Serious question for atheists

The answer to this, because it's a blanket statement, is: They don't. You just wish they did. There are some people who are strong in promoting Atheism but they've never woke me up at 6 in the morning to tell me about how great Jesus is.



Before hand I would like to state that the closest category I fit in is Atheist, but won who enjoys playing with all sides. And here we go!

How can you prove that God doesn't exist? He is an omnipresent entity that yawned one day and poof: existence! And your right, it's like the air statement in more ways than one. No one can prove that air exists but everyone just kind assumes it does because we can breath. I'm not the one prove or disprove God but I want to believe that He doesn't exist because of the atrocities carried out in his name in the past, present, and the ones yet to happen.

Science, pah. I scuff at science. I don't feel like quoting one section of a post just to get this started but somewhere along the lines it was stated to an effect close to: Religion can't survive in an era of Science. What does Science prove? Science proves that we can prove nothing. I really am not on agreeing terms with Science being the proof against God.

Science is not a proof against God. Science is not a proof against magic. The supernatural. Psionics. etc.

Science is merely a proof that we know jack shit about the universe we currently exist in.

That's what I believe, anyway. It makes the world less clockwork-y.

As a student of mathematics, I feel compelled to point out that being unable to prove something is true or exists is not equivalent to proving it is untrue or doesn't exist. Even science experiments conducted via observation generally don't fit the model here. Generally, a hypothesis needs to contain an expectation of what will happen if the hypothesis is true. It is pretty much impossible to fit this to the notion of the existence of some god-being at all, and even difficult when applied to the various existing religions with the few specifics they give us. If a god exists, what should we be able to observe? If a god does not exist, what should we be able to observe? In order to approach the question of the existence of a god scientifically, one first has to answer those questions.

I personally think the question of whether some type of god exists falls into the same catagory as such questions as whether oneself exists. For the latter, it is impossible to mount a scientific defense, as the whole idea of science assumes that one exists and that what one observes is real. Do I exist? Can I prove that I exist? Answers to these questions range from DesCartes's "I think therefore I am" to a statement more along the lines of "No, I can't prove that I exist and I may not exist."

Ultimately, just as philosophers have attempted to present arguments and evidence for existence, they have also sometimes tried to present arguments and evidence for the existence of a god. Such theories as the Prime Mover Theory and the Watchmaker Theory have been suggested, and just as with the question of existence, none of these theories has been considered proof enough close the question. The debates and the search for answers will continue.

Umm okay... just my reaction on what FPoD said about faith creating God.

First and foremost I personally think it's absurd to look for evidences on God's existence. Not everything in this world can be explained scientifically or with logic, take friendship for an example you can't scientifically explain why you would want to be friends with someone. Even the Bible itself cannot be considered an evidence because of the many historical errors it has, however the teachings inside it are solid.

Now about Faith creating God, faith was created because there was a need. People started asking "why do we exist? what's our purpose?" and other important questions that logic cannot explain. It's up to people to choose what they believe in but they cannot create God. God is bigger than any human experience, he cannot create what he cannot explain. You may say that the scientists have laid in front of us amazing theories of how the universe was created but they can never answer the question "Why? It was created"

well,imo,the atheist came when something that they think can make them happy,e.g. money,girls,and many others .
So,they will praise it forever .
It's a bad thing,you know,because the creator of these universe,include Earth and other things,is GOD .
That's what I believe in .

It is up to the person who makes a claim to prove that claim. Simply, "make a claim, provide proof". Theists have yet to provide tangible proof that their deity exists so by scientific thought. That claim is either false or just unsupported by the current evidence. This is how a scientists thinks and once proof of a claim is brought to light then the perception shifts to match the current information. This is why we have hypothesis, theories,etc



Science isn't about proving that God does/doesn't exist but, about supporting claims and gathering information on the surrounding environment. Just because science (A.k.a. Humans) haven't discovered the answer to everything doesn't mean we have discovered nothing.



Two words, Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof does not rest on the skeptic but, rather on the person making the claim. Religious people can not provide scientific or materialistic proof that their God Exists. Until they do, their God does not exist in the eyes of the scientific community. Is it really that absurd to demand proof of a persons claim? The rest of society does this and yet, when we apply this to religion somehow it makes the entire system irrelevant.



The "I can't prove I exist, therefore I don't" sounds like convoluted, existential nonsense.

Well,if theres's no god,then who will help us in our death ??

Its a Japanese religion that's been spread to most parts of the world.

....Might wanna check up on that, It's been around a lot longer than since Japan adopted it.

As I stated above, science isn't equipped to address this question because "the scientific community" hasn't decided what kind of evidence should result from the truth of the statement "a god exists." This requires making assumptions or creating definitions for the nature of the god in question. Rigorously define the type of evidence that would prove that a god exists, why this particular evidence would prove that a god exists, and why this particular evidence would be present if a god exists and then we are in business. After all, science can only test and "prove" gravity because there is an agreed upon expectation of what evidence will be observed if the theory of gravity is correct.

Finding one that is thoroughly convincing is quite difficult. This is why such statements of evidence in favor of religion as(very rough version here but you should get the point) "We know something doesn't come from nothing and the universe is here, therefore the universe didn't come from nothing so it must have come from a god" haven't settled the debate.

Either way, the burden of proof rests equally on both the skeptic and the believer. The skeptic needs to prove that it isn't true, and the believer needs to prove that it is true, otherwise is just remains and unknown(though based on the evidence, one might be willing to assume it to be more or less probable). Even in the case of Russel's Teapot, the defense he suggests seems to be "That's absurd, you made it up." That clearly doesn't prove him false. The better defense is "You have made an assertion that is untestable." Something that can't be defined and tested can never be a scientific truth, though it can also never be proved to be a scientific falsehood. Philosophy would still be willing to consider his premise.

However, our systems for testing and understanding the universe are based on assumptions. Mathematics has axioms. Science assumes that we are observing reality. But how do we know that we have made the right assumptions? This is another topic to which philosophers have devoted much thought and to which no definite answer is agreed upon(How do we know what truth is and how do we know that we know anything?) If one concludes here that science is the only valid way of understanding the world and that truth consists of only those things which can be shown to be scientific truths, then the statement "a god exists" is not a truth(unless it can be shown to be a scientific truth and we just haven't discovered this yet). But that either requires extensive arguments or a whole lot of assumptions.



First off, it's "I can't figure out how to prove that I exist, therefore I might not and there is a reasonable chance that I don't exist."

Suppose I choose to be a skeptic in the case of my or your existence. You can point to me or point to yourself and say "Here I am, I exist." But that assumes that what I experience through my senses is reality. This assumption generally underlies science, but for philosophers, this has not been good enough. How do you prove to me that you exist? What if the evidence convinces you but not me? If the onus is on you to present evidence that convinces me and is highly resilient against dispute, you are in trouble. This is not simply existential nonsense, but an important part of philosophy to which many great philosophers have devoted numerous words and about which they have reached very divergent conclusions.

(An interesting side note related to a sort of application of these idea. There is a theorem in mathematics that proves that based on the way our system of mathematics is constructed, there exist statements that cannot be proved true or false, that is, the truth value of them is unknowable. See Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.)

The ultimate point of all this is that any discussion trying to provide arguments or proof for either the existence or nonexistence of a god requires much more depth than simply saying "show me measurable evidence." If one is able to define the existence of god in such a way as to make it a testable and agreed upon scientific hypothesis(difficult at best), then a scientific conclusion can be reached. Otherwise, one is left with the assumption that a combination of being untestable and seeming absurd to the skeptic means that a god doesn't exist, a position that is intuitively reasonable but very vulnerable logically.

You know,I'm getting confused .
:||
but,at least,atheist are devils .
All religion have a GOD,and the people who didn't believe in god are devils .

What, no Goddesses?

I'm not especially gay for god, mate.

i really think that there's no help we can provide to something that simply don't exist anymore, but i really wanna know what do you mean by help here....btw inventing god just to "help" you after your death, whatever that may mean sounds very selfish lol.



ugh. let's hope you're joking with this...or if you really don't have the capacity to grasp the arguments presented here, just avoid this thread.

just wanna say atheists don't believe in devils either...lol.

and i agree with FPoD in that believers really need to provide tangible proof of their god if they really want to support their case. it's very weird that believers/supporters of a case need to provide evidence of their claim in every single case except religion, where it's non-believers are demanded to find proof. well, i guess this god thing really had such an appeal to it, that logic is switched off in their case....

Haha, nicely put. ^_^

Yeah,that's why I'm getting confuse with this discussion .
That's my opinion,either .

What's ironic is that the creator of this thread completely disappeared since the first page of this thread. I guessing he couldn't take the atheism and science behind the user's well-written explanations.

Yeah,I think so .

i dont laugh at people for believing in god, or some specific religion. however i feel that they could be spending their time a lot more constructively if they just did other things instead of praying. like visiting Fakku!

[/quote]

Converse accident, that logical fallacy is called. To make an example, saying every piece of pasta I have seen has been yellow, therefore all pasta must be yellow would be incorrect, for you have not seen all the pasta in the world.

I suppose by now, since I decided against reading the rest of this argument, it's dived into another religious debate which can only end with both sides shutting up.

I don't really mind religion but it's just when religious people try to start taking religion to seriously like trying to teach creationism in schools or when they try to disprove the evolutionary theory even though they never even come close too. Thats when it starts to bother me. that's the part that bothers me about religion. I'm a atheist myself but i don't really care about religion but i do think it causes problems sometimes and that's when we have to act in order to stop it from happening so we do have to kinda attack religion.