Can you prove the non-existence of a god?

[fLIP]

Science?

To suggest: "For isntance. oxygen or air. It is "created" every single second. No one or "creates" this change, it is just done " without some sort of chemical reaction is not science dan?

In these sorts of debates I have noted you go for the credibility of others thoeries rather than have your own.

The question was: "Can you disprove the existance of a god?"

My answer is no but basic logic will tell you everything has a begining and as far as im concerned the air didn't make itself.

What created the oxygen molecules so that they could perform that function dan? Maybe some other chemical reaction over billions of years?

I am not stupid. I understand the science of life dan. How its created. How it works.It all has an explanation. But do you honestly think it all just appeared by itself?

 

[Dan]

I never said you were stupid fLIp and your observation on my tactics is fairly correct.

This is quite simple to explain
I am AGNOSTIC. i can not say this enough. This simply means that I believe an existence of a creator can not be proven!

Now this doesnt mean I dont believe that there is a possibility that there may be a creator.

The onus of proof on this debate is with the "There is a creator camp" for the simple reason that this camp is making an assumption, a leap of logic without analysing the data and providing proof. The camp of "I dont beliee this can be proven at this point" is more a scientific proof. We are open to the possibility but only through testing can this be proven. At this point no test can be provided and thus no proof can be ushered.

To say that "We are and that is proof" is a leap in logic and common sense that I am not willing to take.

 

[fLIP]

I completley understand that and agree. It cannot and will not be proven for a long time to come. Even if or when it is proven there will still be the age old agrument. Just like an evolution debate.

The way I look at it is like the creation of anything. Take a look at a chair for instance. Maybe not the most technical example but it takes the intelligence and hands of a human to create.

I then get up in the morning and take my first breath of the day. Look out the window, the wind is blowing and the sun is fading away the stars and rising above a full tide and thats only limited to what my eyes can see. With all the science facts in the world telling me how everything works, I find it more logical to belive that at the begining of it all there was some sort of intelligent creation rather than it just always being there.

Its probably a human trait. Our minds cannot fathom anything other than a begining and an end. Yet we live in a world where the energy transfer process completley destroys that beliefe.

These leeps of faith that a lot of people take, we wouldn't have science without them. An idea or beliefe most often preceeds scientific proof.

 

[Dan]

These leeps of faith that a lot of people take, we wouldn't have science without them. An idea or beliefe most often preceeds scientific proof.

Completely incorrect.

Look up the definition of science!

Science starts with a question

say
"Were we created by another being?"

Science then makes several Inferences or theories
i.e.
"we were,because everything humans use are made by someone"

Sceince then goes about testing said inference

To say that leaps of faith led to scientific discovery is incorrect. Scientific discovery are the results of questions, inferences and test results.

You say that a chair is made by a human,a nd therefore everything out in the big blue room had to be made by a god....this is an inference or theory. Now test it!



Basically to go from 1 observation and decide the answer is obvious would take a lot more intelligence and information than we have available. And therefore, this is an ilogical assumption.

shall I digress?

 

[ManlyBacker]

Paul Davies (one of my favorite authors) has just released a book called The Goldilocks Enigma. It looks at why the circumstances of the universe/world we live in seems to be ordered in such a way as to PROMOTE life. .....And Goldilocks supped from the bowl that was just right. I wish I had the $59 to blow on it as his thoughts are always challenging.

 

[fLIP]

Once again, I am not saying a man on a fluffy cloud had an idea and made the world. I am savy with the science behind the creation of planets ect and I would not for a moment admit that god sculpted the mountains and put water in the ocean. Its rubbish. Completley false.

What I see is the basis of everything that creates life and its surroundings didn't just appear. With the lack of evidence for either argument I find it logical to assume that if everything has a point of creation, what makes the universe so different?

Im not claiming to know what created it, just that something did. Until such time as someone has hard evidence to prove the differ, I will continue to 'assume' it functions the same as everything else we know.

 

[Dan]

fLIP. Do dogs wonder how they got here?

 

[fLIP]

???

 

[Dan]

It is a very pertenant question!

What I am curious about is that everything in a mans world is a result of the action or creation. In an animals world, things just are!

Does that strike you as odd?

Do you think a creator would have bothered with creating other animals after he ceated humans?

Scientifically speaking the odds against a creator are fairly equal to the odds of there being one. What MB was saying is that Golilocks ate only the bowl whos conditions were right for her......same as life mate. Conditions had to be just right, rather than thinking in terms of universe, there are many many many galxies, ours is just right. You may see it is as the work or creation, good for you. But that is not how I see it.

 

[fLIP]

Once again:

I am not saying a man on a fluffy cloud had an idea and made the world. I am savy with the science behind the creation of planets ect and I would not for a moment admit that god sculpted the mountains and put water in the ocean. Its rubbish. Completley false.

The same goes with evolution, natural selection. I am not disputing anything you say.

What im saying is the basis of everything in the universe. The atom for instance. Who or what made that? Or did it just appear from nowhere?

 

[Utility Player]

You could then ask who created the thing that created the atom and if Wed lunch time is early or late in the week

Time to admit this question is beyond us hey.

 

[fLIP]

Way beyond us. I still argue though that if everything has a creator or reason for being created, why is the universe so different? Thats my logic although I understand dans aswell. He said it well that its an argument with three parts however I feel its only two. Science and Theology.

 

[Utility Player]

I agree with you Flip I can not believe that it is all just an accident and sprang from nothing.

But when I asked my parents who are fairly churchy who created god they could not give me much of an answer, then again nobody else can either.

 

[Dan]

Way beyond us. I still argue though that if everything has a creator or reason for being created, why is the universe so different? Thats my logic although I understand dans aswell. He said it well that its an argument with three parts however I feel its only two. Science and Theology.

Like UP said, it becomes a circular argument

How can there be a creator who created us without having a creator itself?

Again the logic falls in on itself as soon as you say there is a creator.

Ever heard the terms "its turtles all the way down"?

 

[Utility Player]

Found this after I posted

www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

Interesting read though still requires a leap of faith of sorts

 

[Fluffy]

i once saw a cartoon on sbs which shows an interesting theory on god and the devil.

The basics go that a man and his son whos names were god and devil respectively were part of a far superior race and decided to move on to another planet. The planet they arrived on was in the early process of evolution. After a time God and the Devil had a falling out - God who lived in the spaceship sent his son to live in some caves. His son then tried to corrupt the 'cavemen' against god and visa versa.

Im aware its a cartoon but in all honesty there is no way you could fault the principal of it.

There are many other theories mostly based on science fiction writing - hitchikers being just one.

 

[Dan]

Dont you love articles that claim to be of knowledgable source but come from complete crap.

Sounding intelligent does not make one intelligent (case in point)

I have said it time and time before. It is such a copout to say "God is outside of time, therefore did no need a creator"

Time as a concept has to be tied to matter, fine I get that, but that is our concept of time. Just because the universe may not have existed as we know it, does not mean that some other universe or matter did not exist and therefore a concept of time.

It seems fairly accurate to me that the universe will expand to a point whereby it can no longer expand, the lack of usable energy my run out, atoms will decay and the universe will start to contract, until the point were it is a small ball of extremely intense energy, and then what?

It begins to expand again!

get the concept. good!

This requires no creator or god. And current evidence actually points to this theorom having some effect. I eagerly await Hawkings new book of which he is currently working on, it will be extremely interesting.

Why would a "god" create a universe that is doomed to expire eventually? Does this not seem defeatist.....

hang on let me answer that for the mumbo jumboers
"We do not know gods will nor do we question it"

If you have taken a stand point that the universe is created, tell me, what evidence besides the evidence of man and related to mans world do you have?

 

[The Gronk]

A mate of mine is working at cambridge university at the moment, and the highlight of his trip so far was being told to "get out of the way" by a man in a wheelchair with a computer generated voice.

It's one thing to meet these people, but a whole other level of achievement if you managed to be abused by them!!

 

[fLIP]

A nuclear weapon is created to be destroyed. Why would we do that?

Why would a parent give birth to a child when ultimatly they will die?

It only appears to be stupid until you know the purpose.

 

[Dan]

A nuclear weapon is created to be destroyed. Why would we do that?

Why would a parent give birth to a child when ultimatly they will die?

It only appears to be stupid until you know the purpose.

nuclear bomb is created to destroy as well as destroy. Are you saying this "Creator" is as sick and twisted as humans and decided to create us to destroy?

seems a little nasty to me!

Why would a parent create a child that will ultimately die, well this is the closest you have come to stumping me.

but there are many answers for this

1 - To carry on their name
2 - to carry on their blood line
3 - to continue the human race

The one you want to hear, to love and to create........but is love an emotion of man, and what is love without time?