Okay Atheists, Where is your Proof that GOD DOESN'T Exist?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="loquaciousness"] >implying that these statements are relatedTroubleMaker411

I got a few things together last week and magically created myself a loaf of bread and some chocolate brownies.

Does that make me a god?

why does it matter. stop bugging them! :x

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Tthe Big Bang is based on Ifs, Buts, and Thens. It's a Theory...Snipes_2

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Wow, You said prove that every physical thing needs a creator or something to have happened to create it. There it is, you have no proof of anything that was not created by someone or some thing. Gallion-Beast

[QUOTE="loquaciousness"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] [QUOTE="Snipes_2"]There it is, you have no proof of anything that was not created by someone or some thing. Snipes_2

That is the point they are trying to make. A god couldn't have created the universe because a god doesn't exist so the universe couldn't have been created from a god, it had to have been created by something. The problem is that scientists are still trying to figure out exactly what it was that created everything. The answer will be found someday, but probably not our lifetime.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] "Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. " Why does it mean that God is the correct explanation? I use Miracles as Evidence, like the two I just posted. You also asked about something physically being created, not for evidence of God. Snipes_2

God is still not omnipotent, as evidenced by his use of the phrase "within limitations"

Say we admit that there is a beginning to the universe, something from which everything else came, why does that necessitate a god?

I don't trust the validity of those miracles, and if we said for arguments sake that they did take place that still does not prove the existence fo a god, it simply proves that a supernatural event occured. And god/creator, interchangable. THere is no way for you to concretely know that matter cannot come into existence by some means other than a creator.

You cant prove the existance of god, through miracles that are chosen....... by people who believe in god.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]And God is based on almost willingly ignoring other important buts, ifs and thens.Teenaged

Dude bro I'm a Christian, but just like you can't prove he doesn't, you can't prove that He DoeS exisit either. Gotta have faith, man.

Funkinwagon

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="theone86"]

God is still not omnipotent, as evidenced by his use of the phrase "within limitations"

Say we admit that there is a beginning to the universe, something from which everything else came, why does that necessitate a god?

I don't trust the validity of those miracles, and if we said for arguments sake that they did take place that still does not prove the existence fo a god, it simply proves that a supernatural event occured. And god/creator, interchangable. THere is no way for you to concretely know that matter cannot come into existence by some means other than a creator.

TroubleMaker411

You cant prove the existance of god, through miracles that are chosen....... by people who believe in god.

[QUOTE="Gallion-Beast"][QUOTE="jaydough"] ... What?

Snipes_2

Yes, I certainly don't have evidence to refute the point that you can't prove everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it. :P

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="loquaciousness"] >implying that these statements are relatedhoola

That is the point they are trying to make. A god couldn't have created the universe because a god doesn't exist so the universe couldn't have been created from a god, it had to have been created by something. The problem is that scientists are still trying to figure out exactly what it was that created everything. The answer will be found someday, but probably not our lifetime.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] "Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. " Why does it mean that God is the correct explanation? I use Miracles as Evidence, like the two I just posted. You also asked about something physically being created, not for evidence of God. Snipes_2

God is still not omnipotent, as evidenced by his use of the phrase "within limitations"

Say we admit that there is a beginning to the universe, something from which everything else came, why does that necessitate a god?

I don't trust the validity of those miracles, and if we said for arguments sake that they did take place that still does not prove the existence fo a god, it simply proves that a supernatural event occured. And god/creator, interchangable. THere is no way for you to concretely know that matter cannot come into existence by some means other than a creator.

No, god is not omnipotent, even Aquinas admits that god has limitations.

Prove it.

It goes before a council of people who believe in god, not exactly what I'd call objective.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Gallion-Beast"] Snipes has such a massive amount of respect for Gabu that he believes if Gabu cannot think of an example of something, it is physically impossible for that thing to exist.GabuEx

Yes, I certainly don't have evidence to refute the point that you can't prove everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it. :P

[QUOTE="hoola"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Uh...Yeah, they are related :? Give me one example of a Physical thing that came into being without someone or something helping it. Snipes_2

That is the point they are trying to make. A god couldn't have created the universe because a god doesn't exist so the universe couldn't have been created from a god, it had to have been created by something. The problem is that scientists are still trying to figure out exactly what it was that created everything. The answer will be found someday, but probably not our lifetime.

How do you know that?

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Uh...Yeah, they are related :? Give me one example of a Physical thing that came into being without someone or something helping it. Snipes_2

I got a few things together last week and magically created myself a loaf of bread and some chocolate brownies.

Does that make me a god?

No.

That's my point.

But through what i done, i made (or created, because the definition also covers MADE) a batch of brownies.

Doesn't make me god though does it?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] No, I don't have nearly that amount of respect. He has no evidence to refute that point, all I'm asking for is an example if he's going to claim my point is false. Snipes_2

Yes, I certainly don't have evidence to refute the point that you can't prove everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it. :P

That's I think four replies thus far in which you have not proven that everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it.

Can we go for five? :P

I'm an atheist who isn't claiming to know that any kind of god definitely doesn't exist.

I just don't believe god exists, based on the lack of sufficient evidence.

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] God is Omnipotent "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." It necessitates God because you can't create a physical thing without someone or something else having to have been helping. Why don't you trust the validity? It goes before a council that has to review the evidence that was given to substantiate the claim...Snipes_2

You cant prove the existance of god, through miracles that are chosen....... by people who believe in god.

Who were these scientists and can you provide a link to their studies and papers on this miracle?

LMAO. I laughed so hard I almost cried when i saw this topic. The truth is neither side has sufficient tangible proof to support their side. For anyone to state one side or the other as truth is foolish.

On a related topic I will say that the more I live and learn is the more I doubt the validity of the major religions. Odds are if there is a god he is not telling anyone to blow themselves up, to condemn a young teen girl for getting pregnant, or to chastise a boy who self pleasures himself at night. Im sure he would have more important things to do then micro-managing every second of every human's life.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="theone86"]

God is still not omnipotent, as evidenced by his use of the phrase "within limitations"

Say we admit that there is a beginning to the universe, something from which everything else came, why does that necessitate a god?

I don't trust the validity of those miracles, and if we said for arguments sake that they did take place that still does not prove the existence fo a god, it simply proves that a supernatural event occured. And god/creator, interchangable. THere is no way for you to concretely know that matter cannot come into existence by some means other than a creator.

theone86

No, god is not omnipotent, even Aquinas admits that god has limitations.

Prove it.

It goes before a council of people who believe in god, not exactly what I'd call objective.

Everything physical that we see was created by someone. Can you give me an example of something physical that was not created by someone or some thing?

Here is the process: http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=3664

[QUOTE="Gallion-Beast"][QUOTE="jaydough"] ... What?Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, I certainly don't have evidence to refute the point that you can't prove everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it. :P

GabuEx

That's I think four replies thus far in which you have not proven that everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it.

Can we go for five? :P

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

You cant prove the existance of god, through miracles that are chosen....... by people who believe in god.

GreySeal9

Who were these scientists and can you provide a link to their studies and papers on this miracle?

Please

I can't find the link to a proven miracle. maybe i'm just missing it

If god exists why did he make me an atheist?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Actually I posted a Miracle that was reviewed by Scientists in the 70s. TroubleMaker411

Who were these scientists and can you provide a link to their studies and papers on this miracle?

Please

I can't find the link to a proven miracle. maybe i'm just missing it

Here you go: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena."

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof rests with whom makes the positive assertion ("God exists" in this case).

I can say that the true God is his noodliness the Flying Spagethi Monster and you have no way whatsoever to prove he doesn't exist either. It is I who needs to prove he exists.

This has already been discussed in OT by the way.

I propose that there is a magical and invisible fairy floating right next to you, OP. Now, where's your proof that the fairy is not there?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Actually, you don't even need to make an argument against the third one. The third one is an argument in favor of the Big Bang. I imagine that he just posted it because of the title.

I remember the days when one actually had to have knowledge of a subject in order to discuss it, rather than just going to Google and pasting links whose page titles sound good... :(

GabuEx

I remember the days when users could actually argue without attempting to belittle the other user. Good Old days indeed.

"and to have knowledge of a subject in order to discuss it"

Irony..

Yes, I read the third link. The third link presents ten attempted arguments against the Big Bang, and then rebuts them. You would have known this if you had read the third link. You obviously didn't. No offense, but lying on top of posting links whose contents you didn't read or understand is not very becoming.

OK since this seems to have been ignored for obvious reasons, let's go through the third link and show its structure, so those at home can see just how this link you posted was in fact an argument in favor of the Big Bang.

For reference, here's the link again:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/65560-preaching-evolutionism-the-big-bang-theory-dismantled-false.html

Now let's look at the structure.

At the top, we first note the title of the article that this person posted: "Rebuttal to 'Ten Problems Against the Big Bang'". Note how it's called a "rebuttal". Note that it's rebutting "ten problems against the big bang". "Ten problems against the big bang" would naturally be an article against the big bang, so it would of course follow that a rebuttal to this would be an argument against the big bang.

Next up is the format, which looks like this:

#
Claim
Truth

This is the format that every entry in this article takes. There is a number; there is a claim; and then there is the truth posted as a rebuttal to that claim. Let's look at the first one to give an example of this:

"1.
Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models
This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event."

There's a number 1 at the top there, indicating that this is the first claim in question. Then, following that, there is the claim, that being "Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models". Then, after that, there is the rebuttal, beginning with "This statement is blatantly false" - "this statement" of course being the statement that static-universe models fit the data better an expanding-universe models, a criticism against the big bang - and then followed by an explantion regarding why it is wrong, and why the big bang is correct.

The other nine entries are the same - there is a number, a claim against the big bang, and then a rebuttal in support of the big bang, the final word of course being the rebuttal.

So you see, you have indeed not only posted a link to an argument in favor of the big bang, but also have then argued both that you read this link and that this link is in opposition to the big bang. That you would do all of this would be staggering were it not for the fact that, again, it is evident that you know nothing about any of the links you posted, and indeed likely nothing about the big bang as a whole, either.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Yes, I just did. Every known thing has been created by something....Snipes_2

That's I think four replies thus far in which you have not proven that everything physical requires a creator or an event that created it.

Can we go for five? :P

How would I like you to prove it? Why are you asking me? Since you stated it authoritatively you must have a way to prove it, right?

Five and counting now.

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Who were these scientists and can you provide a link to their studies and papers on this miracle?

Snipes_2

Please

I can't find the link to a proven miracle. maybe i'm just missing it

Here you go: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena."

thanks

THIS makes pretty interesting reading though

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Did you even read the Third link? Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models This statement is blatantly false. The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe. Those are but a few of the points brought up.

I remember the days when users could actually argue without attempting to belittle the other user. Good Old days indeed.

"and to have knowledge of a subject in order to discuss it"

Irony..

GabuEx

Yes, I read the third link. The third link presents ten attempted arguments against the Big Bang, and then rebuts them. You would have known this if you had read the third link. You obviously didn't. No offense, but lying on top of posting links whose contents you didn't read or understand is not very becoming.

OK since this seems to have been ignored for obvious reasons, let's go through the third link and show its structure, so those at home can see just how this link you posted was in fact an argument in favor of the Big Bang.

For reference, here's the link again:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/65560-preaching-evolutionism-the-big-bang-theory-dismantled-false.html

Now let's look at the structure.

At the top, we first note the title of the article that this person posted: "Rebuttal to 'Ten Problems Against the Big Bang'". Note how it's called a "rebuttal". Note that it's rebutting "ten problems against the big bang". "Ten problems against the big bang" would naturally be an article against the big bang, so it would of course follow that a rebuttal to this would be an argument against the big bang.

Next up is the format, which looks like this:

#
Claim
Truth

This is the format that every entry in this article takes. There is a number; there is a claim; and then there is the truth posted as a rebuttal to that claim. Let's look at the first one to give an example of this:

"1.
Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models
This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event."

There's a number 1 at the top there, indicating that this is the first claim in question. Then, following that, there is the claim, that being "Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models". Then, after that, there is the rebuttal, beginning with "This statement is blatantly false" - "this statement" of course being the statement that static-universe models fit the data better an expanding-universe models, a criticism against the big bang - and then followed by an explantion regarding why it is wrong, and why the big bang is correct.

The other nine entries are the same - there is a number, a claim against the big bang, and then a rebuttal in support of the big bang, the final word of course being the rebuttal.

So you see, you have indeed not only posted a link to an argument in favor of the big bang, but also have then argued both that you read this link and that this link is in opposition to the big bang. That you would do all of this would be staggering were it not for the fact that, again, it is evident that you know nothing about any of the links you posted, and indeed likely nothing about the big bang as a whole, either.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

Please

I can't find the link to a proven miracle. maybe i'm just missing it

TroubleMaker411

Here you go: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena."

thanks

THIS makes pretty interesting reading though

And THIS

Sorry mate, you haven't proven aything

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't think there's definitive proof..they'd just rather not believe..that's their prerogative..pointless challenging it as it's their belief..and they'll defend it tenaciously..just like you would/do if they challenge yours..which is why i don't bother arguing this subject..

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

Please

I can't find the link to a proven miracle. maybe i'm just missing it

TroubleMaker411

Here you go: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena."

thanks

THIS makes pretty interesting reading though

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't think there's definitive proof..they'd just rather not believe..that's their prerogative..pointless challenging it as it's their belief..and they'll defend it tenaciously..just like you would/do if they challenge yours..which is why i don't bother arguing this subject..

tocool340

No...They actually disprove the Big Bang.. "If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator"Snipes_2

That's cool, you posted a paragraph whose conclusion is in support of the big bang.

Are you going to post the part that is in opposition to the big bang?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't think there's definitive proof..they'd just rather not believe..that's their prerogative..pointless challenging it as it's their belief..and they'll defend it tenaciously..just like you would/do if they challenge yours..which is why i don't bother arguing this subject..

tocool340

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't think there's definitive proof..they'd just rather not believe..that's their prerogative..pointless challenging it as it's their belief..and they'll defend it tenaciously..just like you would/do if they challenge yours..which is why i don't bother arguing this subject..

urdead18

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]No...They actually disprove the Big Bang.. "If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator"GabuEx

That's cool, you posted a paragraph whose conclusion is in support of the big bang.

Are you going to post the part that is in opposition to the big bang?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]No...They actually disprove the Big Bang.. "If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator"Snipes_2

That's cool, you posted a paragraph whose conclusion is in support of the big bang.

Are you going to post the part that is in opposition to the big bang?

That's cool, you still haven't posted the part that is in opposition to the big bang.

Why do we have to believe in something if we can't disprove it? I guess its perfectly acceptable to believe in absolutely everything imaginable then._Cadbury_

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That's cool, you posted a paragraph whose conclusion is in support of the big bang.

Are you going to post the part that is in opposition to the big bang?

GabuEx

That's cool, you still haven't posted the part that is in opposition to the big bang.

[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]Why do we have to believe in something if we can't disprove it? I guess its perfectly acceptable to believe in absolutely everything imaginable then.Snipes_2

He is saying that in an athiests (and a lot of Christian's) every day lives, they don't believe in something until a certain standard of proof has been met.

Why should this be any different for God?

If we believed in things simply because we couldn't disprove them, that would open the door for belief in anything.