Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Evidence Of No God

Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2019 1:16:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I was out with the mates last night with our other close friends, Jose, Jack and John.
Anyways, When I got home and, After the room stopped spinning around (I just turn on the ceiling fan and match the same speed) it dawned on me.

There is proof that God does not exist, Prize money here we come baby!

So, We have all this evil in the world, Right?
And, If this God guy is really around he would be good, Right?
And, Aw yeah, Notwithstanding that he would give us some free will, But not so much that he would allow us to have deformed kids (a bit like Tradie and Ethong, Heh, Heh) and let us eat innocent animals and let heaps of children starve slowly to death, Right?

Because like, If God really existed there wouldn't be really evil, Ignorant r soles like the guy behind the bar who stopped serving us kicked us out last night and, Well, Um, Yeah that's it really. That's the proof that God doesn't exist.
croweupc
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2019 9:20:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This is a straw man fallacy. You have created a very specific kind of God, And you presented evidence to support why it could not exist. This may be an argument against an all benevolent God that Christians like to sometimes argue for, But is by no means an argument against a God or gods existing. A Deist god for example would be exempt from such an argument. So would an evil god. This is why I remain agnostic about such a proposition. I cannot prove a god does not exist because it is an unfalsifiable claim. So is the invisible dragon in my garage which cannot be tested by any man made instruments. (Prove it does not exist) I accept claims I can verify through natural means. I reject claims I can verify are not true through natural means. I do not accept claims I cannot verify through natural means. I only reject a claim if I can verify it contradicts natural laws. Otherwise, I would have the burden of proof when I reject such claims. I believe the time to believe something is true is when there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Until then, I simply will remain agnostic about it and say I do not know.
anonthesmallone
Posts: 4,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2019 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
croweupc wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy. You have created a very specific kind of God, And you presented evidence to support why it could not exist. This may be an argument against an all benevolent God that Christians like to sometimes argue for, But is by no means an argument against a God or gods existing. A Deist god for example would be exempt from such an argument. So would an evil god. This is why I remain agnostic about such a proposition. I cannot prove a god does not exist because it is an unfalsifiable claim. So is the invisible dragon in my garage which cannot be tested by any man made instruments. (Prove it does not exist) I accept claims I can verify through natural means. I reject claims I can verify are not true through natural means. I do not accept claims I cannot verify through natural means. I only reject a claim if I can verify it contradicts natural laws. Otherwise, I would have the burden of proof when I reject such claims. I believe the time to believe something is true is when there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Until then, I simply will remain agnostic about it and say I do not know.

You are agnostic to all the "imaginary" gods in religions. I believe they are evil nonsense babble-on, But you said you believed in the "God of the Universe". Have you changed your assumptions? "Natural Law" rather than the "God of the Universe" means two separate ideas. People change. No problem on my end. Where is your position now?
Turn the light of the third eye and live (Ezekiel 18)
https://www.debate.org...
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2019 11:03:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
croweupc wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy. You have created a very specific kind of God, And you presented evidence to support why it could not exist. This may be an argument against an all benevolent God that Christians like to sometimes argue for, But is by no means an argument against a God or gods existing. A Deist god for example would be exempt from such an argument. So would an evil god. This is why I remain agnostic about such a proposition. I cannot prove a god does not exist because it is an unfalsifiable claim. So is the invisible dragon in my garage which cannot be tested by any man made instruments. (Prove it does not exist) I accept claims I can verify through natural means. I reject claims I can verify are not true through natural means. I do not accept claims I cannot verify through natural means. I only reject a claim if I can verify it contradicts natural laws. Otherwise, I would have the burden of proof when I reject such claims. I believe the time to believe something is true is when there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Until then, I simply will remain agnostic about it and say I do not know.

You are technically quite right of course.

My thread was designed as a tongue-in-cheek sideswipe at Tradesecret who came up with a bizarre, Convoluted and nonsensical argument that "evil is evidence for the existence of God". Of course, I took the advantage by constructing an equally absurd converse argument.

Richard Dawkins has said that, Strictly speaking he is a 99. 9% agnostic since nothing is 100% sure.

And here's where theists try to use such an infinitesimally nominal window to make it sound like a probability.

"You cannot disprove God" is the usual smug cry from God believers, But it is more of a "so what and totally absurd" kind of argument anyway.
How the heck can anyone disprove anything that isn't proven in the first place.

For all intents and purposes, There is no such thing as God or any other supernatural phenomena and anyone who believes otherwise is deluded.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2019 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
willows wrote:

My thread was designed as a tongue-in-cheek sideswipe at Tradesecret who came up with a bizarre, Convoluted and nonsensical argument that "evil is evidence for the existence of God". Of course, I took the advantage by constructing an equally absurd converse argument.

You have not refuted my argument. Calling it absurd is not an argument. It is a cop out. You could attempt to argue that there is no such thing as evil. But you actually think evil does exist. So you won't go there - especially given you think evil proves God does not exist. But I exposed that lie. Evil is the absence of good. Is it? What is the measure of evil? How can we know what evil is? We can't unless we know what good is. What is good? You have no answers. Unless they are tongue in cheek, Sardonic responses - but nothing serious.

Richard Dawkins has said that, Strictly speaking he is a 99. 9% agnostic since nothing is 100% sure.

I prefer atheists to agnostics. Agnostics begin with a self defeating premise. At least the atheist is trying to be consistent. Agnostics - state "it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. " But how can they know this, Unless they do know something in the first place. Hence what they are saying is this: The one thing I know about god is that I can't know anything about god. Logical self contradiction. Foolishness. Actually, From a logical point of view - it proves God exists.

Every time an agnostic gets up and says "we are agnostic because we believe that nothing about god can be known" - they prove God exists. Now don't misunderstand me - I am not saying they actually prove God exists - but using their premise - they logically prove God exists by their self-contradicting statement. Stupidity. Atheists are much safer logically when they say there is no god and don't try and prove it one way or the other.

And here's where theists try to use such an infinitesimally nominal window to make it sound like a probability.

sorry, That is strawman argument. Theists don't use such as a window. They don't need to because the argument itself - is self defeating.

"You cannot disprove God" is the usual smug cry from God believers, But it is more of a "so what and totally absurd" kind of argument anyway.
How the heck can anyone disprove anything that isn't proven in the first place.


the problem for you - is that the evidence that people use to demonstrate God's existence is the same you use to demonstrate otherwise. I say look at the world around us - obviously God exists. You say - look at the world around - obviously god does not exist. I say evil proves God - you say evil proves God does not exist. Can you see the pattern here? You reject everything - I don't.

For all intents and purposes, There is no such thing as God or any other supernatural phenomena and anyone who believes otherwise is deluded.

Actually it is only for your subjective intent and purpose that God does not exist. You are the one who is threatened by the mere existence of God. Theists are not threatened by the concept - but are comforted in the main part. You want to do your own thing - and live your own way. Theists take the view that life has some sort of order and pattern and that living according to your own ways and doing things our own ways generally ends up being miserable.

You are miserable. Why else would you spend so much time on a site devoted to something you don't believe in? You are miserable and you want everyone else to be miserable as well. Pretty sick really.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2019 2:05:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
willows wrote:

My thread was designed as a tongue-in-cheek sideswipe at Tradesecret who came up with a bizarre, Convoluted and nonsensical argument that "evil is evidence for the existence of God". Of course, I took the advantage by constructing an equally absurd converse argument.

You have not refuted my argument.
I have, And it took one sentence, "It is a non sequitur".
But, Being one for a bit of fun I don't mind your dragging it out, After all, You have nothing factual nor logical to argue in your favour that your imaginary friend is something that actually exists.
And of course, Anyone who really did have evidence would be rushing out to claim the prize; not coming out with some half-baked retort that there is a prize for proving God doesn't exist.
The good ole hot potato trick eh!
Answer a question with a question.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2019 2:13:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
willows wrote:

My thread was designed as a tongue-in-cheek sideswipe at Tradesecret who came up with a bizarre, Convoluted and nonsensical argument that "evil is evidence for the existence of God". Of course, I took the advantage by constructing an equally absurd converse argument.

You are miserable. Why else would you spend so much time on a site devoted to something you don't believe in? You are miserable and you want everyone else to be miserable as well. Pretty sick really.

Exposing and reporting on someone else's penchant for promoting doom, Gloom and fear through lies and deception is hardly being sick, Is it?

And, I'm not the one who goes around with morbid nutty thoughts constantly going through my head.

Doesn't it ever bother you that your colleagues give you odd looks and snicker to eac other behind your back?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.