Disproving the Existence of God

[Grahame]

No. Disbelief is not in ANY way faith. In fact, they are polar opposites.

 

It can, at best, be considered a belief (in your own opinions).

 

You are very fervent in your disbelief aren't you Karis.

 

 

[sharrowman]

'I define 'wrong' as anything PEOPLE DO that either harms you, your family, other people, or society at large.'

 

So erm, drive cars

or eat sugar

etc

[sccsux]

Substitute mankind for cars.

 

Let's not introduce more spurious analogies.

 

Let's keep the thread on topic (for once).

[Norbert]

God has been superceded by technology, whether he exists or not he has been rendered redundant. The religious promise of salvation after death has been upstaged by the technological promise of eternal life on earth.

 

Yarp

 

Technology can't deliver yet.

 

I’ve oft said we live in the worst of times, in-between the death of god and the birth of technological immortality.

 

I wanted to be frozen after my death but our chest freezer only has a 3 snowflake rating and as such is only good for up to 12 months.

 

Yarp backwards = Pray

[sharrowman]

Norbert,

 

As part of a recent kitchen upgrade at Sharrowman HQ I have a new A rated Fridge Freezer - 4 Snowflakes - you are welcome, in the spirit of christian charity to climb inside.

 

You are right though, the promise of technology does not live up to the hype, something (I assume!) it has in common with the afterlife of biblical mythology. Nonetheless technology has been set on this trajectory, for better or for worse.

 

Sllab!

[six45ive]

1/

I would have said that a rational believer (or atheist) is one who says "I believe X but I know that I can not prove it's veracity but it works for me so I'm happy in that belief" where an irrational beleiver (or atheist) is one who will state a belief as hard fact.

 

2/

Then you'd be completely wrong.

I would have said that an irrational person is one who says "I believe X but I know that I can not prove it's veracity but it works for me so I'm happy in that belief and how it informs my actions" where a rational person is one who will "withold a belief until such evidence comes along that is required to meet its burden of proof".

 

Again - in your opinion. Unfortunately once again your using your opinions as absolute fact rather than as opinions...

 

So, as far as this little spat is concerned how does the neutral observer come to the conclusion as to which statement (1 or 2) is more factual regarding the understanding of the word rational?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rational

[Hairyloon]

But I'm not the one that's defining god. I'm talking about how god is defined in the xtian faith as being omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (having all knowledge), benevolent (doing good deeds) and omnipresent (is everywhere at all times).

Could you reference where he is so defined?

So here's the article again if you missed it the first time.

<snip>

Yes, anything you repeat often enough becomes inherently true.

 

If you reject that definition and instead define god as "an entity with powers we don't understand", then his existence becomes almost certain.

Then I would simply reject your definition of god as 'an entity with powers we don't understand' on 2 bases.

1/You've already defined it as an entity so a different definition (god) isn't necessary.

2/Then after defining it as an entity you then go on to claim that his existence becomes almost certain which not only anthromorphises this entity but you then claim to have a certain knowledge about something that you've already made clear you don't understand. Fail on numerous counts I'm afraid.

Leaping on semantics really does not make your argument more convincing you know. It is like the childish game of "An idiot says "what?"."

 

And that is not my definition of "God" either, it is an alternate definition, and one that would be foolish to use since there are invertebrates at the bottom of the sea with powers we don't understand.

 

However, both of your arguments against it are complete tosh.

[sccsux]

God, if he exists, is not omnipotent.

 

Neither is the spaghetti monster, but you still can't prove it doesn't exist. The burden of proof lays with the people who believe; they should be able to provide verifiable evidence as to their claims to existance.

[sccsux]

The argument goes:

 

God is defined as an ominpotent being.

It is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist.

Therefore God cannot exist.

Q.E.D.

 

The logical argument is flawless. A god defined thus does not exist.

 

None of which addresses my point.

[six45ive]

Could you reference where he is so defined?

 

Have you not read the bible? If not then you've also managed to miss this reference that milquetoast provided earlier in this thread.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6782060#post6782060

 

Yes, anything you repeat often enough becomes inherently true.

 

Yes of course, if you're unable to rebut any part of it (the article that I linked to) which I haven't seen you, or anybody else, do yet.

If you wish to do that then we can take the conversation forward by pointing out whether your rebuttle is sound or not and if not, why not.

 

Leaping on semantics really does not make your argument more convincing you know. It is like the childish game of "An idiot says "what?"."

 

I don't think it's semantics to point out that an 'undefined not understood god' just happens to be a he. I don't think I've ever read a clearer example of an oxymoron.

This reminds me a little of the caller here that asks; 'Who created the universe'?

 

And that is not my definition of "God" either, it is an alternate definition, and one that would be foolish to use since there are invertebrates at the bottom of the sea with powers we don't understand.

 

Oh dear. Would you like to explain the above extremely weak, if not non existent, analogy and justify this, 'invertebrates at the bottom of the sea with powers we don't understand'.

 

However, both of your arguments against it are complete tosh.

 

Oops.....looks like I've hit a sore point. (That obviously settles it then.)