Why are you an atheist?

[Ranger Genius]

Put simply, if you cannot prove something exists (or even show a reasonable amount of evidence for its existence), it does not exist. That's the very definition of nonexistence. If there's no evidence of it at all, and cannot be any evidence, then it does not exist.

This is not the same thing as saying "if it has not been proven to exist, it does not exist." But if it cannot be proven, or even shown, to exist, it simply doesn't.

[HughMungus]

Put simply, if you cannot prove something exists (or even show a reasonable amount of evidence for its existence), it does not exist. That's the very definition of nonexistence. If there's no evidence of it at all, and cannot be any evidence, then it does not exist.

This is not the same thing as saying "if it has not been proven to exist, it does not exist." But if it cannot be proven, or even shown, to exist, it simply doesn't.

Are you really saying that until something is proven to exist that it does not, in fact, exist???

Also, waiting for an answer on this question: If there are two theories to explain something, neither of which has any supporting evidence whatsoever, wouldn't both theories be equally valid?

[bringer]

If there are two theories to explain something, neither of which has any supporting evidence whatsoever, wouldn't both theories be equally valid?

Or equally invalid.

[Rob the Wop]

Put simply, if you cannot prove something exists (or even show a reasonable amount of evidence for its existence), it does not exist. That's the very definition of nonexistence. If there's no evidence of it at all, and cannot be any evidence, then it does not exist.

This is not the same thing as saying "if it has not been proven to exist, it does not exist." But if it cannot be proven, or even shown, to exist, it simply doesn't.

Are you really saying that until something is proven to exist that it does not, in fact, exist???

Also, waiting for an answer on this question: If there are two theories to explain something, neither of which has any supporting evidence whatsoever, wouldn't both theories be equally valid?

Why is there a question of God in the first place?

If something has never been seen, never been heard, never been studied, or never have been proven to exist- why would someone think it exists? Do you randomly make up imaginary beings out of thin air and then try to convince people that they should bother finding out if they exist?

The concept of God was developed to attempt to explain things that humans don't understand. The sun used to be God. That was disproven. God was the cause of thunder. That was disproven. Ad nauseum.

So unless you can give a concrete reason why I should consider that there is a God, then I will place it in the same logic basket as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Boogieman. IE, it does not exist.

And before you hop on the broken record routine, denying the existance of God is NOT agnosticism. You deny the question of whether one exists, I simply deny the concept of God altoghether.

[HughMungus]

If there are two theories to explain something, neither of which has any supporting evidence whatsoever, wouldn't both theories be equally valid?

Or equally invalid.

OK, so, how do you choose between two exactly equally invalid theories?

This is my question.

[HughMungus]

Put simply, if you cannot prove something exists (or even show a reasonable amount of evidence for its existence), it does not exist. That's the very definition of nonexistence. If there's no evidence of it at all, and cannot be any evidence, then it does not exist.

This is not the same thing as saying "if it has not been proven to exist, it does not exist." But if it cannot be proven, or even shown, to exist, it simply doesn't.

Are you really saying that until something is proven to exist that it does not, in fact, exist???

Also, waiting for an answer on this question: If there are two theories to explain something, neither of which has any supporting evidence whatsoever, wouldn't both theories be equally valid?

Why is there a question of God in the first place?

If something has never been seen, never been heard, never been studied, or never have been proven to exist- why would someone think it exists? Do you randomly make up imaginary beings out of thin air and then try to convince people that they should bother finding out if they exist?

The concept of God was developed to attempt to explain things that humans don't understand. The sun used to be God. That was disproven. God was the cause of thunder. That was disproven. Ad nauseum.

So unless you can give a concrete reason why I should consider that there is a God, then I will place it in the same logic basket as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Boogieman. IE, it does not exist.

And before you hop on the broken record routine, denying the existance of God is NOT agnosticism. You deny the question of whether one exists, I simply deny the concept of God altoghether.

That's nice. Could you simply answer these questions?

Are you really saying that until something is proven to exist that it does not, in fact, exist???

Also, waiting for an answer on this question: If there are two theories to explain something, neither of which has any supporting evidence whatsoever, wouldn't both theories be equally valid?

[Ranger Genius]

Two equally unverified theories are not necessarily equal: if one is unfalsiable, in other words, cannot be tested, it is not worth thinking about.

I knew you were going to make this mistake, and I already addressed it. There is a distinction between that which is unproven and that which is unproveable. In other words, if something's existence cannot--I repeat: cannot--be proven or disproven (in other words, if the theory of its existence is unfalsifiable, like god's), then it does not exist. If, on the other hand, something can be falsified, but simply has not yet been verified, it may yet exist. Do you understand the distinction?

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence out there to indicate that the universe and life on earth were created by natural principles acting upon one another, and not by some sentient god, whereas the god "theory" not only has no viable evidence on its side, it flies in the face of observable phenomena and what we know about the universe.

So one side is based on observed phenomena, extrapolation from things we know, and theories that work together in other fields of scientific study, while the other is based upon ignorance, violence, and defiance of every principle of the scientific method; and you're trying to say that they're equally valid?

[HughMungus]

Two equally unverified theories are not necessarily equal: if one is unfalsiable, in other words, cannot be tested, it is not worth thinking about.

But aren't both unverifiable and therefore equally invalid (and at the same time, equally valid)?

So answer this question: If someone says, "X exists" and there is no way to prove it exits and someone else says, "X does not exists" and there is no way to prove it does not exist, how do you know who is right?

I knew you were going to make this mistake, and I already addressed it. There is a distinction between that which is unproven and that which is unproveable. In other words, if something's existence cannot--I repeat: cannot--be proven or disproven (in other words, if the theory of its existence is unfalsifiable, like god's), then it does not exist. If, on the other hand, something can be falsified, but simply has not yet been verified, it may yet exist. Do you understand the distinction?

If something cannot be proven to exist or not exist, then how do you arrive at "it does not exist"? Just because something CURRENTLY is unprovable does that mean that it is CURRENTLY untrue or does not exist? No. It just means that we CURRENTLY can neither prove that it is true or false or exists or does not exist, right? For example, we cannot currently prove or disprove that there is or is not alien intelligence. Does that mean that it currently DOES NOT EXIST? Of course not. It might or might not exist, we just don't know yet. Do you accept that?

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence out there to indicate that the universe and life on earth were created by natural principles acting upon one another, and not by some sentient god, whereas the god "theory" not only has no viable evidence on its side, it flies in the face of observable phenomena and what we know about the universe.

Yes, but couldn't natural forces also be how god created the universe and the earth, etc.? Like I said earlier, you are taking a very narrow slice of belief about god and applying it to prove that God does not exist. Isn't it possible that there was a creator but that everything since creation happened according to natural laws?

So one side is based on observed phenomena, extrapolation from things we know, and theories that work together in other fields of scientific study, while the other is based upon ignorance, violence, and defiance of every principle of the scientific method; and you're trying to say that they're equally valid?

No. I'm saying that you're using bible literalism to prove that god does not exist and it's a surprisingly big fallacy in your argument.

[Ranger Genius]

So answer this question: If someone says, "X exists" and there is no way to prove it exits and someone else says, "X does not exists" and there is no way to prove it does not exist, how do you know who is right?

I don't even have words for how idiotic this is. Haven't we been over the burden of proof before? It's clearly not getting through. If there IS NO WAY to prove something exists, then IT DOES NOT EXIST. THAT'S WHAT NOT EXISTING MEANS!

couldn't natural forces also be how god created the universe and the earth, etc.?

Before you try to go all Intelligent Design on me, please refer to my earlier post in which I directed you toward The Blind Watchmaker and then head for a new one, Genesis 2.0.

You can't just redefine god into existence. God is natural laws acting on one another?

God's my fucking left testicle. And his wrath is mighty.

[Rob the Wop]

That's nice. Could you simply answer these questions?

All of your questions have been addressed numerous times. Reread this entire thread. It's not my fault if you aren't bright enough to grasp the concepts presented.

[Rob the Wop]

No. I'm saying that you're using bible literalism to prove that god does not exist and it's a surprisingly big fallacy in your argument.

Oh, and I'm interested in knowing which particular fallacy you are refering to. Or is this just another example of you using a $.05 word that you don't understand?

[bringer]

for the purpose of refference:

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

[Kinetic IV]

Well..it looks like since Rex Scates and the Stop BM people are no longer around to annoy us someone is stepping up to fulfill that role. And he's doing a good job of it. Multiple threads, lots of animosity....yep, it's all right on track.

[HughMungus]

No. I'm saying that you're using bible literalism to prove that god does not exist and it's a surprisingly big fallacy in your argument.

Oh, and I'm interested in knowing which particular fallacy you are refering to. Or is this just another example of you using a $.05 word that you don't understand?

I find it interesting that you can't argue with someone without a personal attack. It indicates that you're losing the argument.

What part of what I said do you not understand? He's taking a set of beliefs held by only some people to "logically" "prove" that god does not exist for all people. I posted more about this earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and reference it. He didn't address it then, either, which is why I keep asking about it.

[HughMungus]

So answer this question: If someone says, "X exists" and there is no way to prove it exits and someone else says, "X does not exists" and there is no way to prove it does not exist, how do you know who is right?

I don't even have words for how idiotic this is. Haven't we been over the burden of proof before? It's clearly not getting through. If there IS NO WAY to prove something exists, then IT DOES NOT EXIST. THAT'S WHAT NOT EXISTING MEANS!

You said on page 2 that "You cannot disprove anything." Now you're saying that you can disprove something's existence. Pick one.

Maybe you're using the wrong words. Are you saying that if there is no evidence that something exists that it DOES NOT EXIST or are you saying that if there is no evidence that something exists that it DOES NOT EXIST to us? See the difference?

I wish you would answer this question: There is no evidence that alien life exists. Does that mean that you can say that in fact there is no alien life?

couldn't natural forces also be how god created the universe and the earth, etc.?

Before you try to go all Intelligent Design on me, please refer to my earlier post in which I directed you toward The Blind Watchmaker and then head for a new one, Genesis 2.0.

You can't just redefine god into existence. God is natural laws acting on one another?

Nice trick. Instead of telling me I'm wrong via some external information, why don't you show me I'm wrong by posting here. It'd be really great if you'd just answer my questions, instead.

Who are you to say that natural laws are not god's way? How is your view of god's nature the right one? How do you know?

[HughMungus]

Well..it looks like since Rex Scates and the Stop BM people are no longer around to annoy us someone is stepping up to fulfill that role. And he's doing a good job of it. Multiple threads, lots of animosity....yep, it's all right on track.

The animosity isn't coming from me. I'm not the one insulting people because they "don't understand".

[bringer]

Hugh,

have you noticed that in order to argue for god's existence, you've been assuming his existence?

Nice trick. Instead of telling me I'm wrong via some external information, why don't you show me I'm wrong by posting here. It'd be really great if you'd just answer my questions, instead.

Nice trick, hugh.
instead of reading other viewpoints or looking at or for any evidence, you tell me you're right by virtue of my being wrong in your eyes.

[bringer]

What questions of yours have gone unanswered?

It seems they've all been addressed at one point or another.

[HughMungus]

Hugh,

have you noticed that in order to argue for god's existence, you've been assuming his existence?

I'm not assuming his existence or non-existence. I'm not saying there is or is not a god. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me. The only reason I'm offering those examples is because they are examples that point out the flaw in someone else's argument against god's existence.

Nice trick, hugh.
instead of reading other viewpoints or looking at or for any evidence, you tell me you're right by virtue of my being wrong in your eyes.

Well, I did ask that someone explain *to me* why they are an atheist which would have to include how they arrived at "there is no god" which has yet to be factually or even logically proven. And before you say again that the answers are already here, please note the unanswered questions I posted recently.

[HughMungus]

What questions of yours have gone unanswered?

It seems they've all been addressed at one point or another.

See my last long post, above. I'm not going to post them again out of context.

[Kinetic IV]

Forgive the rant....
but going off on a tangent if there is a so called God up there, one that I had preachers tell me for decades is a kind and merciful God, why then do we have things like 9/11, Katrina, and the F-3 tornado I spent Monday cleaning up from?

I know that's a bad question but when you stand in the midst of destruction you can't help but wonder. And you can't help but doubt...the only reason people survived in Carsons Corner, MO is by their own wits, it wasn't some supernatural being that I'm starting to think is an imaginary friend or myth propagated through the years to do nothing more than cause people to fill up the offering plates.

If there was a God he wouldn't wipe allow the elements to take away someone's livelihood. He wouldn't allow livestock to be blasted by lightning and for others completely wipe out their entire way of life. He would't leave an old man who lost his wife last year with nothing but the clothes on his back.....if there was a so called God these things wouldn't happen.

Again forgive the rant but everytime I want to believe in "God" something like the storm outbreak of Sunday hits and my doubts get reinforced again.

[HughMungus]

Forgive the rant....
but going off on a tangent if there is a so called God up there, one that I had preachers tell me for decades is a kind and merciful God, why then do we have things like 9/11, Katrina, and the F-3 tornado I spent Monday cleaning up from?

I know that's a bad question but when you stand in the midst of destruction you can't help but wonder. And you can't help but doubt...the only reason people survived in Carsons Corner, MO is by their own wits, it wasn't some supernatural being that I'm starting to think is an imaginary friend or myth propagated through the years to do nothing more than cause people to fill up the offering plates.

If there was a God he wouldn't wipe allow the elements to take away someone's livelihood. He wouldn't allow livestock to be blasted by lightning and for others completely wipe out their entire way of life. He would't leave an old man who lost his wife last year with nothing but the clothes on his back.....if there was a so called God these things wouldn't happen.

Again forgive the rant but everytime I want to believe in "God" something like the storm outbreak of Sunday hits and my doubts get reinforced again.

This is exactly the kind of faulty logic that Ranger was using. That is, using a narrow view of god's nature to prove that there is no god for everyone. It's about as bad as saying, "When I was 10 I prayed to god that I would get a pony for christmas and I didn't; therefore, there is no god."

My point is that you can't use arguments like this to "prove" that there is no god.

[Kinetic IV]

And now that I've fired off the rant and read your reply I'll go back and rethink it....without the anger blinders on.

[Rob the Wop]

No. I'm saying that you're using bible literalism to prove that god does not exist and it's a surprisingly big fallacy in your argument.

Oh, and I'm interested in knowing which particular fallacy you are refering to. Or is this just another example of you using a $.05 word that you don't understand?

I find it interesting that you can't argue with someone without a personal attack. It indicates that you're losing the argument.

What part of what I said do you not understand? He's taking a set of beliefs held by only some people to "logically" "prove" that god does not exist for all people. I posted more about this earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and reference it. He didn't address it then, either, which is why I keep asking about it.

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer any question posed to you. You also refuse to acknowledge any of my reasons for my belief. So I counter you childish "la la la la la I can't hear you!" form of 'debate' with something equally childish.

So let's start with the last question. State the specific fallacy (type of specific statement).

And here's a breakdown of the 'argument' we've had so far-

HM- Why are you an atheist? The proof for God is logically the same as the proof for no God.
RtW- a) Belief does not require proof.
b) God cannot be proven.
c) A 'proof' of God is equal to any 'proof' of non-existant beings.
HM- a) You believe that God doesn't exist, you can't prove it.
b) God cannot be proven?
c) I want to argue semantics (ie. God doesn't exist, I believe God doesn't exist)
RtW- a) Belief does not require proof.
b) God cannot be proven.
c) No good proof exists to make me believe in an imaginary being.
d) Belief(faith) is required to assume anything not directly provable.
e) Unless you don't believe what you say, 'I believe' is inherant in any statement.
HM- a) The logic used to achieve God vs. no God is identical.
b) I ignore the question of God's existance.
c) I am waiting for someone to prove God's existance/non-existance.
d) You have no proof for your belief.
e) Duplicate post- you have no proof for your belief.
RtW- a) Belief does not require proof.
b) You cannot disprove a negative. (Meaning the STATEMENT is meaningless, regardless of the content. This uses something called LOGIC.)
c) Show me an example of the logical argument you refer to.
HM- a) Aethists and theists use the same logic for proof.
b) You have no proof of your belief.
RtW- a) Belief does not require proof.
b) God cannot be proven.
HM- a) Show me your proof that God doesn't exist.
b) You are an agnostic.
RtW- a) My belief does not require proof.
b) I believe that the universe is infinite and was not created.
c) An actual LOGICAL argument stating HM is God. (As an example)
HM- a) Show me your proof that God doesn't exist.
RtW- a) Belief does not require proof.
b) Belief in God requires suspension of proof (accept God on faith- ie. cannot be proven), belief in no God does not (do not accept God on faith, require proof of God).
c) You cannot disprove a negative. (AGAIN)
HM- a) I have no opinion.
RtW- a) This is pointless. Please stop.
HM- a) Show me your proof that God doesn't exist. (Uber-smug)
RtW- a) You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. You didn't like it.
Please reread.
HM- a) No you didn't. Show me your proof that God doesn't exist.
RtW- a) Here is Occam's Razor. A centuries old, tried and true way of pruning a hypothesis to it's best case. God is the worst case in every premise.
b) A 'proof' of God is equal to any 'proof' of non-existant beings.
c) I discarded the concept of God as it is not required.
HM- a) The argument for disproving a negative is as equally valid as the argument to prove the existance of something.
b) RG's argument contains a fallacy.
RtW- a) You're an idiot.
b) Please show the fallacy you refer to.

It started out fine. You asked. I answered. Then you ignored. Note how many times 'Belief does not require proof.' and 'God cannot be proven.' are given to you. And how many times you subsequently ignore it. You were never looking to actually listen to my reasons as to why I'm an atheist, you wanted to argue over how pointless you think atheism is. You have the conclusion that the argument of God's existance is the same as the argument that God doesn't exist. You refuse to listen to anything contrary to this conclusion. You ignore it and ask the same question, over and over again.

"Show me your proof for the non existance of God."

The statement is logically invalid, and therefore, null. The platform for your arguement is useless.

[bringer]

There is no evidence that alien life exists.

True, but there is evidence that alien life could exist.

But aren't both (theories) unverifiable and therefore equally invalid (and at the same time, equally valid)?

Not if one is testable and one is not.
You can not test god's existence.
If you've found a way, please let the world know.

Yes, but couldn't natural forces also be how god created the universe and the earth, etc.?

Depends. You need to specify a little bit more about this "god."
Are we talking about the Judeo Christian god?
The Babylonian gods?
The Greek gods?

If you simply want to rename the natural forces in the univers "god," then yes; Those natural forces (which you've renamed "god") must be how god created the universe.
If, however, you're asking about a suposedly pre-existing god, then it would depend on how you would go about verifying this god's existence.

[HughMungus]

There is no evidence that alien life exists.

True, but there is evidence that alien life could exist.

Just as there is evidence that a creator could exist, right?

But aren't both (theories) unverifiable and therefore equally invalid (and at the same time, equally valid)?

Not if one is testable and one is not.
You can not test god's existence.
If you've found a way, please let the world know.

But you can't disprove his existence, either. So if you can neither prove not disprove it, they are equally valid theories, aren't they?

Yes, but couldn't natural forces also be how god created the universe and the earth, etc.?

Depends. You need to specify a little bit more about this "god."
Are we talking about the Judeo Christian god?
The Babylonian gods?
The Greek gods?

If you simply want to rename the natural forces in the univers "god," then yes; Those natural forces (which you've renamed "god") must be how god created the universe.
If, however, you're asking about a suposedly pre-existing god, then it would depend on how you would go about verifying this god's existence.

That was my point -- that you can't use one narrow belief in what god's nature is to prove that there is no god at all for everyone no matter what they believe.

[jupiter9]

Debating the existence of god inevitably begs the question who or what created god. The Eastern viewpoint is that there is no beginning- boiling it down to the concept of a circle. Our western minds are trained to view things on a linear level and thus the need for a begining. Or as aristotle said "philosophy is meaningless."

[HughMungus]

No. I'm saying that you're using bible literalism to prove that god does not exist and it's a surprisingly big fallacy in your argument.

Oh, and I'm interested in knowing which particular fallacy you are refering to. Or is this just another example of you using a $.05 word that you don't understand?

I find it interesting that you can't argue with someone without a personal attack. It indicates that you're losing the argument.

What part of what I said do you not understand? He's taking a set of beliefs held by only some people to "logically" "prove" that god does not exist for all people. I posted more about this earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and reference it. He didn't address it then, either, which is why I keep asking about it.

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer any question posed to you. You also refuse to acknowledge any of my reasons for my belief. So I counter you childish "la la la la la I can't hear you!" form of 'debate' with something equally childish.

So let's start with the last question. State the specific fallacy (type of specific statement).

Sorry. Didn't want to get into an argument about types of fallacies, logic, etc.

I'm not trying to get you to "prove" that what you believe is true or say that atheism is pointless. You and Ranger are mis-characterizing my arguments (probably because anyone else you've ever encountered who questioned atheism was doing so because they were a believer, not agnostic). What I was trying to get to is, "HOW did you arrive at that belief?"

You two seem to both think that "If there is no proof for the existence of something, it does not exist." You both seem to be refusing my questions about this statement which I think is totally incorrect. Do you really think that if there is no proof that something exists that it does not exist?

[Rob the Wop]

Finally something to work with.

OK, why even posit that God exists in the first place?

I think we can both agree that if we make up something out of thin air, it is pointless trying to prove it exists simply because I made it up- right? I suddenly say that there are green Twinkies waiting to kill me behind the closed door in front of us, you would look at me funny. You would then ask what makes me think there are green Twinkies behind the door.

This is the starting point in the debate for God in my eyes.

The green Twinkies should be consideded not exist because there is no reason to posit their existance. It was created, not to explain a phenomena, but simply for shits and grins.

God was created initially to explain things we didn't understand. Over the years, we have discovered that most of those things attributed to God were actually explainable via scintific means (thunder, the sun, volcanos, etc.). While there are still things out there that haven't been explained fully, we have been wrong so many times with the 'God explaination' that it makes me wonder why people still try to use it.

So the question is- what question is God specifically addressing at this point?

Like the green Twinkies the concept of God shouldn't be considered unless it addresses a specific question. "To explain everything we don't know" isn't good enough for me. Occam's Razor is the simplest way I could use to define this. We don't need to create beings to define things we don't know, since we then have the impossible task of trying to define how God does these things. And God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic when something we attribute to him is proven to be caused by something else. There is always someone there to say, "OK- we were wrong on that point. What about everything else?"

The concept of God is only useful to answer a question. The answer of God is a very very vague and useless answer to ANY question. As such, it should not be considered- other more scientific explainations (which we can attempt to prove) should be used instead.

All this has been stated earlier. Does this rewording make it easier?

[bringer]

Just as there is evidence that a creator could exist, right?

No.
Aliens are presumably made out of flesh.
We have seen evidence of flesh.
We know its possible.

But you can't disprove his existence, either. So if you can neither prove not disprove it, they are equally valid theories, aren't they?

Again, it is not my place to disprove his existence.
You say he exists. Show me.
Besides, I said there is no way to test his existence.
I didn't mention proof. You are still confusing evidence with proof.

That was my point -- that you can't use one narrow belief in what god's nature is to prove that there is no god at all for everyone no matter what they believe.

So your point is that by renaming anything as "god" makes god exist?
Really?