There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    yes very true... and your point is....
    Point being that there an infinite number of things that cannot be disproved. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person making the extraordinary claim to provide the evidence, not on the sceptic to disprove it, this is how our entire justice system works. If you accuse someone of a crime then you must provide proof, you can't simply say to the judge "you have no evidence he didn't do it!"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SubZero~)
    People feel enlightened by the idea of a greater being. By the way, you can't really say that there is no evidence for God and question why people believe in God. If there is no evidence for the Big Bang, why do people follow it? Science cannot disprove God's existence.
    The Big Bang Theory is one of the most supported theories of all time, so yes, there is plenty of evidence for it. And please learn what a scientific theory is before spouting the ignorant "it's just a theory!" nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The Big Bang Theory is one of the most supported theories of all time, so yes, there is plenty of evidence for it. And please learn what a scientific theory is before spouting the ignorant "it's just a theory!" nonsense.
    Sure, it's supported. So is the concept of God. Is it proven? No.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    there is no evidence that god does not exist.
    There is no evidence that I am not a God. Why not worship me then? Theists believe in God because they think he exists. Therefore you are required to prove it. Proving something doesn't exist is not possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SubZero~)
    Sure, it's supported. So is the concept of God. Is it proven? No.
    It is proven as much as scientifically possible with empirical and observable evidence. There is no such evidence for God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    There is always a chance but the probability is extremely low it would be unlikely to happen. The earth is so perfect for human life to live that it is improbable that it was this way by chance.
    Because human life has evolved to perfectly fit this planet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ua3142)
    The way I look at it, im a muslim btw, is that we currently know so little about our race and the universe. Humans have been on this planet for about 10,000 years? Give or take (as advanced civilizations). But too be honest, it could be waaay longer than, we just dont know for sure.

    Also, in the grand scheme of things, we have just only discovered a 'grain of sand' of our universe. We have alot to learn about, so saying there is a lack of evidence is pointless really.

    Considering this, the possibility of a higher entity existing is high if you compare it to how young our understanding of modern science is, its entirely possible. Its also possible that our monkey brains cannot fathom god yet.

    Ok but what evidence have we got yet about God existing? Lets take holy books, The Quran, along with other books, acknowledges scientific discoverys that we made less than 100 years ago and yet it is not 100% understood by anyone because of inherent transalation error. These holy books were written in ancient hebrew or ancient aramaic at first.

    I think every religion has been influenced culturally and this could affect societies perseption of god. But imo someone could be a perfect muslim if he was sitting on a deserted hill top, reading the quran and performing prayers etc, gazing at the unpoluted sea of stars - sky with no distraction. This form of meditation would give them the best sense, without drugs, of connection with god.

    But what about the use of psychedalic drugs like DMT? People have said they have 'seen' god when under the effects ofbthst drug. Amazon natives create i think its a drink called Ayahuasca, which they say provides them with healing powers and connects them to god.
    Could these drugs be the answer to finding God? Maybe, but we need major research in it.
    Take the 'burning bush', the bush could be a plant that, when burning, it releases pyschodelic drugs which could cause Moses/Jesus to hallucinate God - Is this hallucination the ultimate way to connect to God? Maybe.

    End of the day, we dont know much. It might be possible future scientific and archaelogic discoveries will provide evidences of God.

    But yh I dont know anything.

    Bonus read (i couldnt be asked writing, but these are interesting):

    -Ancient Sumerians
    -Ancient Sumerians text
    -Ancient Sumerians tablet with includes a diagram of our Solar system.
    -Anunaki and planet X.

    -Ancient forgotten advanced civilizations on earth.
    -Evidence to support them, like the 'baghdad battery'.

    Disclaimer: im trying to convince tou thst god is real or not, just saying we know nothing.
    With all due respect, the Quran contains no impressive science at all and certainly none that has been discovered in the last 100 years. The supposed scientific miracles of the Quran have been discussed on this site at great length and they have all been thoroughly debunked, ranging from vague pseudoscience that was plagiarised from earlier civilisations to bits of science that are downright wrong.

    The rest of your post is mostly the God of the Gaps fallacy. Saying things like "future generations may prove God exists" is hardly a compelling argument, is it? You're basically admitting there is currently no evidence for God's existence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SubZero~)
    Sure, it's supported. So is the concept of God. Is it proven? No.
    The term 'theory' in science and in laymans language are VERY different things. In science the term 'theory' doesn't refer to a guess, hunch, idea or concept like you make it out to be. It's a well-supported, well-substantiated and a well-documented explanation for our observations.

    Nothing can ever be truly proven in science, even scientific laws such as Newton's law of gravity.
    The Big Bang theory is a theory and therefore is well-supported by our observations. The concept of God (an arguably omnipotent being) doesn't have this. If it is supported by something observable, I would like to see this, with an explanation. If you cannot provide this then these two are nowhere near on the same level.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)

    It's not improbable that an event occurred by chance just because said event was unlikely to happen altogether.


    .
    Improbable (Google Definition) - Not likely to be true or to happen. "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The probability of such an occurrence is exceptionally small that it is unlikely to happen. By saying this i don't mean that the chance did not happen but rather there is an exceedingly low possibility of it happening that it becomes improbable.

    Example:
    A game is played where 7 beads with digits from 1 to 7 on them areplaced in a bag, a bead is taken out, and you then have to guess whether the number on the nextone to be taken out will be higher or lower, and so on.

    If the 3rd bead is 6, what is the chance of the next bead being higher than 4?[*]The numbers remaining are: 2, 3, 4 and 5.[*]The chance of the next bead being higher than 4 isunlikely.

    There is a chance of getting a number higher than 4 but in comparison to all the alternatives it is unlikely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    How does it work then?
    Please don't tell me you believe the existence of an omnipotent being that can do anything he pleases is more likely then life evolving (well-supported via observations) over millions of years to adjust to the conditions of our planet? If your saying that is unlikely then the existence of an omnipotent being (or even creationist God) is even more unlikely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrKmas508)
    What the point of anything if there's no God. Everything you love is going to die, there's no right or wrong and your an utterly meaningless speck upon the universe. OP what's the point of this thread, everyone who see's this is going to forget about it in a couple minutes anyway.
    There is no point to anything. The universe will continue to go about its business regardless of whether humanity exists or not, we really are meaningless specks. As for your point about there being no right or wrong without a god, have you never heard of the Euthyphro dilemma?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Point being that there an infinite number of things that cannot be disproved. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person making the extraordinary claim to provide the evidence, not on the sceptic to disprove it, this is how our entire justice system works. If you accuse someone of a crime then you must provide proof, you can't simply say to the judge "you have no evidence he didn't do it!"
    I still don't see the problem, plus i don't care how our justice system works the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove everything. The fact that you have no evidence doesn't mean that something isn't so. But when it comes to supreme beings like the notion of God, every single religion in human history, every group of people have understood that there is something greater than us, regardless of religious background. Isn't that evidence enough, that for thousands of years culture, people that were isolated had this belief and faith? Any attempt of just saying that it is not real is an insult to human history. On the topic, just because we live in a time where technology is amazing and science is so relevant, doesn't mean that people can overlook religion as something of the past. Myself coming from a Sikh background and studying a science degree, I think science is just another way of uncovering the workings of God as did Isaac Newton, there is nothing I disagree with in science. I think that is the problem with abrahamic religions, is that they are a set of rules that people obsess over and its also why many ignorant people group every religion as if they were the same. And yes, religion provides order and way of life and spirituality, but that is what humans need, otherwise things become chaotic. And for those who blame war on religion, you can't it is the people not religion. People without faith are the most unhappy, true fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Improbable (Google Definition) - Not likely to be true or to happen. "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” The probability of such an occurrence is exceptionally small that it is unlikely to happen. By saying this i don't mean that the chance did not happen but rather there is an exceedingly low possibility of it happening that it becomes improbable.

    Example:
    A game is played where 7 beads with digits from 1 to 7 on them areplaced in a bag, a bead is taken out, and you then have to guess whether the number on the nextone to be taken out will be higher or lower, and so on.

    If the 3rd bead is 6, what is the chance of the next bead being higher than 4?[*]The numbers remaining are: 2, 3, 4 and 5.[*]The chance of the next bead being higher than 4 isunlikely.

    There is a chance of getting a number higher than 4 but in comparison to all the alternatives it is unlikely.
    You are still ignoring the fact that incredibly unlikely events happen ALL THE TIME, like winning the lottery. Due to the sheer number of planets that exist it is a certainty that at least one harbours life and it's extremely likely that there are many others out there.

    And even if the chances were unlikely, this still wouldn't be evidence for God's existence. Come to think of it, it seems rather unlikely for an all-knowing magical being to have always existed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LightAtTheEnd)
    Please don't tell me you believe the existence of an omnipotent being that can do anything he pleases is more likely then life evolving (well-supported via observations) over millions of years to adjust to the conditions of our planet? If your saying that is unlikely then the existence of an omnipotent being (or even creationist God) is even more unlikely.
    Well i do. But here's the problem by telling you that i believe in the existence of God would most probably not change your mind. Why? Because i would be simply declaring my faith and belief in God based of personal experience, spiritual experience. That is the nature of religion, whether people establish a reason as to why science does or does not disprove the existence of God and his work, when they declare there faith for God it will most frequently be based on personal experience rather than conspicuous evidence, through faith.

    Is there any proof of evolution?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You are still ignoring the fact that incredibly unlikely events happen ALL THE TIME, like winning the lottery. Due to the sheer number of planets that exist it is a certainty that at least one harbours life and it's extremely likely that there are many others out there.

    And even if the chances were unlikely, this still wouldn't be evidence for God's existence. Come to think of it, it seems rather unlikely for an all-knowing magical being to have always existed.
    Though the comparison is substantially larger, the probability of someone winning the lottery is immensely lower.

    I can only give evidence of God's existence from personal experience not anything relatively conspicuous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    I still don't see the problem, plus i don't care how our justice system works the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove everything. The fact that you have no evidence doesn't mean that something isn't so. But when it comes to supreme beings like the notion of God, every single religion in human history, every group of people have understood that there is something greater than us, regardless of religious background. Isn't that evidence enough, that for thousands of years culture, people that were isolated had this belief and faith? Any attempt of just saying that it is not real is an insult to human history. On the topic, just because we live in a time where technology is amazing and science is so relevant, doesn't mean that people can overlook religion as something of the past. Myself coming from a Sikh background and studying a science degree, I think science is just another way of uncovering the workings of God as did Isaac Newton, there is nothing I disagree with in science. I think that is the problem with abrahamic religions, is that they are a set of rules that people obsess over and its also why many ignorant people group every religion as if they were the same. And yes, religion provides order and way of life and spirituality, but that is what humans need, otherwise things become chaotic. And for those who blame war on religion, you can't it is the people not religion. People without faith are the most unhappy, true fact.
    Just because several different groups of people argue on a somewhat similar notion doesn't justify it as being evidence. Several different groups of people from different backgrounds believe God doesn't exist. Not to mention in those days Science was nowhere near as prominent as it is now. People wanted to justify the world back then but didn't have the knowledge to do so. Hence they resorted to something like God. Happiness is irrelevant in this argument. I don't think the athiest believers in this thread. Also how do things become 'chaotic' without religion? Atheists are often the most level-headed people in the world because they prefer to use logic in situations and not faith.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    I still don't see the problem, plus i don't care how our justice system works the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove everything. The fact that you have no evidence doesn't mean that something isn't so. But when it comes to supreme beings like the notion of God, every single religion in human history, every group of people have understood that there is something greater than us, regardless of religious background. Isn't that evidence enough, that for thousands of years culture, people that were isolated had this belief and faith? Any attempt of just saying that it is not real is an insult to human history. On the topic, just because we live in a time where technology is amazing and science is so relevant, doesn't mean that people can overlook religion as something of the past. Myself coming from a Sikh background and studying a science degree, I think science is just another way of uncovering the workings of God as did Isaac Newton, there is nothing I disagree with in science. I think that is the problem with abrahamic religions, is that they are a set of rules that people obsess over and its also why many ignorant people group every religion as if they were the same. And yes, religion provides order and way of life and spirituality, but that is what humans need, otherwise things become chaotic. And for those who blame war on religion, you can't it is the people not religion. People without faith are the most unhappy, true fact.
    You can come very close to proving things so that for all intents and purposes they have been proven. To suggest otherwise is just being disingenuous.

    You not caring how the justice system works is totally irrelevant to the point, the example was used to highlight your flawed logic and to demonstrate that the burden of proof must be adhered to if anyone wants their extraordinary claim to be taken seriously.

    Not so, there are atheistic religions that believe in no higher power, the most famous one being Buddhism. Moreover, that just smacks of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fact that many people may have believed this has no bearing on its veracity, especially when most of these religions emerged in times of relative ignorance concerning natural laws. Most current religions, were they to have to emerge in the 21st century, would never be able to do so.

    People have every right to overlook religion as something of the past, are you saying people can't have opinions now?

    Aside from the fact that you have provided no statistics to show that less spiritual people are less happy, it has no bearing on anything. Even if it were true, this wouldn't come an inch closer to proving God is real and it also ignores the fact that you don't even need to believe in God to be spiritual.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
    I find it genuinely hilarious that you've quote mined Hawking's A Brief History of Time and tried to use it as evidence. It's also a shocking display of the intellectually dishonest lows theists will stoop to in order to justify their beliefs. Your quote comes from page 126, but Hawking follows up on it in page 133:

    "Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Though the comparison is substantially larger, the probability of someone winning the lottery is immensely lower.

    I can only give evidence of God's existence from personal experience not anything relatively conspicuous.
    It's still the exact same logic and the laws of probability at work. Give the universe enough planets and at least one of them is bound to have the correct conditions for life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Well i do. But here's the problem by telling you that i believe in the existence of God would most probably not change your mind. Why? Because i would be simply declaring my faith and belief in God based of personal experience, spiritual experience. That is the nature of religion, whether people establish a reason as to why science does or does not disprove the existence of God and his work, when they declare there faith for God it will most frequently be based on personal experience rather than conspicuous evidence, through faith.

    Is there any proof of evolution?
    So because it's all about 'personal' and 'spiritual experience' and you have no proof for it, how can you be certain that this experience is true? Why trust something you have no evidence for? You're basically assuming God exists on a whim then, and your discrediting your argument of probability like this anyway. We atheists might as well argue God doesn't exist because I had a spiritual experience that he doesn't exist. This argument really falls flat since both sides can use

    Regarding proof for evolution, there are pieces of evidences (often observations) that support it. I will re-iterate in Science, you do not prove, you support. Unfortunately there isn't a single legitimate evidence supporting the existence of a God.

    Here are the list of evidence that support the theory of Evolution
    1) Universal Genetic code
    2) Fossil record
    3) Genetic similarities
    4) Common traits in embryos
    5) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.