There is no evidence for God

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    No. As far as anybody knows, there could be other universes. (I used "observation"/observable etc. in the scientific sense btw).
    There are always limits to the extent at which we observe the universe. Nothing can be ruled out of existence without any proof. There may be things that we cannot observe such as beyond the observable universe and undiscovered subatomic particle ect. This does NOT mean they do not exist. They simply have not been discovered yet. There used to be a time when people thought the smallest particles that could exist was an atom even though we now that matter was always made up electrons, protons, neutron and even smaller particles such as neutrinos. quarks and photons. Just because you are unable to prove somethings existence does not mean it does not exist and never will.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    observable ‎(plural observables)
    1. (physics) Any physical property that can be observed and measured directly and not derived from other properties.
    I did not say that things that WE are not able to observe do not exist. I only said that things that are incapable of being observed do not exist. The supernatural has no measurable effect on reality, because anything that happens is necessarily a natural phenomenon. I do not have to be omnipotent to know that things that cannot be observed don't actually exist.
    What was there before the universe? You could never answer this as there is no possible observable factors of what happened before the universe. So why do scientist continue coming up with theories of what happened before the big bang if they "know" it doesnt exist, as you say
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Religious perspective here.

    There is no concrete evidence, and believe or not, most religious people know this. As others have said, there no concrete proof on a lots of things, yet we accept it as true and even fact. If you have ever studied science to a high enough level, you'd know that it takes just one test conclusion to disprove a theory. We don't have one definite piece of evidence to disprove the 'theory' that there is a divine being.

    But all I've written is from a logical standpoint. Religion isn't supposed to be logical, its us connecting with something beyond ourselves. And I this that's why you asked this question, because you believe religion is logical. And as long as you believe that, you trying to argue the lack of existence
    of a divine being, is pointless. Religion cannot be argued with logic, because like I said, its illogical.

    And you ask why we believe. Well while I can't speak for everybody else, I can speak for myself. I believe in God because it provides me a sense of peace to know that I'm connected to someone beyond me, who is always with me so I'm never alone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    If time is only a property of this universe, then nothing existed before this universe.

    Similarly, if the universe always existed, then there was no "before".

    Scientists base theories on what is possible within a closed-loop system. It has not yet been determined if there was anything before the universe, so it is still perfectly possible within our understanding that Reality predated this universe and/or that we are part of a wider multiverse. As long as this is a possibility, scientists will continue to be interested in the nature of the early universe and whether there was anything preceding it.
    According to your logic if something is unable to be observed it doesn't exist. So multiverses doesn't exist and nothing existed before the universe and god does not exist as they are unable to be observed. I have revision to do so say something that is worthwhile and meaningful as I may not reply.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I can assure you I am fully literate, cognitively able, with a wide general knowledge. It must come from not filling my brain with superstitious nonsense.
    Do you accept that consciousness is as much as an illusion as God, created by cooperating colonies of microorganisms to prolong their existence?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    Do you accept that consciousness is as much as an illusion as God, created by cooperating colonies of microorganisms to prolong their existence?
    You are saying that gods are an illusion?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAdviser)
    According to your logic if something is unable to be observed it doesn't exist. So multiverses doesn't exist and nothing existed before the universe and god does not exist as they are unable to be observed. I have revision to do so say something that is worthwhile and meaningful as I may not reply.
    That is not what his logic implies.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mahree_Ah)
    Religious perspective here.

    There is no concrete evidence, and believe or not, most religious people know this. As others have said, there no concrete proof on a lots of things, yet we accept it as true and even fact. If you have ever studied science to a high enough level, you'd know that it takes just one test conclusion to disprove a theory. We don't have one definite piece of evidence to disprove the 'theory' that there is a divine being.

    But all I've written is from a logical standpoint. Religion isn't supposed to be logical, its us connecting with something beyond ourselves. And I this that's why you asked this question, because you believe religion is logical. And as long as you believe that, you trying to argue the lack of existence
    of a divine being, is pointless. Religion cannot be argued with logic, because like I said, its illogical.

    And you ask why we believe. Well while I can't speak for everybody else, I can speak for myself. I believe in God because it provides me a sense of peace to know that I'm connected to someone beyond me, who is always with me so I'm never alone.
    This is definitely not the Christian/biblical position, so please do not speak for all those who believe in God. Indeed we CAN use logic to substantiate our claims. No we don't think it's a good idea to believe things simply in order to feel peace. Jesus claimed to be THE truth. He claimed all other paths lead to genuine DESTRUCTION.

    In other words, we should all care about truth, not self-deception.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I'm claiming that he had a very limited knowledge of the true scale of the earth but probably a vast knowledge of the various species of his locality.
    The bible doesn't say all species. It says "all kinds" of animal. Species is a modern term with a definition that we still debate. Do research on these things. You can't act as though the writer of Genesis was mistaken, because then the entire bible falls apart. Jesus' view of scripture is that it's not just from man, but that it is the "God-breathed" word of God, spoken to us.

    You need to go and Google the "inerrancy of scripture" and why that's important.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    The bible doesn't say all species. It says "all kinds" of animal. Species is a modern term with a definition that we still debate. Do research on these things. You can't act as though the writer of Genesis was mistaken, because then the entire bible falls apart. Jesus' view of scripture is that it's not just from man, but that it is the "God-breathed" word of God, spoken to us.

    You need to go and Google the "inerrancy of scripture" and why that's important.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't care what other people believe about the Bible. I have my own beliefs. I believe that it was "God-breathed", but also that it was written by men who are flawed, as we all are, in a time where scientific knowledge wasn't what it is now. I don't read the Bible for scientific knowledge though...nobody does, it's a classic atheist strawman to find scientific untruths in the Bible. Nobody cares. The Bible is about the development of Judeo-Christian ethics.
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are saying that gods are an illusion?
    It's an illusion as much as consciousness is an illusion.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I don't care what other people believe about the Bible. I have my own beliefs. I believe that it was "God-breathed", but also that it was written by men who are flawed, as we all are, in a time where scientific knowledge wasn't what it is now. I don't read the Bible for scientific knowledge though...nobody does, it's a classic atheist strawman to find scientific untruths in the Bible. Nobody cares. The Bible is about the development of Judeo-Christian ethics.

    It's an illusion as much as consciousness is an illusion.
    The bible is certainly not about developing a code of ethics. You cannot demonstrate consciousness to be an illusion. So much of what you're saying is flawed.

    Listen. You have your own beliefs, but you should listen to others. Just because you have a belief, it doesn't mean that it's valid. I can demonstrate how many of the beliefs you've stated are false.

    I'm just telling you that the bible falls apart if any of it is false. Any claim you make that any of it is incorrect can and must be challenged. In order for us to be consistent, we must recognise the importance of biblical inerrancy and what "God-inspired" or "God-breathed" means. The fact that you say "it was written by men who are flawed, as we all are" shows your misunderstanding of what the bible teaches and what Jesus taught about scripture. It is God speaking to us. - Jesus said this, and it's all over the bible. The books of the bible were written by different men, but the words don't come from those men. I would point you to 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 22:31 where Jesus said "Have you not read what God said to you..." and then he went on to quote a part of Exodus that records a time when the people Jesus was talking to hadn't even been born.

    I can come up with other examples, but I encourage you to go and study these things. If you can show one sentence to be false, then please show us, because the rest falls apart (if we are to be consistent). We don't blindly believe things! We have good reason to believe what we believe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    So why do people still believe in God?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am god
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I don't read the Bible for scientific knowledge though...nobody does,
    Young Earth Creationists obviously do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Nope. I even clarified that "I did not say that things that WE are not able to observe do not exist.", after saying that I meant observable in the scientific sense.

    Again, we do not yet know whether or not we are in a multiverse or whether or not anything preceded the universe: but either way, they are possibilities based on our understanding. In the case of a supernatural being such as god however, we do know that they do not exist and that they do not have any effect on reality.
    How do we know this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Because things that have no observable effect on reality do not exist and do not have any effect on reality. If such a thing was to be observed, it would be an oxymoron, so it is safe to say they do not exist.
    This doesn't logically follow. Looks like you're arguing for metaphysical naturalism via appeal to ignorance - a fallacious argument. You're making an absolute claim by asserting X does not exist; surely you can formulate a deductive syllogism for your position.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.
    Not really, no. The scientific method applies only to the physical world. Science, therefore, has nothing to say about anything other than the physical world, including whether or not anything other than the physical world exists. By bringing the scientific method into this you're just showing your ignorance of what the scientific method is, and what it's designed for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.
    Not so simple, I'm afraid. Knowledge of metaphysical naturalism bears a stronger burden of proof than mere "lack of belief" in the supernatural.

    The scientific method makes no claims about the ontological status of any unobservable entity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Not so simple, I'm afraid. Knowledge of metaphysical naturalism bears a stronger burden of proof than mere "lack of belief" in the supernatural.

    The scientific method makes no claims about the ontological status of any unobservable entity.
    An existing thing that is unobservable (i.e. is not a part of the chain of cause of effect of the physical world) is an oxymoron


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    An existing thing that is unobservable (i.e. is not a part of the chain of cause of effect of the physical world) is an oxymoron


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Unless you're begging the question and assuming metaphysical naturalism (which isn't well-defined in contemporary philosophy anyway), not really.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Unless you're begging the question and assuming metaphysical naturalism (which isn't well-defined in contemporary philosophy anyway), not really.
    Things only exist by virtue of effects, no effects =/= no existence
 
 
 
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: December 7, 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.

Poll
Electronic notes or handwritten notes?
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.