God does not exist.

[Deacon Frost]

Simply quote me to the answers then

First of, I'm not actually saying I believe or disbelieve in God, I just wanted to know the answer to that question.

They've been answered here and many places before =/. I have no desire to go through this thread, and the hundreds of pages on the other thread.

So as this thread stated "God does not exist" it's for the thread creator to prove that he doesn't exist then?

Yes. I understand where you're coming from, but the thread kinda took a turn to defending the point that God doesn't exist, rather than providing proof of his non-existence.

Because that's not exactly how it's working in this thread at the moment. Yes, certain people are actually using pretty good arguments, whilst others are just using questions to avoid answering.

Questions can be answers.

I never claimed I knew, but I do however think there has to be a start of "something".

Again, time is a human concept, it does not actually exist. The universe does not operate according to a law of time. We merely perceive time as a unit of measurement.

A meter does not exist, but we use a meter stick to measure things that do.

 

[Anti-Virus]

Questions can be answers.

They can also be used to avoid answering questions.

Again, time is a human concept, it does not actually exist. The universe does not operate according to a law of time. We merely perceive time as a unit of measurement.

A meter does not exist, but we use a meter stick to measure things that do.

We still use "time" even though it doesn't exist. And it's not like we're going around questioning everyone and their "belief/trust" in time.

I guess it's possible to say "we" created time, but I still believe that there has to be a certain start, even if it's not possible to "set" the start.

Then who created god? Then who created the being that created god? Then who created the being that created the being that created god? etc...

Teehee, I find it rather funny that you assume I believe in God. I'm only arguing for the sake of seeing both sides. I think to many people have grouped up against the religious people, and having 10 replies towards 1 person that said something about (believing in) God makes it rather hard for that person to answer all the questions.

It's not like a person on this forum will come with proof for either the existance or non-existance of God.

(Also, I wasn't actually talking about creating anything in the post you're responding to, except to the "creator" of this thread).
(The part where I said it had to be a start of "something" was refered to time itself, and the creation of earth/universe, not "someone").

 

[Deacon Frost]

They can also be used to avoid answering questions.


We still use "time" even though it doesn't exist. And it's not like we're going around questioning everyone and their "belief/trust" in time.

I guess it's possible to say "we" created time, but I still believe that there has to be a certain start, even if it's not possible to "set" the start. (Yeah yeah, I know I don't have any certain proof of that)

You operate within the concept of time, so of course you believe that . Hell, I believe that, to an extent. But, from my understanding, just because we operate inside of the concept of time doesn't mean the universe does.

So, in all actuality, there may not be a beginning to speak of... there may not be an end >.>..

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Time is a unit of measurement; it`s like an inch. Time in a basic sense revolves around how long it takes to get to this point. That can change. Therefore it`s essentially impossible to find a definite beginning or a definite end.

 

Several was just ignored, however, I'm not planning on going trough 12 pages again.

The one I mostly wanted to see the answer to though (Sythes answer), was the one Backstab555 asked ;

What created the universe?

What proof do you have that god doesnt exist?

Those are both instances of the loaded question fallacy. (plurium interrogationum)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

"What created the universe" presupposes that it was created by something.
"What proof do you have that god doesn't exist" presupposes the burden of proof is on me, when it is clearly not.


To reiterate the way burden of proof works:

1. If someone makes a claim X, then his opponent is not making the opposite claim.
2. If I claim that "all jam is strawberry flavoured", then the default position of my opponent is not "all jam is NOT strawberry flavoured."
3. The default position is the presumption that your claim is incorrect, and that what is apparent and outside of the scope of the debate is correct. The default position requires no evidence. It is not a claim. Only the claim requires evidence.

Because people have apparently so much trouble understanding this, consider the presumption of innocence in court:
A person before trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Likewise, any theory before debate (that differs from the apparent) is presumed incorrect until proven to be correct / or beyond reasonable doubt.


Earlier someone brought up the case of the flat earth, and it is a good illustration of how the burden of proof works, and why it is a necessary component of deductive reasoning.

1. To humans the earth does appear flat when we look out across the landscape, and a claim as bold as "the earth is round" requires evidence.
2. However, when making the case for the round earth, its proponents could not say "well prove to me the earth isn't round." Such would be ridiculous, and one would then be required to also prove that the earth isn't hollow, square, inside out, under-fire from intergalactic monsters and an illusion created by magical hermit crabs living in Russell's teapot.
3. In addition, it was also not the case that the opposing case was "the world is flat", because this was not a claim made by anyone, it was the default obvious skeptical position; That things are as they seem.
4. However it was eventually proven that the earth is round, and now the default skeptical position is that the earth is round. We have augmented the seemingness of things with the subtleties exposed by reason to discover a more correct truth about the world. Namely, that ships disappear bottom first over the horizon, and that they can circumnavigate the earth without falling off the side.

(I'm just trying to see it from his point of view, and it would make it easier if he could answer simple questions as that).

It would make it easier if you would stop giving me loaded questions...
Let's see how you fare with one: "When will god stop hating you?" and "What proof do you have that god doesn't hate you?"

 

[Schnell]

We still use "time" even though it doesn't exist. And it's not like we're going around questioning everyone and their "belief/trust" in time.

If someone starts a discussion about time travel (wormhole/faster than speed travel/gravity field/whatever), then my first response is to question his belief in time as a physical phenomenon. So I guess I do go around questioning that. In the case of faster than light travel I would also question his belief in speed, but that's another discussion.

I guess it's possible to say "we" created time, but I still believe that there has to be a certain start, even if it's not possible to "set" the start.

Well, don't let your desire for a start tempt you to believe in an easy solution. I agree "God did it" or "Big Bang" can be more comforting than "I have no idea", but I still prefer the latter.

 

[pie4muh]

Actually, that's a slight misunderstanding of the burden of proof.

The title of this thread is actually a true and correct statement, due to the omnipotence contradiction;
But burdern of proof is the presumption that a 'thing', the state of a 'thing', or an event, phenomenon, or occurrence differing from the norm does not exist / is not the case unless there is evidence to suggest that it is.

but how do you know if something is normal? how do we decide? if i think its normal for their to be a god and you think its normal to not have one then who is right?

 

[Angelmax]

but how do you know if something is normal? how do we decide? if i think its normal for their to be a god and you think its normal to not have one then who is right?

Generally, we take the rational claim (god does not exist) and compare it with the irrational one (he does). Read up on burden of proof, that might help you.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

but how do you know if something is normal? how do we decide? if i think its normal for their to be a god and you think its normal to not have one then who is right?

question for you: say i showed you irrefutable proof that god does not or could not exist. would you accept that?

 

but how do you know if something is normal? how do we decide? if i think its normal for their to be a god and you think its normal to not have one then who is right?

The normal state of things is the state one would understand the world to be in if one's view were solely based on naive empiricism coupled with the soundest of deductive arguments / the most obvious of factual discoveries about the world.

 

[teebag]

face it, god is ur imagination

 

[Schnell]

question for you: say i showed you irrefutable proof that god does not or could not exist. would you accept that?

That's the beauty of it. Because "God" is an abstract entity, it can be twisted to avoid your proof, no matter what you come up with.