There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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/...own-standards/

    ( Prove the one's you support, I know not all atheists support exactly all of the given statements).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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)?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.,
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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/askphilosop...theism/cuym5v3
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
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
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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.