The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

My two cents: Creationists will always fall back on the 0% evidence of their God-worshipping ideas by claiming that science is never 100% because while there exists evidence to prove a scientific theory, that doesn't mean there is no evidence to disprove that same theory because it has not yet been found. ("proof of fact A" =/= "no proof of not[fact A]")

Does that make sense?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RobML
Sure convinced me.

Posted from TSR Mobile


You dont need to be convinced.
You can still be aware of something/someone, but because of your adamant mind you still wont accept it and be convinced. Its your choice.
Grab the parachute before jumping off the plane
(edited 7 years ago)
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.


It holds water by being an absence of belief, that's what an agnostic atheist is.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It holds water by being an absence of belief, that's what an agnostic atheist is.


But to have an 'absence of belief' it implies you think there is no God. So to justify having an 'absence of belief' you need to show why there is no God.
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.


This is an outright lie. Most atheists do not claim to have an active disbelief in God, most claim to be agnostic atheists.
Original post by SunnysideSea
But to have an 'absence of belief' it implies you think there is no God. So to justify having an 'absence of belief' you need to show why there is no God.


No, because thinking or suspecting there is no God is not the same as having an active disbelief, it is lacking a belief until evidence is provided.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
No, because thinking or suspecting there is no God is not the same as having an active disbelief, it is lacking a belief until evidence is provided.


But an 'absence of belief' is exactly the same as saying you 'disbelieve' in it. They're both ways of saying that in your opinion God does not exist, which needs to be justified. You either believe or you don't, there's no silly middle ground,
Original post by SunnysideSea
But an 'absence of belief' is exactly the same as saying you 'disbelieve' in it. They're both ways of saying that in your opinion God does not exist, which needs to be justified. You either believe or you don't, there's no silly middle ground,


That's absolutely false. Absence of belief and active disbelief are two different things which if why agnosticism and gnosticism exist. They wouldn't if what you say is true.

I am an agnostic atheist and I don't have an active disbelief in God, I lack belief.
Original post by Robby2312
Right just like you cant prove that all the other thousands of gods throughout history dont exist.Perhaps we should be bowing down to zeus right now in case he gets angry and decides to blow us apart with his thunderbolts.Or maybe hades he seems like a fun guy.Most of us are all atheists about all the other gods that have ever existed some of us just go one god further.


So what are you trying to say?
Original post by Plantagenet Crown

I am an agnostic atheist and I don't have an active disbelief in God, I lack belief.


The net effect of each of which is that you don't think God exists, which as a position needs to be justified, hence the shared burden of proof.
Original post by 1010marina
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


That's what I was saying
Original post by SunnysideSea
The net effect of each of which is that you don't think God exists, which as a position needs to be justified, hence the shared burden of proof.


Rubbish, theists try to shift the burden of proof because they know they don't have convincing evidence for their own position. They're making the extraordinary claim therefore it is on them to provide the evidence. Atheists are not making a claim because most atheists are agnostic atheists, lacking a belief in deity.
Original post by SunnysideSea
The net effect of each of which is that you don't think God exists, which as a position needs to be justified, hence the shared burden of proof.


Imagine I told you there was a magical leprechaun sitting on my head. Would you say "I believe there is a magical leprechaun on your head" (theism), "I believe there is no leprechaun on your head" (gnostic atheism) or "oh yeah give me some evidence" (agnostic atheism). You are saying there is no such thing as agnostic or gnostic atheism, I.e. You think that the third person actively believes there is no leprechaun and must provide evidence that there is no leprechaun to have that view.

Do you see how absurd it is to ask the third person to prove that there is no leprechaun on my head and for me to use that as justification that there is a leprechaun on my head?
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Rubbish, theists try to shift the burden of proof because they know they don't have convincing evidence for their own position. They're making the extraordinary claim therefore it is on them to provide the evidence. Atheists are not making a claim because most atheists are agnostic atheists, lacking a belief in deity.


To all if not most atheists,

"Nothing exists but natural phenomena.
Scepticism is a scientific principle or is inherently scientific.
Occam’s Razor is a scientific principle or is inherently scientific.
If you see something that seems impossible, you imagined it or were fooled.
Our thoughts are entirely a property or function of chemicals in the brain.
There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature.
There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which transcend nature.
There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which are supernatural.
If you don’t have a good theory as to why something works, you can dismiss the evidence that it works anyway.
The laws of physics are explained by science.
The laws of physics don’t change or, if they do, they only change in ways scientists can predict and measure.
Science is how we determine if things are true or not.
Religion and science are warring forces.
Faith is about believing without evidence.
"
"Logic works just because it does.
The laws of physics work just because they do.Science “overcame” or “surpassed” religion.
Science had to fight off belief in God to advance.
Science had to fight off religion to advance.
Science had to fight off Christianity to advance.
Christians believe things solely because they’re in the Bible.
Ex-Christian atheists understand the Bible better than Christian scholars.
Fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
19th and 20th Century Historico-critical revisionist atheists understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
19th and 20th Century Historico-critical revisionist liberal Protestants understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
All schools of Biblical scholarship are equally valid except the orthodox one.
Most Christians and Jews should be Creationists because the Book of Genesis describes how Planet Earth was created like a science text.
People who think God and spirituality are rational things to pursue are mentally ill.
All that is written here is “from a Christian perspective.”
All that is written here is “from a Western perspective.”
Only an angry person would say the things said here.
Because belief in God is rooted in emotion and appears instinctive in some people, it’s never rational.
Asking what makes existence possible at all is not a real question.

"

The questions thought by this person in this article(link is below) are very reasonable. Where is your evidence for these claims/statements? Atheists seem to make assertions themselves as well.......http://www.deanesmay.com/2016/04/03/things-most-atheists-believe-without-evidence-by-their-own-standards/

( Prove the one's you support, I know not all atheists support exactly all of the given statements).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SunnysideSea
But an 'absence of belief' is exactly the same as saying you 'disbelieve' in it. They're both ways of saying that in your opinion God does not exist, which needs to be justified. You either believe or you don't, there's no silly middle ground,


If I tell you there is a teapot in orbit around Venus, would you believe me? If you say you don't believe me then, according to what you have have argued here, that you would need proof for your stance and would need to provide evidence that there is no such teapot, which is preposterous.
Original post by da_nolo
may you prove or support your claim?


My claim is based on direct scientific observation; empirical, reliable, independently verifiable and repeatable evidence. I am always open to new evidence - which to date is not provided by theists.

Your claim is based on faith alone - in the 'hope' that you are correct.

Science is open to change it's view (which includes paradigm shift for the existence of God) if new evidence emerges to contradict currently established and accepted rules and laws.

In that sense, true science overwhelmingly veers towards agnostic-atheism; God cannot be proven nor disproven because there is no empirical evidence to support either claim. i.e. lack of evidence cannot support proof of existence, rather it suggests overwhelmingly no existence of God.

Science has the view that there is no evidence to unambiguously prove God exists and therefore most scientists do not believe in God. However, science remains open to new evidence but the burden of proof is firmly in the court of theism who make the claim for the existence of God.

Theists state: 'We're right, you are wrong'. QED.

Which in my opinion is a rather arrogant assertion.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ReeceFraser
But surely if a multiverse beyond human comprehension can exist forever so can a god.


But we know at least one universe exists because we're in it.Its possible there are other universes.Just like people used to think that there was only one galaxy the milky way until they discovered others.There is no evidence for any god.Certainly the christian god does not exist he is far too human and petty to really be true.
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


That is the going theory.But it could be cyclical.So it expands then contracts in the big crunch.But thats just the bit we can see.It could be part of something far larger like a multiverse which might actually be infinite.
Original post by davidoriakhi
So what are you trying to say?


The point is that no one believes in ancient gods anymore.Give it a few thousand years probably less and nobody will believe in the judeo christian god.He'll just be one more dead god on the scrapheap who was once thought immortal.
Original post by uberteknik
My claim is based on direct scientific observation; empirical, reliable, independently verifiable and repeatable evidence. I am always open to new evidence - which to date is not provided by theists.

Your claim is based on faith alone - in the 'hope' that you are correct.

Science is open to change it's view (which includes paradigm shift for the existence of God) if new evidence emerges to contradict currently established and accepted rules and laws.

In that sense, true science overwhelmingly veers towards agnostic-atheism; God cannot be proven nor disproven because there is no empirical evidence to support either claim. i.e. lack of evidence cannot support proof of existence, rather it suggests overwhelmingly no existence of God.

Science has the view that there is no evidence to unambiguously prove God exists and therefore most scientists do not believe in God. However, science remains open to new evidence but the burden of proof is firmly in the court of theism who make the claim for the existence of God.

Theists state: 'We're right, you are wrong'. QED.

Which in my opinion is a rather arrogant assertion.


What is your answer to my previous comment then(out of curiosity)?

Quick Reply