of the train sure as hell is too.

This is why i respect sythe his mind is logical. He not only rebukes religon but also the bs theories that scientists try to replace religon with. I may not agree with what he says but he follows what he believes is logical without one drop of bullshit which is very understandable and respectable.

 

If you're making a claim, the burden of proof is upon you. Theists claim God unequivocally exists, and, as such, the burden of proof is upon them. However, you are making a postulation in claiming that God does not exist. The burden of proof is equally upon yourself to prove it.

I assume you are referring to the OP?

 

[lalmvpkobe]

If you're making a claim, the burden of proof is upon you. Theists claim God unequivocally exists, and, as such, the burden of proof is upon them. However, you are making a postulation in claiming that God does not exist. The burden of proof is equally upon yourself to prove it.

Your way late on this finn sythe has already explained this quite clearly since posts on the first page.

Im assuming your aitheist?

edit- nevermind completely misread finns post go finn!!

 

[LethalSh0ts]

As long as you can claim that God doesn't exist because we have no proof that he does exist we can also claim that God does exist because we have no proof that he doesn't exist.

Imo. there is not much to discuss about, whether God exists or not is what you "believe in" or not. For me God is the creator of all existence, but that is just how I am and what I believe in because everybody seeks the reason for existence.

 

[LethalSh0ts]

Your way late on this finn sythe has already explained this quite clearly since posts on the first page.

Im assuming your aitheist?

edit- nevermind completely misread finns post go finn!!

As I just said, you can prove how old our planet is. You can prove how old we humans exist but proving whether God exists or not is a belief.

Personally I believe something exists if it can be proven theoreticaly (example is God imo) I believe in God because I think that there has to be a "higher power above us human beings" that created our universe. But I believe that our brains are not devolped yet to be able to conclude how our universe did start and let stand to prove it!

 

[Angelmax]

As I just said, you can prove how old our planet is. You can prove how old we humans exist but proving whether God exists or not is a belief.

Personally I believe something exists if it can be proven theoreticaly (example is God imo) I believe in God because I think that there has to be a "higher power above us human beings" that created our universe. But I believe that our brains are not devolped yet to be able to conclude how our universe did start and let stand to prove it!

As unlikely as it is to be true, if you are correct and a 'higher power' did 'create' our universe, there is absolutely no reason for us to worship or venerate such a 'power', which has done nothing since it supposedly began the universe.

 

[lalmvpkobe]

and you as well? and try reading the bible and you will see a few more things

 

[Angelmax]

and you as well? and try reading the bible and you will see a few more things

Who was that addressed to?

Assuming it was me, why should I base my life on a book which was written by dozens of authors over hundreds of years with vastly different agendas, which was then edited by governments and the church to fit their own ideologies?

And why should I take this particular book as fact when there are dozens of others with the same credentials, and thousands more deities for me to choose from on top of that?

 

[LethalSh0ts]

As unlikely as it is to be true, if you are correct and a 'higher power' did 'create' our universe, there is absolutely no reason for us to worship or venerate such a 'power', which has done nothing since it supposedly began the universe.

You're turning the subject a little bit left. I didn't say anything about worshipping or venetrating a "higher power". I was just claiming that I believe that, that power is the reason for our existence though this isn't proven so I can't say that this actually is the real reason I'm just saying that this is what I believe.

Once again I'm saying; Something exists whether it can be proven theoreticaly. In other words everything with a frequence is an existence. For example our 5 sences tell us whether something exists or not. The way our mind is speaking (when we're thinking) a specific frequence comes free. But maybe our brains haven't devolped far enough to find the real reason for all existence, because there is NO proof! So then everything comes to "belief" and every human has his own beliefs and assumings. and mine our that God does exist because there is no proof that He doesn't exist!

Now if you're going to ask me "yes but there is no proof that God does exist either" then my advice will be that you read this monologue through once again because I already gave my answer on that question.

-Lethal.

 

As long as you can claim that God doesn't exist because we have no proof that he does exist we can also claim that God does exist because we have no proof that he doesn't exist.

Again you fail to understand the burden of proof.

If you claim god exists, and fail to provide evidence, then, like any other claim, it is presumed to be false. That is, 'god' is presumed not to exist.

But we go one better and make the claim that god definitively does not exist. But, unlike in your claim, we provide a valid rational argument (the omnipotence contradiction) to substantiate this position -- a form of evidence.

So no, the arguments are not on equal footing. One has substance and one does not.

For me God is the creator of all existence,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

 

[LethalSh0ts]

Again you fail to understand the burden of proof.

If you claim god exists, and fail to provide evidence, then, like any other claim, it is presumed to be false. That is, 'god' is presumed not to exist.

But we go one better and make the claim that god definitively does not exist. But, unlike in your claim, we provide a valid rational argument (the omnipotence contradiction) to substantiate this position -- a form of evidence.

So no, the arguments are not on equal footing. One has substance and one does not.



TBH I'd be more than happy if you never talked about 'god' again for your entire life.

You're telling me to provide evididence to prove God's existence. Now can I ask you the Mathematical assumption to prove me that God doesn't exist?

In other words; in these kind of discussions there is NO evidence at our age of existence for *yes I'm saying it "God's existence" so the only thing left for us is to assume how we came to existence and as you surely know opinions vary about this but my opinion is that "There must be a God who created us".

You're putting words in my mouth that I've never said; I never claimed anything about Substances. I claimed the word frequence. Those are 2 different formules. For example in our brains Frequences are created through a specific substance. So that's not what I was saying sir. What I was saying is that there is a lot for us to find out yet especially scientific foundations. Plus I was only claiming that "a higher power" could only be the reason of our existence and I didn't say that it still lives on? because substances can be decomposed and in the end dissapear. So God can be some sort of substance but God can also be something intirely else, something that we don't know yet.

Is there any other prove of how we came to existence? NO. So it would be logical that people are finding ways of existence. Charles Darwin had his own ideals for this because he too was seeking for a reason of our existence. So our Christians, Muslims, Jews, Budhists and so on. But what do we have to say about this? All of those religions can be considered as some sort of theorys that we can validate as "true or correct" that's how we define "reality" but what does it mean to know the "truth"? Merely a vague concept ... it's "reality" may all be a mirage. Can we consider it to simply be living in their own world, shaped by it's beliefs?

The answer is yes we can consider them shaped by their own beliefs. Every men has his own "reality". Though reality is only reality as it can be proven through physicial evidence. But to prove an existence as physical evidence you must first be able to prove whether it doesn't exist as physical evidence.
And as I said. Maybe our brains aren't advanced enough to realise the beginning of all let stand on proving it. So the only thing a men can do yet is realise his own reality.

What burden of proof do you have to prove one's inexistence?

[note my grammar sucks. I'm 14, English isn't my first language, I don't live in an English country I learned most of it by myself so don't be too hard on my grammar please].

 

[xbx]

I'm still waiting for proof on either side of the table.

On "Sciences" side, they have provided us with dates, reasons, calculations, and other things that don't really have a back story, it just states a fact with no evidence.

On "God's Side" They have provided us with the same, but we still wonder why things in the world are so messed up, and for a "Paradise" why there is so much turmoil.

I guess I would have to be on the fence.

 

Now can I ask you the Mathematical assumption to prove me that God doesn't exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

You're putting words in my mouth that I've never said; I never claimed anything about Substances. I claimed the word frequence. Those are 2 different formules. For example in our brains Frequences are created through a specific substance. So that's not what I was saying sir. What I was saying is that there is a lot for us to find out yet especially scientific foundations. Plus I was only claiming that "a higher power" could only be the reason of our existence and I didn't say that it still lives on? because substances can be decomposed and in the end dissapear. So God can be some sort of substance but God can also be something intirely else, something that we don't know yet.

I was referring to the substance of the argument...

note my grammar sucks. I'm 14, English isn't my first language, I don't live in an English country I learned most of it by myself so don't be too hard on my grammar please].

The semantic value of your writing is poor. I have difficulty understanding your thoughts.

Perhaps you could arrange your points in logical and consistent blocks before presenting them, preferably (mis)using fewer words.

 

[LethalSh0ts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

We're not discussing God's abilities (as this link is mostly revered too) but God's existence. I still can not see how this is physical evidence of God's inexistence. And make my mind more clear to you; I'm not stating the bible's God as it is written. I'm stating A higher power.

I was referring to the substance of the argument...

Your arguments don't have substance either? As I told you; give me physical evidence that God doesn't exist and I concur to you.

The semantic value of your writing is poor. I have difficulty understanding your thoughts.
Perhaps you could arrange your points in logical and consistent blocks before presenting them, preferably (mis)using fewer words.

You don't have to tell me that my English literal knowledge carbage. But in reward I'm sure that I have the ability to read/talk more language's then probably most of the people on these forums.
And yes as you see Im trying to write more organized and pick the better words though I still have a long way to go so thanks for that advice sir. ^^

 

We're not discussing God's abilities (as this link is mostly revered too) but God's existence. I still can not see how this is physical evidence of God's inexistence. And make my mind more clear to you; I'm not stating the bible's God as it is written. I'm stating A higher power.

Fallacy: moving the goal posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Fallacy: equivocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

We've already been through all this (read the whole thread). Firstly, the thread is about the Christian 'god'. This has already been established for 8 pages. So your arguments either refer to the Christian 'god', which is defined as an omnipotent supernatural entity, or they have no relevance to the thread. Either way they are fallacious.

Your arguments don't have substance either? As I told you; give me physical evidence that God doesn't exist and I concur to you.

Fallacy: Burden of proof. (With respect to your demand from your position.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

And, fallacy: non sequitur (in the form of an irrelevant demand.) By entering a rational debate you've already accepted that a correct rational argument, addressing the facts, constitutes evidence. (Otherwise there would be no point in debating.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29



I think you've broken the fallacy record for a single post.

 

[LethalSh0ts]

Fallacy: moving the goal posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Fallacy: equivocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

We've already been through all this (read the whole thread). Firstly, the thread is about the Christian 'god'. This has already been established for 8 pages. So your arguments either refer to the Christian 'god', which is defined as an omnipotent supernatural entity, or they have no relevance to the thread. Either way they are fallacious.

You got me there. I wasn't refering the Christian 'God', because I don't fully believe in 100% of the stories written in the bible although some can be true? and even on this point there is not too much evidence whether those written events in the bible happened or not.

Even though I actually was refering existence of a God Whom is in my opinion the creator of everything. Though I would like to continue debating with you about the existence of a God as the creator of everything.

Your arguments don't have substance either? As I told you; give me physical evidence that God doesn't exist and I concur to you.

Fallacy: Burden of proof. (With respect to your demand from your position.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Please, tell me how it's fallacy to claim that you don't have evidence of God's non-existence?

And, fallacy: non sequitur (in the form of an irrelevant demand.) By entering a rational debate you've already accepted that a correct rational argument, addressing the facts, constitutes evidence. (Otherwise there would be no point in debating.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Nature of relevant proofs/arguments
Since God (of the kind to which the proofs/arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God[8] mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question. John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in physics are the ideas of quantum mechanics which are seemingly paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.[9] However, contemporary Thomists, such as Dennis F. Polis, strongly reject these claims and argue that God is entailed by the presuppositions of physics.

Still fallacy? It seems like some scientists have even stole my words.

 

[Harker]

You can't compare Science with God because there wouldn't be know science without god and science equals god and the other way round there's no science without god no god without science but of course there is a god k.

 

[LethalSh0ts]

You can't compare Science with God because there wouldn't be know science without god and science equals god and the other way round there's no science without god no god without science but of course there is a god k.

Thanks to Sythe I've just learned a new word called 'fallacy'. Yes folks there's a great example above me of how fallacy works. How do you know that God has nothing to do with science? Has this been proven? Where are your arguments for this illogical blattering?

My question to you is: Is there any optimal prove between the connection of 'science' and 'God'? In other words is there physical evidence of God's (un)existence?

Just making sure post +1 nerds leave this thread.

 

As I told you; give me physical evidence that God doesn't exist and I concur to you.

As I've already pointed out it is a fallacy to demand physical evidence in the negative. I've already given you a rational argument as to why the Christian god does not exist. You are unable to raise a counterargument.
(That means I win the debate.)

Thanks to Sythe I've just learned a new word called 'fallacy'. Yes folks there's a great example above me of how fallacy works. How do you know that God has nothing to do with science? Has this been proven? Where are your arguments for this illogical blattering?

My question to you is: Is there any optimal prove between the connection of 'science' and 'God'? In other words is there physical evidence of God's (un)existence?

Just making sure post +1 nerds leave this thread.

You are an idiot.

My evidence for this claim is the body of your arguments and posts made in this thread; their sustained blatant incoherence and illogicality.

You clearly do not understand (or are unwilling to apply) the standard of reason to arguments made in this discussion, and hence you have no place in it.

 

[LethalSh0ts]

Sythe, can I ask you a question?

Why can't humans make humans without having sex and taking stem cels?