The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Robby2312
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.


What evidence suggests that claim?
Original post by Robby2312
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.


I totally agree that the Christian god doesn't exist. But for the big bang to happen something must have caused it. Whatever that cause is it is beyond human comprehension and is the creator of the universe.
Original post by saran23
What evidence suggests that claim?


Ok most people dont believe in ancient gods.Probably some people still do but the vast majority dont.If you tell someone you're a believer in apollo or jupiter or Ra then people either think you're insane or think you're joking.Those gods are not taken seriously anymore.By the vast majority anyway dont be so pedantic.,
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.


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.


There's slight confusion here. While I don't think atheists (read: "weak/negative" atheists) bear any burden of proof, up until the last decade or so the gnostic/agnostic distinction didn't exist. The dichotomy has led to some very confused ideas about epistemology. Knowledge has know become synonymous with absolute certainty, but only in this area. I'm sure any epistemological framework that requires us to be "agnostic" about unicorns, or the fact that our dogs don't run street gangs at night, seems confused.

There's no need to lump atheism and agnosticism; Huxley coined the latter term to describe his position of neither belief nor un/disbelief in God, and he certainly did not intend to have the term conflated with atheism. "Agnostic-atheism" isn't used in the literature; I think weak or negative atheism would best describe the position of those who claim to be agnostic-atheists.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cuym5v3
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ReeceFraser
I totally agree that the Christian god doesn't exist. But for the big bang to happen something must have caused it. Whatever that cause is it is beyond human comprehension and is the creator of the universe.


Why must something have caused it?
Original post by D3LLI5
Why must something have caused it?


I'm going to answer your question with another. If you walked into a room and in the centre of the room was a cake and i told you that one day that cake just appeared would you believe me or would you think someone put it there? You would think someone put it there. And thats why I believe something must have caused it.
Original post by ReeceFraser
I'm going to answer your question with another. If you walked into a room and in the centre of the room was a cake and i told you that one day that cake just appeared would you believe me or would you think someone put it there? You would think someone put it there. And thats why I believe something must have caused it.


Except that cause and effect is a physical law that only applies to this universe.Before this universe there would be no cause and effect.So the universe doesnt actually need a cause because the law of cause and effect doesnt have to apply outside of the universe.
Original post by Robby2312
Ok most people dont believe in ancient gods.Probably some people still do but the vast majority dont.If you tell someone you're a believer in apollo or jupiter or Ra then people either think you're insane or think you're joking.Those gods are not taken seriously anymore.By the vast majority anyway dont be so pedantic.,


That is still false. Hindus(who form ~15% of the world population) believe in deities which are much older than Apollo and Jupiter.
Original post by ReeceFraser
I'm going to answer your question with another. If you walked into a room and in the centre of the room was a cake and i told you that one day that cake just appeared would you believe me or would you think someone put it there? You would think someone put it there. And thats why I believe something must have caused it.


for the sake of showing why your analogy is inaccurate,

Why *must* someone have put the cake there?
Original post by Robby2312
Except that cause and effect is a physical law that only applies to this universe.Before this universe there would be no cause and effect.So the universe doesnt actually need a cause because the law of cause and effect doesnt have to apply outside of the universe.


But now you're talking about things outside this universe which we know absolutely nothing about and there is no evidence for. If the laws of physics don't apply outside of this universe then a god could easily exist outside of this universe beyond human comprehension. Which i think is what you believe but you just wouldn't call it a god.
Original post by D3LLI5
for the sake of showing why your analogy is inaccurate,

Why *must* someone have put the cake there?


The cake may not have been put there. You could come up with a reason how the cake did just appear. But I would always believe someone did put the cake there because it is the most reasonable explanation.
Original post by ReeceFraser
The cake may not have been put there. You could come up with a reason how the cake did just appear. But I would always believe someone did put the cake there because it is the most reasonable explanation.


Ok so you're analogy isn't very good at explaining why the universe *must* have a creator if you accept that in your example you don't need the person. Why is the person putting the cake there the most reasonable explanation though?
Original post by D3LLI5
Ok so you're analogy isn't very good at explaining why the universe *must* have a creator if you accept that in your example you don't need the person. Why is the person putting the cake there the most reasonable explanation though?


Can you give me a more reasonable explanation for a cake in the middle of a room?
Original post by ReeceFraser
But now you're talking about things outside this universe which we know absolutely nothing about and there is no evidence for. If the laws of physics don't apply outside of this universe then a god could easily exist outside of this universe beyond human comprehension. Which i think is what you believe but you just wouldn't call it a god.

But you were the one saying there must be a cause.Im saying that doesnt have to be the case because the law of cause and effect applies to things inside the universe.Before the universe existed there is no certainty that the same laws apply.I dont believe anything about the origin.I dont want to believe.I want to know.
Original post by ReeceFraser
Can you give me a more reasonable explanation for a cake in the middle of a room?


I'm asking what your chain of thought / reasoning is to reach the conclusion that the most likely explanation is a person put it there. obviously you are assuming the existence of the physical laws of this universe, which didn't exist before this universe existed, hence the same laws cannot be applied to the case of the 'origin' of the universe I.e. The analogy falls flat.
Original post by D3LLI5
Why must something have caused it?


It contradicts a lot of scientific principles especially violating Newton's law's of motion. Yes it works everywhere except at the point of the singularity.

Tell me, if we all originate from a singularity, isn't the first push of all the matter into space(the initial expansion before the creation of subatomic particles) a signature of the first cause in this universe(which I believe was part of God's act). If that exertion on all known matter at the start did not happen then life could not have been created. We may not be able to prove that God created the Universe but isn't there a possibility to prove that God created us.
Original post by Robby2312
But you were the one saying there must be a cause.Im saying that doesnt have to be the case because the law of cause and effect applies to things inside the universe.Before the universe existed there is no certainty that the same laws apply.I dont believe anything about the origin.I dont want to believe.I want to know.


But you'll never know because outside of this universe as you said the same laws don't apply. It's like trying to imagine a colour not on the spectrum. And do believe there must be a cause because we have now determined the universe does have a start point and something cannot start without something else happening. Whether that something is outside of this universe, in a multiverse, acting in the 10th dimension we will never know, which is why it is a god.
Original post by saran23
That is still false. Hindus(who form ~15% of the world population) believe in deities which are much older than Apollo and Jupiter.


Ok maybe hindus do believe in ancient gods.But you're taking it too literally.My point was that there have been and are hundreds of gods and religions.Religous people conviniently ignore those other gods in favour of the one they were brought up with even though there is the exact same amount of evidence for all of them.
Original post by D3LLI5
I'm asking what your chain of thought / reasoning is to reach the conclusion that the most likely explanation is a person put it there. obviously you are assuming the existence of the physical laws of this universe, which didn't exist before this universe existed, hence the same laws cannot be applied to the case of the 'origin' of the universe I.e. The analogy falls flat.


How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know they cannot be applied? You and I both know nothing about what is before and and what is outside of this universe. But we both believe there was/is something, where you say the laws of physics don't apply and where I is say a god exists. But then i would also say that a god isn't bound by the laws of physics and that anything outside of this universe therefore must be some sort of god.
Many people believe in god because of fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of losing someone close. Fear of failure. Fear of what's gonna happen when you die. Human's are incompetent to deal with it themselves. And believing in god ease's the fear in people or they think it does. Nothing wrong with it. The problem arises when people expect god to help them and nothing happens.

Quick Reply