You claim that God does not exist.

Perhaps the Universe is not sentient, but the force behind the Reality that uses that background for our existence is very very jealous when people favor fantasy in place of it.
Nevertheless, Reality both nurtures us, as if in love of life, while demanding that we adapt to its ways, or face extinction.

We can only know the Cosmos by images of Truth inside our head that reveals the Father-of-everything in that way.
Truth is the son of the ever unflding Reality, and loves us, because truth is the light into life in the future.

 

Your delusions may "reveal the Father-of-everything" but I see no such "truth" (truth being entirely subjective).

Demonstrate that there is a force behind the universe with evidence. (And no, you can't use that insane rambling rationalization of scripture that you think is an argument)

- - - Updated - - -

Your delusions may "reveal the Father-of-everything" but I see no such "truth" (truth being entirely subjective).

Demonstrate that there is a force behind the universe with evidence. (And no, you can't use that insane rambling rationalization of scripture that you think is an argument)

 

Come on, how frigging hard is this? I don't believe there are any gods. Do I know there aren't any? NO. Do I claim there aren't any? NO.

I just bought a lottery ticket. Do I believe I'll win? NO. Do I know that I won't win? NO.

Come on, you guys aren't that stupid, so quit pretending to not understand that someone saying they don't believe in god is not equivalent to asserting that there is none.

 

Why would someone who doesn't believe in a concept bother to try to define it?

And the onus isn't on the doubter, it's always on those who make a claim.

This is a bit of a cluster.

 

Who is making a claim? As I see it, there is only a request for a definition.

 

I think you guys are confusing Agnostics with Atheists.

 

You first

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe in W'rkncacnter either They're a cool concept, though.

 

Well, I think they can be forgiven for that, it's a very common misconception that some people have, thinking that the two are incompatible.

 

I am an agnostic atheist.

I don't beleive in any religious dogma and therefore I do not believe in any religion's version of "god".

However, I cannot state definitively that there is no god and therefore I await evidence of a god's existence.

I cannot say if there was a creator of our universe, but I do know that so far as our knowledge expands exponentially and our observational and experimental technologies becomes increasingly more powerful, we have completely failed to uncover any evidence of a creator or a supernatural existence.

In fact, we have been able to provide rational, natural explanations for all kinds of observed phenomena that heretofore were explained by religion's supernaturalness. This should not be surprising when one considers exactly how fundamentally ignorant the creators of human religions were.

They didn't even have a grip on simple logic.

 

Wow! What a title. Does that mean that you are so confused that you don't know which side of the fence you want to be on?

If you don't believe in any religion's version of god, then whose version of god do you believe in?

What kind of evidence do you allow in your private courtroom?

I won't argue that point. "we" (unknown who that is) have completely failed.

What is "supernaturalness"?

How ignorant were they? Do you have the IQ test results for all those that were involved?

And your point is what? I would however argue that you are mistaken. It requires a level of logic to hunt animals for food; it requires a certain amount of logic to construct mud huts; it requires a level of logic to train animals to be your means of transportation.

 

If you have a computer you can research the definition of "God". Might even be a Wikipedia entry.

 

I do not claim that god does not exist. I only claim that there is no evidence that he does exist. The burden of proof is on you.

 

Prove that there is no evidence. That burden is on you.

 

That's the problem.

Atheists never "allow" God to exist (as if God needs permission to exist from atheists!!!), even when He is most evident. Atheists close off reality just to spite God. Atheists hate God and want to blind their eyes to Him and close their ears to Him.

What "evidence" would ever suit an atheist, one who sticks his or her head in the sand at the approach of God?


Atheists cannot demand "evidence" and then immediately close their eyes and ears to God. Atheists are close minded, bigoted, hypocrites.

 

No YOU first, atheists.

You claim that God does not exist. What or Who does not exist? Explain this to me. What are you denying???

 

Whaddaya got?

 

they are simply claiming that there is no creator

 

And no Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan/Krishna/...

 

Scientifc, objective, and empirical evidence would be a nice start.

I will not accept faith, personal witness, or scripture as evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I am an atheist and I do not claim that god does not exist. God may very well exist, but until I am shown empirical evidence to support its existence, I wll not believe.

 

Prove that Odin does not exist. Prove it.

 

The fact that the Universe is a finite vessel suggests that there may be a God. It is silly to dismiss the idea that there is a God given that evidence.

If evidence is produced to show that the universe is infinitely old, then you have reason to scoff at the existence of God.

 

Disagree. Assuming the universe is in some respect finite, how does that actually lead us to conclude that "God" exists?

Besides, the evidence already indicates that the universe is a natural product of quantum fluctuations. Where does "God" fit in to this? What is "God," for that matter? Why assume there is some infinite thing with a mind existing somewhere beyond the known universe? The entire idea is non-sensical.

 

On the other side of the story, you do accept 'personal witness' when the witness is one speaking against the existence of God. Such as the witness of Hawkins. Double standards?

 

The proof that there is no evidence that god exists is because you don't provide any. If there was evidence, you would have shown it to me to prove that he exists. Anyways, I'll prove there's no evidence that god doesn't exist when you can prove that there's not a miniature unicorn living in Jeffrey Donovan's stomach.

See the problem with that argument?

I'd also like you to prove that the ancient Hawaiian god Kane does not exist. Go.

 

No. There is no evidentiary link between what we know of the universe and the idea that there is a God. It is an assumption in the minds of believers and as such is a matter of faith and faith requires no evidence.