-
Welcome to ForumKorner!
Join today and become a part of the community.
Why God Doesn't Exist Need Reasons
- Thread starter Rambo
- Start date
RE: Why God Doesn't Exist
I don't like saying something doesn't exist when you can't be sure, because this is purely speculation. It's like Schrödinger's cat, where a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
This isn't to say God may have once been alive but died, but that there's no way of knowing if he exists. You could argue that throughout history, religion hasn't been used to enlighten its followers, but to control the masses, i.e. people were (and still are in some places) prosecuted and/or killed for not having the same religious belief as the general population or leader. If you've read James Orwell's book "1984" this idea connects to the Party and how what they tell you to believe must be believed or you will be tortured. Winston, the main character who was against the Party, was asked what 2+2 was. He answered "4". He was then asked "if the Party tells you 2+2=5, what is the answer?" Winston answered "4" and was tortured.
This is not to say that's how all of religion is, especially today, but these are just some ideas.
I don't like saying something doesn't exist when you can't be sure, because this is purely speculation. It's like Schrödinger's cat, where a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
This isn't to say God may have once been alive but died, but that there's no way of knowing if he exists. You could argue that throughout history, religion hasn't been used to enlighten its followers, but to control the masses, i.e. people were (and still are in some places) prosecuted and/or killed for not having the same religious belief as the general population or leader. If you've read James Orwell's book "1984" this idea connects to the Party and how what they tell you to believe must be believed or you will be tortured. Winston, the main character who was against the Party, was asked what 2+2 was. He answered "4". He was then asked "if the Party tells you 2+2=5, what is the answer?" Winston answered "4" and was tortured.
This is not to say that's how all of religion is, especially today, but these are just some ideas.
RE: Why God Doesn't Exist
The way to defeat your enemy is to know what they are thinking. Here are some counters to Christians' arguments for God.
>Infinite Regress-If the universe began existing, then something must've created it. But what created that creator? An infinite regress is impossible without a timeless creator. That creator is God.
Counter-"I don't know how, therefore God" is an argument that appeals to ignorance. If there is not any empirical evidence for something at the time, that doesn't mean there never will be. Humans have accomplished many remarkable things. Trying to explain Twitter to a caveman would seem like magic to him. So assuming that God was the first cause rather then trying find out what the first cause actually was is wrong, and down right an appeal to stupidity.
>Ad Populum-If God doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?
Counter-Just because more people advocate something, doesn't mean the thing they advocate is true. In the 1300 almost everyone agreed the earth was flat, and they were wrong.
>Real Evidence-So many people have experienced God. How can you say that He doesn't exist?
Counter-Personal testimony is not empirical evidence because the data of it cannot be recreated in a specific way. There's no tutorial on how to "feel God."
Hope these helped. Watch some debates for more ideas.
The way to defeat your enemy is to know what they are thinking. Here are some counters to Christians' arguments for God.
>Infinite Regress-If the universe began existing, then something must've created it. But what created that creator? An infinite regress is impossible without a timeless creator. That creator is God.
Counter-"I don't know how, therefore God" is an argument that appeals to ignorance. If there is not any empirical evidence for something at the time, that doesn't mean there never will be. Humans have accomplished many remarkable things. Trying to explain Twitter to a caveman would seem like magic to him. So assuming that God was the first cause rather then trying find out what the first cause actually was is wrong, and down right an appeal to stupidity.
>Ad Populum-If God doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?
Counter-Just because more people advocate something, doesn't mean the thing they advocate is true. In the 1300 almost everyone agreed the earth was flat, and they were wrong.
>Real Evidence-So many people have experienced God. How can you say that He doesn't exist?
Counter-Personal testimony is not empirical evidence because the data of it cannot be recreated in a specific way. There's no tutorial on how to "feel God."
Hope these helped. Watch some debates for more ideas.
Everything is created from atoms. This has been scientifically proven. Atoms form different types of matter, and they are the reason we are here today. To assume that God goes outside the boundaries of science, and concrete details is absurd. We are living organisms, and we rise and fall.
God is a figment of our imagination; it is what we need to believe in, in order to endure and prevail. The human psychology finds relief in knowing a stronger power is watching its life. It isn't He who created us. It is us who created Him.
God is a figment of our imagination; it is what we need to believe in, in order to endure and prevail. The human psychology finds relief in knowing a stronger power is watching its life. It isn't He who created us. It is us who created Him.
To say there is no god is just as folly as claiming there is a god. They are both absolutes that cannot be proven. If you're going to dictate gnosticism, then consider yourself wrong as your adversary.
If you're going to debate on the existence of god with your friends simply repeat the burden of proof is on them for extraordinary claims calls for extraordinary proof for what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You don't hold the burden of proof. You don't have to provide evidence. If they do provide "proof," manifest that if it was valid no one would be an atheist, which doesn't contrast well with the statistics that atheists are smarter and more knowledgeable about religion than the believers who dictate their religion to be true on average.
If you're going to debate on the existence of god with your friends simply repeat the burden of proof is on them for extraordinary claims calls for extraordinary proof for what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You don't hold the burden of proof. You don't have to provide evidence. If they do provide "proof," manifest that if it was valid no one would be an atheist, which doesn't contrast well with the statistics that atheists are smarter and more knowledgeable about religion than the believers who dictate their religion to be true on average.
Sintation said:
This is simply untrue. The story of creation is completely false, and shouldn't even be argued any more. Evolution has enough empirical evidence to be deemed fact, while creationism has absolutely no evidence.
The Bible, including the story of Noah's Ark, is simply a story, literature, not a literal account of the creation of man.
You cannot prove evolution, you can only prove adaptation. Yes animals adapt to become more fit for there surroundings but not entirely change. You cannot prove evolution, we do not have the capability to go back in time and watch a family tree of animals go from a fish to a lizard.
@Solar
@Solar
Well, if God doesn't exist, I don't think anyone would know why that was, so good luck finding your reasoning there, bud.
For the sake of not making yourself look like an ass, be sure to include that both sides are merely guesses at this point. There is no solid proof to prove for certain one way or another.
For the sake of not making yourself look like an ass, be sure to include that both sides are merely guesses at this point. There is no solid proof to prove for certain one way or another.
@Solar
And how is there proof that they were once entirely different creatures? I don't understand. Not being a smartass or rude, but I seriously don't understand how they could get that out of that.
And maybe that is how God made the creatures. Still not proof. What is God made the Earth from the Big Bang, let creatures evolve them self. Ect. Cool to think about. Everyone could technically be right, we will never know.
And how is there proof that they were once entirely different creatures? I don't understand. Not being a smartass or rude, but I seriously don't understand how they could get that out of that.
And maybe that is how God made the creatures. Still not proof. What is God made the Earth from the Big Bang, let creatures evolve them self. Ect. Cool to think about. Everyone could technically be right, we will never know.
Sintation said:
What you dictating to be true is microevolution. Macroevolution (what you claim is false) is a lot of microevolution. It's blatant after hundreds of millions of years of microevolution or adaptation as you put it yourself, you'll be capable of observing significant changes (macroevolution). I don't understand your denial.
Sintation said:Can you prove God did not make the Big Bang happen? @"Cann!bal"
Nope, just like I cannot prove it, or even prove he is real. I just have faith. I was an atheist for a while but then I started to change.
The burden of proof is on you. Not me. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Faith is the surrender of logic.
Well, as a matter of fact, the majority of Christians do acknowledge and accept the theory of evolution, as well as the Big Bang. However, they simply believe that all of it originated from a god. We can argue about this forever, but neither of us will be able to either prove or disprove the existence of a god.Sintation said:
Regarding what you said about something once being an entirely different organism, I believe that this link has some good insight to offer. I'm typing this on my phone right now, and I'm too tired to get into a lengthy debate.
As I stated earlier, simply illustrate that there is not valid evidence to believe in a god. I highly doubt that they will be able to provide empirical or testable evidence. Make sure to understand the burden of proof.
Cann!bal said:
So in order to think logically you must surrender your faith? That doesn't seem to be quite so simple. Asserting that there is not a god without any evidence may be just as easily dismissed in this case.
Featured
Share this page
