OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

I know, it seems like science to you because you don't know what science is, but you are impressed by the word.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/03/why_the_drake_equation_is_useless.html

 

The point is, your beliefs are no more credible or scientific than mine are, you just don't know it, mainly because you don't know what "science" is.

 

He's a chemical engineer. What are you?

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered on SETI. What silliness, posing as science.
We could not interpret heiroglyphics, written by humans, until the Rosetta Stone was discovered.
There is NO HOPE of communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence because there is none on any other planet.
BUT IF THERE WERE, it would almost certainly be far outside our detection range, millions of light years away.
BUT IF IT WERE CLOSER, which is very unlikely, it would probably be technology far beyond our current ability.
BUT IF IT WERE NOT, how long would it take to submit questions and have them answered.
BUT IF WE COULD EVEN DO THAT, there is nothing to believe that they would have any answers worthwhile to us.
BUT IF THEY DID, too many people are too stupid to listen to good advice. And so we fight, against fellow humans,
in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on our own streets and in our own towns, even in America where "activists" beat and
protest and burn and destroy, out of pettiness and ignorance. These hateful Leftists are the very people who claim to embrace science.
But they lie about everything.

 

Dear Friend,
"I Presbyterianed him down." - My favorite line of Father Guido Sarducci's

 

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. -- Carl Sagan

If you want to convince others to believe in a supernatural being who created the universe and controls our lives, such a laughable contention requires unassailable proof.

As an atheist, I've yet to come across an argument attempting to prove gods's existence that doesn't result in deeply felt amusement. If the gods cared about our belief, they'd make themselves known to us beyond dispute. If they don't care why should I?

 

When in doubt, let the dictionary be your friend.

Now, please show why the evidence (billions of galaxies, etc) based on observation, is wrong.
Or
Show why, based on probability, the conclusion (life on at least one other planet is extremely high - approaching 100%) is wrong.



After you have responded to the above, show your evidence for intelligent design.

 

Show me the tracks in the sand made by an alien creature, THAT would be "evidence".

 

You'll notice he didn't answer.

 

How would you explain dinosaur fossils on Mars?

 

No one said "100%"" there is no god.
And proving a negative?
Obviously a Fallacious challenge

And course, YOU can't prove I'm not god.
See the point now?

If Not, that's why someone created..
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
`

 

What is my view of science? By all means, please enlighten me. Since you seem to be gifted in the art of telepathic mindreading and are apparently the board's resident psychoanalyst, I eagerly await your esteemed view. Perhaps we can wax philosophical on the demarcation line? Verificationism? Falsifiability? Kuhnian paradigms? Wissenschaft? Ironic though that you post in a discussion that includes the fallacy of improper authority, an article from an author whose other essays include "Why the Public Should Mistrust Scientists" and "Climate Models Botch Another Prediction." Curiously though you make no mention of the Seeger equation, perhaps you are saving that critique for later? I must say, I do appreciate the well-thought out and reasoned effort you put forth in linking the article. Clearly, the concerns raised in that article are hardly new, for self-evident reasons. Obviously we lack information on the variables, but that doesn't make it non-science. Hartsfield's critique only applies if the Drake equation is meant to actually solve something; but that's not its purpose it's merely an organizational tool that helps to structure our thinking about the quantification process, even if we don't have the empirical data yet to quantify it. It was simply a new way to help navigate the issue; it doesn't actually seek to provide meaningful data (how could it?) - this is why the Seeger equation moves on from Drake's formula to evaluate the probability of discovering life on exoplanets via biosignature gases (and yes there are variables in that equation that include guesses as well). But that at least opens the door for discussions of conditional claims.

 

You're being facetious here right? I mean, I want to believe that you have a wicked sense of humor rather than you are the walking incarnation of functional illiteracy. As for Captain Courageous, I think I'll let his ignorance speak for itself: his failure to grasp even remedial logic, his stupefying dogmatism, his crypto-fascistic politics, and his intellectual mendaciousness all communicate volumes. But I'm sure he got a great "education."

 

Real Clear Science is a right wing disinformation source without any credibility which explains why it "impresses" you.

 

So, still no proof?

As impressed as I am by your pompous and wordy braggadocio, what I asked for is the same thing the priggish fops on this site asked me for - proof. Proof of God. They want me to produce God for their examination, and all I have asked you for is the alien life form you claim exists. And you have no more than I do. Oh, I could launch into a discussion concerning why I believe what I believe, but I know how that would be received - the same way I just received your vaporous pronouncements.

How does that sit with you?

 

Oh, I do have a wicked sense of humor, you have no idea.

 

No. That would be proof.

Now, you didn't address my questions, but you had the balls to chide someone else...

I'll try again...

Please show why the evidence (billions of galaxies, etc) based on observation, is wrong.
Or
Show why, based on probability, the conclusion (life on at least one other planet is extremely high - approaching 100%) is wrong.

After you have responded to the above, show your evidence for intelligent design.

Will you answer this time or will you just deflect again because that's all you can do?

 

Billions of galaxies is not evidence of life elsewhere, It's evidence of billions of galaxies. That is a fact that is supported by the data you gave me. That life exists elsewhere is not supported by the data.

If billions of galaxies is evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, then the fact that we exist is evidence of creation. Two can play at that game.

 

Fortunately, your incredulity is meaningless. By every definition of the word, the preponderance of galaxies and the preponderance of materials that we know constitute life is evidence. Your denial of that makes you look absurd.

As long as you can make a reasoned argument as to why our existence is evidence of 'creation' then I'll go along with that. For me, that life exists says nothing about how it came to exist; nothing in your assertion implies correlation or causation. What is it about life existing that gives any indication that 'creation' is possible let alone probable?

 

Out of interest, tell us in your own words exactly what you think science is.

In addition, you realise that simple naysaying is not an argument. Ecco asked you to offer an explanation for your naysaying and you appear to have declined the opportunity to demonstrate that you have an argument. Do you have one?

 

I have no anger that Hillary lost. Just sadness that the poor Trump supporters are going to be taken for another ride while those of us who are wealthy are going to get even richer. Some of us would actually like to see a more equitable society but if you poor deluded fools are going to keep voting against your best interests I guess we will just have to swallow hard and keep reaping the benefits.

Do you really think the stock market keeps going up because more wealth is going to flow into the Middle and lower classes? Only a Trump supporter would be dumb enough to believe that!

 

Your lack of ideas is quite obvious. But back to the subject of this thread, which you keep trying to derail.
Prove God doesn't exist. After all, atheists are so VERY "smart," n'est-ce pas? Should be quite easy.

 

Evidence against the existence of the traditional Christian god:

1) Extraneous suffering exists (suffering not necessary for some greater good or the prevention of some greater evil).
2) An all powerful, all loving, all knowing God would not allow extraneous suffering to exist.
3) Conclusion: An all powerful, all loving, all knowing God doesn't exist.

The Argument is valid and sound.

Evidence for the truth of premise 1: A deer is badly burned in a forest fire and survives for three days in excruciating pain before dying. No human being ever discovers the deer. This type of suffering occurs daily in the animal kingdom. The deer's suffering neither contributes to some greater good or prevents some greater evil. It is an example of the existence of extraneous suffering.
Evidence for the truth of premise 2: Definitional. To deny this would be to deny God's benevolence or omnipotence, hence it would be to deny God's perfection.
Conclusion: The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and each premise is true

 

God is a Zebra.

"Zebra is the American medical slang for arriving at an exotic medical diagnosis when a more commonplace explanation is more likely.[1] It is shorthand for the aphorism coined in the late 1940s by Dr. Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who instructed his medical interns: "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras".[2]Since horses are common in Maryland while zebras are relatively rare, logically one could confidently guess that an animal making hoofbeats is probably a horse. By 1960, the aphorism was widely known in medical circles.[3]

As explained by Sotos,[4] medical novices are predisposed to make rare diagnoses because of (a) the availability heuristic ("events more easily remembered are judged more probable") and (b) the phenomenon first enunciated in Rhetorica ad Herennium (circa 85 BC), "the striking and the novel stay longer in the mind." Thus, the aphorism is an important caution against these biases when teaching medical students to weigh medical evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_(medicine)

 

Observation. Observation of what is there, not what you wish there to be. No preconceived notions, no guesses, no politics. Then once you find it, you test it, as many times as you need to in order to prove it.

I don't know how to break this to you, but atheists don't own science.