We have encountered many atheists on this forum. It has been interesting discussing with them. I only have one outstanding issue:

I would like to see a convincing proof that God (the creator of the universe) does not exist.

Please, I am waiting,

Sit down dey wait!

The convincing proof that GOD exist is that you have your eyes to see. whereas the convincing proof that God did not exist for you is that he allow you to be alive.

the burden of proof is bound on the proponents of a new idea to show that it's true. the job of the atheist is to attack the shoddy beliefs of theists. the only proof theists have is "faith". how do u bring up physical evidence against "faith" especially involving an abstract entity. what are the parameters for which we can test the existence of God??. if so, bring it on. the tables have been turned brother.

The convincing proof that GOD exist is that you have your eyes to see. whereas the convincing proof that God did not exist for you is that he allow you to be alive

circular argument.

[url]http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm[/url]

you repeat the same arguments without any justification

bawomol:

the burden of proof is bound on the proponents of a new idea to show that it's true. the job of the atheist is to attack the shoddy beliefs of theists. the only proof theists have is "faith". how do u bring up physical evidence against "faith" especially involving an abstract entity. what are the parameters for which we can test the existence of God??. if so, bring it on. the tables have been turned brother.

The convincing proof that GOD exist is that you have your eyes to see. whereas the convincing proof that God did not exist for you is that he allow you to be alive

circular argument.

[url]http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm[/url]

you repeat the same arguments without any justification

You are missing up things. "Convincing proof that God did not exist" is the question and nothing to argue about. Do you need a proof that GOD exist or does not Or BOTH.

If you insist to get proof that GOD does not exist - then is because your alive - that's my parameter for which you can test the existence of God.

If you insist to get proof that GOD does not exist - then is because your alive - that's my parameter for which you can test the existence of God.

god exists because u are alive. u are alive because God exists. that people is what i call circular reasoning used by Christians. they have no proof of their own so they challenge others for proof

what proof again do you want - when you sleep - in your sleep find out were you come from, then i will be here 2morrow to give you proof. wait for me ok.

The burden of proof lies with the party that asserts the positive. So if you assert that a god exist, it is your responsibility to provide proofs that such an entity exists.

The weak atheists asserts that there is no justification for a god-belief (given that theism is the belief in god). So a weak atheist simply says all existing justification do not meet the standard of proof, although there may be a god who is currently hidden from us.

The strong atheist makes a claim that given all the existing evidence, the probability for god's existence remains very weak.

Consider the following challenge;

Can you prove that there is no red-eye, green-tailed rhino sitting in the middle of your living room?

I have not seen the convincing proof I am looking for.

If atheism cannot prove that 'God does not exist', why would anybody still claim to be an atheist

Imhotep,

With most respect, I submit that you too are an atheist. You are an atheist with respect to the Buddhist gods, the Hindu gods, the Muslim god(Allah), Zeus, Mithras, Thor, Dionysus, Horus, the African Stone/Tree gods etc etc.

I too am an atheist with respect to the above gods, as well as the god of the bible. When you understand why you reject the above gods, you will understand why I reject your god.

therationa:

Imhotep,

With most respect, I submit that you too are an atheist. You are an atheist with respect to the Buddhist gods, the Hindu gods, the Muslim god(Allah), Zeus, Mithras, Thor, Dionysus, Horus, the African Stone/Tree gods etc etc.

I too am an atheist with respect to the above gods, as well as the god of the bible. When you understand why you reject the above gods, you will understand why I reject your god.

Well written. But NOT the proof I seek. Does this mean that atheists cannot defend/justify their position?

Then why do they maintain a position they cannot defend/justify?? This is surprising.

Imhotep,

Thankx for the compliment. Much appreciated.

I can very well defend my atheistic stand but it would be too long-winded and hard to maintain on a thread on a forum. I came to an atheistic worldview after many years as a christian. It was a long journey which would be hard to defend on a thread. Suffice it to say that if you are interested in looking into the defenses for atheism, you will have to do much of the work yourself. In fact I shall post some links later.

What drives me is the TRUTH and as humans we have no better tools for investigating reality than the scientific method. In the past when we relied of revelations we have gone disastrously awry as evident from things like slavery, the Inquisition, belief in a geo-centric universe etc.

Can you think of anything for which the scientific explanation, which may once have been the best explanation, has been rejected in favour of a faith explanation?

However, I am sure you can name many tens of things for which the faith explanation has been abandoned in favour of a scientific explanation.

That is the point I am making. Think HARD before you believe anything.

therationa:

What drives me is the TRUTH and as humans we have no better tools for investigating reality than the scientific method. In the past when we relied of revelations we have gone disastrously awry as evident from things like slavery, the Inquisition, belief in a geo-centric universe etc.

Can you think of anything for which the scientific explanation, which may once have been the best explanation, has been rejected in favour of a faith explanation?

All well and good.

And I am saying : use this scientific method (our best tool for investigating reality) to prove that God does not exist.


Afterall, Michelson and Morley were able to show (indirectly) that there is nothing like a 'luminiferous ether' that James Clerk Maxwell believed to exist.

You make a good point about ether but am afraid you have failed to understand how science works. Scientist make a speculation or hypothesis and then go out and look for supporting evidence for their hypothesis. If evidence is found, the hypothesis is accepted as a scientific theory. If not it is rejected.

Even after a theory is first accepted, the entire scientific community continously evaluates it through trials, replication and if it is found wanting it is immediately modified to accommodate the new evidence or rejected. Science moves by progressive forward, backward, then forward moves.

it is interesting you mention ether, because I am right in the middle of reading a book in which I came across this for the first time. It was widely believed that such a thing existed (so at that point, it was only a scientific speculation/hypothesis). But when tests could not find evidence for it, that hypothesis was rejected.

Incidentally, cosmologist have found something called Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation(CBMR) which has all the hallmarks of ether. This is the remnants of the Big Bang explosion and measures about 3K (kelvin). In fact, some of the radio and television interference on earth is cause by this radiation.

This is a great book. "Wrinkles in Time" by George Smoot. He won the Nobel prize for physics for his work in proving the existence of CBMR.
http://www.amazon.com/Wrinkles-Time-Witness-Birth-Universe/dp/0061344443/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202415135&sr=1-1

Not quite. Luminiferous aether was held to be the [b]medium [/b]through which light propagates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether)

CMBR is not a medium, but a form of radiation.

Imhotep,

You may be right about the ether stuff but this was never accepted as scientific theory. If it was it was rejected as you mentioned. But that is the beauty of science; anything that does not stand the tests of evidence is rejected.

I mentioned CMBR because when scientist started looking for it, they were discourage in the light of the failure to detect ether. CMBR is similar to the idea of ether in that it occupied the entire universe. But it is not a medium. It is just the left-over from the BIG BANG.

So if you were looking for proof of the BIG BANG event CMBR is the thing.

We have encountered many atheists on this forum. It has been interesting discussing with them. I only have one outstanding issue:

I would like to see a convincing proof that God (the creator of the universe) does not exist.

Please, I am waiting,

Who?

Psalms 14:1, which states: The fool says in his heart, "God does not exist."

Check out what Exodus 21:17 says. Here it is. Do you live according to its precepts?

"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death"

Christian: The Big Bang is impossible because you can't have something from nothing.

Atheist: Ok, so where did God come from?

Christian: God is omnipotent, omnipresent. He has always been. He doesn't need a creator.

Atheist: Ummmm, right. So the Big Bang needs a creator, but God doesn't. Good logic example there.

There is no original without a fake, , there is nothing like "the big bang theory", I am sick and tired of science effort to prove everything. We should realize that we as humans can't explain everything,

bawomol:

Atheist: Ummmm, right. So the Big Bang needs a creator, but God doesn't. Good logic example there.

Then, Atheist should use his all-powerful logic to prove that God does not exist.

@bawol
the burden of proof is bound on the proponents of a new idea to show that it's true. the job of the atheist is to attack the shoddy beliefs of theists. the only proof theists have is "faith". how do u bring up physical evidence against "faith" especially involving an abstract entity. what are the parameters for which we can test the existence of God??. if so, bring it on. the tables have been turned brother

so you dont have faith abi?

it seems you are asking about the existence of God? well i think i have a simple question for you.

xtian: do you breathe in air?
atheist: yes

xtian: do you see the air you breathe?
atheist: no

xtian: do you see the evidnce of the air around us?
atheist: yes

conclusion: so the air does not exist becos i dont see it.

hi bawol
i am still asking you in the other thread, where did matter come from? how did it come to exist?

®~^Sly^~®:

Psalms 14:1, which states: The fool says in his heart, "God does not exist."

"But the wise say it aloud."

bawomol:

Christian: The Big Bang is impossible because you can't have something from nothing.

Atheist: Ok, so where did God come from?

Christian: God is omnipotent, omnipresent. He has always been. He doesn't need a creator.

Atheist: Ummmm, right. So the Big Bang needs a creator, but God doesn't. Good logic example there.

To add to that, it's inetersting to note that even the argument "you can't have something from nothing" is inaccurate.

imhotep:

Then, Atheist should use his all-powerful logic to prove that God does not exist.

Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown.

luvus:

@bawol
the burden of proof is bound on the proponents of a new idea to show that it's true. the job of the atheist is to attack the shoddy beliefs of theists. the only proof theists have is "faith". how do u bring up physical evidence against "faith" especially involving an abstract entity. what are the parameters for which we can test the existence of God??. if so, bring it on. the tables have been turned brother

so you don't have faith abi?

it seems you are asking about the existence of God? well i think i have a simple question for you.

xtian: do you breathe in air?
atheist: yes

xtian: do you see the air you breathe?
atheist: no

xtian: do you see the evidnce of the air around us?
atheist: yes

conclusion: so the air does not exist because i don't see it.

I doubt disbelief is based simply on sight. Just saying.

hi bawol
i am still asking you in the other thread, where did matter come from? how did it come to exist?

I try not to do this, but what the hell, why not. I wrote this brief summary a good while back:

"Matter is composed of elementary fermions, which makes protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter. I should mention that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.


Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

That's as brief and precise as I can make it, feel free to pick up a book on it or something. Kudos to R. Lippens as well."

Critique?

KAG:

Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown.

We don't have to take your word for it that God is imaginary and mythological.

Give us a scientific proof, beyond reasonable doubt that God is imaginary, mythological and does not exist.

imhotep, ii have a scientific proof that GOD does exist - but no scientific proof that GOD does not exist. Are you satisfied with the question - and please lets go to another question. you can consult a scientist for more proof you desire. and please forget this topic - let will take you no where - COS THERE IS NO PROOF - ALL WE SEE BEYOND AND ABOVE ARE PROOFS THAT HE EXIST.

Imhotep,

Imagine you are charge with a crime and taken to court. Don't you think it is the onus of the prosecuting authorities to prove that you committed the crime. If they cannot prove to the jury that you committed the crime you do not have to say a thing in you defense.

Likewise it is the onus of the theist to prove that a god exist.


Christians claim their god has the following attributes; omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent and omnibenevolence. It is logically impossible to have all of these attributes.

By the way, how did they know about these attributes from god?

imhotep:

We don't have to take your word for it that God is imaginary and mythological.

Give us a scientific proof, beyond reasonable doubt that God is imaginary, mythological and does not exist.

It appears you haven't understood my post. I should point out that at this point that it appears you're being asinine and simply appending the same catch-all to any response that is posted.

First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

therationa:

Imhotep,

Imagine you are charge with a crime and taken to court. Don't you think it is the onus of the prosecuting authorities to prove that you committed the crime. If they cannot prove to the jury that you committed the crime you do not have to say a thing in you defense.

Likewise it is the onus of the theist to prove that a god exist.


Christians claim their god has the following attributes; omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent and omnibenevolence. It is logically impossible to have all of these attributes.

By the way, how did they know about these attributes from god?

No. This is a nice way of dodging the question. We are discussing the rational claim of the atheists that 'God does not exist'. I think we deserve a 'rational' explanation of this, accompanied by a scientific proof. Simple

KAG:

It appears you haven't understood my post. I should point out that at this point that it appears you're being asinine and simply appending the same catch-all to any response that is posted.

First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

Nice words. But words none the less. Not enough to convince anyone (beyond reasonable doubt) that God does not exist.

imhotep:

Nice words. But words none the less.

You expected pictures?

Not enough to convince anyone (beyond reasonable doubt) that God does not exist.

Why not? If the subject was the existence of, say, a leprechaun or Zeus, would those words have been enough?