The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ReeceFraser
With God you only have to believe one thing that isn't likely, with science (which still can't be explained properly) you must believe that thousands of unlikely things all came together perfectly to form human life. And emotion has a role because how can a singularity of mass over time form emotion?


The difference is that we know humans exist because we exist.So we had to come about somehow.Coming about from simple begginings seems much more likely than a random diety popping into existence and popping everything else into existence as well.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
What term? I already said atheism is the absence of belief.

I already explained it. your run around only explains your inability to support your own statement.

Atheism is active disbelief. this is why atheists say "God does not exist". you do not just have a simple lack of belief if obe says God doesnt exist.

Agnosticism is a neutral stance in which God may or may not exist.

glad to be able to move on. thanks.
Original post by da_nolo
I already explained it. your run around only explains your inability to support your own statement.

Atheism is active disbelief. this is why atheists say "God does not exist". you do not just have a simple lack of belief if obe says God doesnt exist.

Agnosticism is a neutral stance in which God may or may not exist.

glad to be able to move on. thanks.


No they don't. I I've already explained that agnosticism refers to a position of knowledge, not belief. Your running around shows your inability to face this.

Atheism is indeed the absence of belief and most atheists are agnostic atheists.
Original post by ReeceFraser
I think that it is easier to believe that a God/Creator has always existed than it is to believe that everything required to make human life; like gravity, time, conciseness, emotion, matter, energy, all of the laws of physics etc. have always existed. In all honesty if you believe that nothing created the universe your belief is more far fetched than believing in a god/creator.


If you believe a single being created the universe then you simply dont understand the sheer scale of the universe.There are more stars in the universe than there are all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth.The nearest star at just 4 light years away would take 70000 years to reach with todays technology.you believe that a single being who must be more complex than the universe somehow had the power to create all this.I for one dont think thats possible.Its much more likely that the universe is simply a vast and ancient place, probably part of a far greater multiverse thats probably existed forever.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
No they don't. I I've already explained that agnosticism refers to a position of knowledge, not belief. Your running around shows your inability so face this.

Atheism is indeed the absence of belief and most atheists are agnostic atheists.

I have not been running around. otherwise you may present example.

I have provided evidence an agnostic is neutral in stance. this is how agnostics explain themselves or so the ones I talked to. this is how definitions are explained in my dictionary and the ones online that I put the time in to look at.

I have already stated I will not change my usage especially when you have not come up with a term to take place of agnosticism.

regardless to what terms you wish to use I have explained my point in detail so you could use any terminology. which you and others have indeed run around.

not sure if God exist = agnostic.
God exist = theist/diest.
God doesn't exist = atheist.

if you think God does not exist there would be a reason why. I asked Why. but still no response.

for those who say there is not enough evidence for God and therefore He does not exist. that is a fallacy. appeal to ignorance.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Robby2312
If you believe a single being created the universe then you simply dont understand the sheer scale of the universe.There are more stars in the universe than there are all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth.The nearest star at just 4 light years away would take 70000 years to reach with todays technology.you believe that a single being who must be more complex than the universe somehow had the power to create all this.I for one dont think thats possible.Its much more likely that the universe is simply a vast and ancient place, probably part of a far greater multiverse thats probably existed forever.

either way, in order for this universe to exist it must have come somewhere yes? that point of origin would have to be infinite yes?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by da_nolo
I have not been running around. otherwise you may present example.

I have provided evidence an agnostic is neutral in stance. this is how agnostics explain themselves or so the ones I talked to. this is how definitions are explained in my dictionary and the ones online that I put the time in to look at.

I have already stated I will not change my usage especially when you have not come up with a term to take place of agnosticism.

regardless to what terms you wish to use I have explained my point in detail so you could use any terminology. which you and others have indeed run around.

not sure if God exist = agnostic.
God exist = theist/diest.
God doesn't exist = atheist.

if you think God does not exist there would be a reason why. I asked Why. but still no response.

for those who say there is not enough evidence for God and therefore He does not exist. that is a fallacy. appeal to ignorance.


You aren't making any sense. I was saying that most atheists are agnostic atheists so what example are you asking for, an example of an atheist?

As atheism is the absence of belief, someone who is not sure will by default lack a belief in God, because otherwise they would be a theist. Therefore an agnostic atheist. As agnosticism refers to knowledge, it doesn't make sense to just label someone an agnostic as it is only a descriptor which must have a belief or absence of belief added to it.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
You aren't making any sense. I was saying that most atheists are agnostic atheists so what example are you asking for, an example of an atheist?

As atheism is the absence of belief, someone who is not sure will by default lack a belief in God, because otherwise they would be a theist. Therefore an agnostic atheist. As agnosticism refers to knowledge, it doesn't make sense to just label someone an agnostic as it is only a descriptor which must have a belief or absence of belief added to it.


If you have an 'absence of belief' it follows that you don't think God exists. (You couldn't have an 'absence of belief' and yet still think God did exist). So please explain how your redefintion of atheism holds any water.
Original post by da_nolo
either way, in order for this universe to exist it must have come somewhere yes? that point of origin would have to be infinite yes?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Not really.There is nothing to say that this universe couldnt have existed forever.There is also no consensus on whether its actually infinite or not.
Original post by Robby2312
If you believe a single being created the universe then you simply dont understand the sheer scale of the universe.There are more stars in the universe than there are all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth.The nearest star at just 4 light years away would take 70000 years to reach with todays technology.you believe that a single being who must be more complex than the universe somehow had the power to create all this.I for one dont think thats possible.Its much more likely that the universe is simply a vast and ancient place, probably part of a far greater multiverse thats probably existed forever.


But surely if a multiverse beyond human comprehension can exist forever so can a god.
Original post by davidguettafan
So why do people still believe in God?


Posted from TSR Mobile


There isn't supposed to be evidence as then everyone WOULD do "good" KNOWING that if they don't they WILL go to HELL. There are messengers and books to guide us on what "good" is but it is up to us whether we want to follow. It's a test.

Kolia :smile:
Original post by SunnysideSea
If you have an 'absence of belief' it follows that you don't think God exists. (You couldn't have an 'absence of belief' and yet still think God did exist). So please explain how your redefintion of atheism holds any water.


I am not redefining anything. athiest is the active disbelief in God. that's why people claim to be atheist and what atheists claim.
No redefinition.

focus on point please.
Original post by Robby2312
Not really.There is nothing to say that this universe couldnt have existed forever.There is also no consensus on whether its actually infinite or not.


The universe began with big bang. is that the going theory? for something to be created, it is not infinite. or so I would not suspect.

For the universe to exist, would it not exist into an area that may have already existed?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by da_nolo
The universe began with big bang. is that the going theory? for something to be created, it is not infinite. or so I would not suspect.

For the universe to exist, would it not exist into an area that may have already existed?


Posted from TSR Mobile


The universe is not an object, it is literally everything: time, space, matter, energy etc. The universe could not have been created into a space because that would require the existence of the time and spatial parts of the universe already
Original post by mikkolia
There isn't supposed to be evidence as then everyone WOULD do "good" KNOWING that if they don't they WILL go to HELL. There are messengers and books to guide us on what "good" is but it is up to us whether we want to follow. It's a test.

Kolia :smile:


Why would an all powerful, all knowing God need to do a test? Even if he did, surely all revelation will have done is make the easily gulled not participate properly in the test?
Original post by da_nolo
I have not been running around. otherwise you may present example.

I have provided evidence an agnostic is neutral in stance. this is how agnostics explain themselves or so the ones I talked to. this is how definitions are explained in my dictionary and the ones online that I put the time in to look at.

I have already stated I will not change my usage especially when you have not come up with a term to take place of agnosticism.

regardless to what terms you wish to use I have explained my point in detail so you could use any terminology. which you and others have indeed run around.

not sure if God exist = agnostic.
God exist = theist/diest.
God doesn't exist = atheist.

if you think God does not exist there would be a reason why. I asked Why. but still no response.

for those who say there is not enough evidence for God and therefore He does not exist. that is a fallacy. appeal to ignorance.


Try googling Russell's teapot.
Original post by da_nolo
x


Since you want someone to provide evidence that God doesn't exist I will do so.

Firstly you have to define God, one cannot disprove something when you can keep changing your definition.

Obviously it's pretty straightforward to disprove the abrahamic God since the various religious texts make claims which defy physics and the knowledge we have on the history of the universe. Considering we know how everything happened from the Big Bang of just a point of energy to the universe now from straightforward physics you have a god which basically doesn't do anything. Arguably the only 'reason' to believe in God is because of the afterlife which is both immoral and physically impossible. Immoral because creating someone to make a finite error then torturing them for eternity for it is immoral. Physically impossible because we know consciousness arises from physical interactions in the brain. A person's consciousness IS the physical brain itself which means you cannot separate the physical brain from the consciousness and magic the consciousness out of the universe.
Original post by da_nolo
That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance.

If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist.


What you just said makes no sense at all
Original post by D3LLI5
The universe is not an object, it is literally everything: time, space, matter, energy etc. The universe could not have been created into a space because that would require the existence of the time and spatial parts of the universe already


Actually, as far as I'm aware the general consensus is that there was no time before the big bang. Space-time itself was created during the big bang. There's no way to tell what came before that, because there WAS no before.

I think my favourite interpretation of this is that perhaps the universe oscillates, collapsing in on itself, then bursting back out, each with a different set of natural laws... But who knows eh.



As far as the existence of a god, if one did exist, I most definitely would not worship it. Take a look at the world, it could only be evil... :] hail satan tralala
Original post by da_nolo
I am not redefining anything. athiest is the active disbelief in God. that's why people claim to be atheist and what atheists claim.
No redefinition.

focus on point please.


Having an absence of belief implies you don't think God exists. So to justify your position you still have to show why God does not exist and why, therefore, you lack belief (you share the burden proof).

Definitely a redefinition (to get you out of any intellectual legwork)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you