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

You need to look up the word "evidence" again. Tell me, what is your scientific background?

 

You're right on that point, atheists don't own science, scientists do, and they overwhelmingly disagree with Creationism as a scientific explanation for anything.

So, are you going down the 'observational' science' versus 'historical science' route? That could be fun actually. Tell me more.

 

Of course everyone knows that this is what really happened:

"Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.

Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America."

http://dept.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html

 

I gave you more "data" than just "There are billions of galaxies in the universe".
You ignored the other four.

• There are billions of stars in our universe.
• There are billions of habitable planets in the universe.
• The elements that make up human life are abundant throughout the universe.
• The probability that these elements can together to form life on at least one other planet is extremely high - approaching 100%.

Is that how you approach things? Ignore 80% of the data and assert "I win, I win!"

 

The premise of the OP is nonsensical, as even you should know.

However, I'll provide substantial evidence that your Creator/God does not exist after you provide even one shred of evidence that a God didn't create the universe and everything in it LastThursday.

 

Your use of the word "prove" shows you do not understand science. Newton's observations were tested many, many times. His findings became accepted through a preponderance of evidence. Lay people would have said his findings were "proved". Science would not have said that. Proof only works in mathematics.

 

It's as good as any other Creation story.

 

Exactly.

Creation stories are just elaborations. The mind seems to need to elaborate on what is, rather then be satisfied with, and explore, the wonder of what is already here.

 

So you were being facetious? Good to know.

 

Well to clam that the creation of the universe is an act of God's creation (and as such, a miraculous act), you would have to show (given the extraordinary explanatory success of naturalism) that:

1) the creation of the universe cannot be accounted for by any known science
2) the creation of the universe cannot be accounted for by any future science (i.e. that creation is a violation of the laws of nature)
3) the creation of the universe is not only supernatural, but an act of a specific kind of supernatural act: an act of God (which means you first have to prove that God exists and then show that this God created the universe)

A tall order, no?

 

Pathetic strawman!

Where did anyone claim that atheists did "own science"?

 

Not "lay" people, industrial engineers, chemists, materials scientists. You know, the people who invented or improved the computer or phone you are reading this on. We're not so formal as the academic snobs we support with our tax dollars.

 

Like the engineers who proved they knew how to build bridges...

As I said, your use of the word "prove" shows you do not understand science.

 

While it's true that atheists don't own Science. The fact is that Science itself is atheist. When Science attempts to explain how nature works, it needs to assume that there is no supernatural force intervening.

So there are, in fact, many Scientists who are not atheists. But in their research they need to act as if they were.

 

Sure. Use the same logic, reasoning, ideology, and facts used to prove Santa, Unicorns, Flying spaghetti monster don't exist.

 

Wait. So you're saying that the people who teach engineers, chemists, scientists, etc. (i.e. the professors) are snobs? Sounds like someone had a bad experience in college. Imagine that. I'll take terminal degrees over BS degrees every time.

 

So what?

G-d is omnipotent ... from a mere philosophical perspective, He can decide not to exist and to come back from no existence.

 

Yes, some of them are, and no, I didn't have a bad experience in college, I've had most of my bad experiences with academic snobs since then. That's why we call PhD "piled higher and deeper".

 

Why do you use the expression g-d?

 

Because in Hebrew language there are no vowels ... so "God" begins "G-d". So that, if you make reference to the ancient Jewish tradition, it's a way to show respect to use G-d instead of God.

 

Thanks.

 

Why don't you use Adonai?

 

This isn't why the name is not written out. In more conservative circles of Judaism, it's forbidden to erase or deface the name of God (typically Yahweh or YHVH) So some choose not to write the word out, so if it is erased, or deleted, they haven't defied religious law. Furthermore, there is often a general prohibition against saying the name of God within conservative Judaism which seems to be related to the 3rd commandment (taking God's name in vain), and reflects a general concern that conceptualizations of the divine are necessarily limited/finite and as such cannot adequately represent God's infinite nature. This entails a conception of religion that finds favor via the negation of the positive. According to this view of the divine, God is what cannot be grasped, so any positive assertions otherwise must be denounced as invoking falsity as God.

Come on man. You have to at least know your own position.

 

ChemEngineer, I have accepted that the theory of evolution has the possibility of being inaccurate.
Why do you continue to choose avoiding my questions such as the fact that if evolution is not acceptable due to a lack of absolute scientific credibility, than why are religious explanations for human origin acceptable if they lack absolute scientific credibility?

http://m.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution-redux.504291/page-13

 

I'll prove your God doesn't exist when you prove the thousands of other gods don't exist.