fishbulb

No one can prove that a supernatural being does not exist. Supernatural phenomena, by their very nature, are impossible to prove or disprove.

It is easy to demonstrate that none of the gods of popular religions, past or present, are consistent with an empirical, rational evaluation of the world. But if you reject empirical, rational evaluation as being authoritative, this gets you nowhere.

If there is no God, morals and ethics matter because they hold societies together and prevent us from degenerating into a collection of backstabbers and opportunists. There are many parts of society (politics and many corporate cultures) where morals and ethics do not, in fact, matter. I wouldn't want the rest of society to function like politics does. Also, being moral and ethical makes me feel good. If it doesn't make you feel good, I am glad that you believe that God requires you to be moral and ethical anyway.

Mageth

Can an atheist demonstrate to me that God does not exist?

Can't believe the thread has made it this far without the obvious question:

Which god?

enrious

D'oh!

parkdalian

I agree with the posters who say that the proof burden is on the believer to prove a god's existence. The only thing the atheist can prove is the rationality of atheism by pointing to other beliefs and believers as a proof of concept. People are, by and large, erroneous when it comes to supernatural belief systems, simply because they can't all be correct. Another way to put it, try to prove that Zeus and the pantheon don't exist.

Further, Christian believers must ask themselves whether there is any facet of their own beliefs that are proveable, not just God, but things such as prayer, miracles, heaven and hell . All those things we are not able to verify, not just God.

We can verify that sane and intelligent people can be mistaken in believing fanciful, supernatural things and that is the only prerequisite principle required to be an atheist.

Wyz_sub10

No.

What proof is there that super-intelligent cosmic lobsters aren't responsible for mimicking the effects of the sparks caused by chewing Wintermint Life Savers?

Because most people want to enjoy there lives. This is facilitated, in part, through the maintenance of a sustainable society which depends, also in part, on social order and individual accountability.

Thank the cosmic lobsters that evolution has resulted in most people sharing this desire for happiness and self-preservation!

Tabula_rasa

Evidence that would prove god's existence?

God could make himself physically appear out of the blue sky tomorrow like in a Terry Gilliam comic and I wouldn't believe. This would work for me: (Kind of like K-Pax)

Take the dumbest of his followers - I'm talking doorknob dumb. [deleted insult] Speaking through said doorknob, explain the following two things that have scientists scratching their heads:

1) Abiogenesis as it actually happened. We all know it's just chemicals, but show us the blueprint that you used to set off life on this planet.

2) Show the mathematical hypothesis that would mate gravity with the other three forces. (Note to pudgy, don't worry if you don't know what the three other forces are, god will help you.) Provide blueprints for a neutron accelerator with enough energy to allow scientists to test out this hypothesis.

Do this all in a peer-reviewed set of articles and have it available by 5:30 PM EST, April 9th, 2003. That will give god 24 hours from now. Hell, he did so much more than that in the first day of all creation that this should be a cakewalk.

Tabula_rasa

Edited to add: Sorry, I meant to put in EST. However, god knew that.

Violent Messiah

Kimpatsu:

So I take it you are a naturalist. Believer in all
empirical things and none in the grandiose or magic of
life.

Me, I beliv there's a why. Whether it's the comfort
that it gives me to know that we all have a purpose
(I'm not going to deviate to the meaning of life as
this may be endangered of being transferred to Philo),
or the unacceptability of we, having no intrinsic
values, or just my plain human inclination to be awed
by great things and by the beauty/ugliness of
life...I'd like to belive there's a 'why'?

If this is the case, it would logically follow that
all things can be answered - we will be gnostics. So
maybe science too will prove conclusively that there
is a God. Am i right in saying this?

Just being accurate...Planck time is 10 ^ -43 sec. Yes
I know that all laws of physics break down here, so
far as the theory supposes.

Never did I argue that coz we dont know, there's a
God.....I was refuting your statement - "The existence
of the Universe, life everything can be explained by
purely rarional means."

And I still say that there are irrational things in
this world. Our origin, the universe's birth, beyond
death....etc.....What rational explanation can you
offer for this?

Vienna:

I replied to kimpatsu that i don't argue via - "Since
we do not know everything, there's a God."

I liked ur question on why did I beliv that a God
created the Universe. First, i'll say that this is not
a catholic god, allah nor any of the gods worldly
religions has to offer. It's just God as the first
cause. It's somewhat of a panentheist outlook.

Psycho Economist:

Life can't be fully explained or recreated by natural laws.

Kimpatsu

This is a ridiculous statement to begin with. It implies that humanists don't find life wondrous. Life is a fantastic thing; understanding it through science is even more fun. What makes you believe that humanists have no appreciation for life? Dogma? Bigotry? Just plain ignorance of our position? (I smell a strawman...)
Why don't you find science awe-inspiring? To stand before great things you don't understand and be moved emotionally isn't awe; it's being overwhelmed. And having a comfort blanket in faith may make you feel better, but me, I'd rather go with something that's true. A comforting lie is still a lie, now matter how gilded.
Yes, maybe science will, but the evidence so far is against it. We can indeed know everything, at least potentially. Whether humankind survives long enough is one issue, though.
Sorry, mistype. My basic argument remains unchanged, though.
The universe can indeed be explained by purely rational means. Why do you believe that it can't?
I thought I already had, but to recap:
The conditions required for abiogenesis have been recreated in laboratories to prove that it's easier then you might think. Evolution takes care of the rest.
The start of the universe occurred due to the fluctuation of a quantum singularity. Still nothing paranormal there.
Beyond death? Just eternal lack of consciousness, worms, and decay. Nope, still nothing paranormal.
This still begs the question of who created god? If you insist on a first cause, then Occam's razor insists that you remove the added layer of complexity and say that the universe just is, without god being behind the scenes.
Yes it can. What part of life can't?

Psycho Economist

Depends on what you mean.

We have some pretty solid hypotheses about how molecules came to be self-replicative, all plausible, none presuming a Jewish Zeus-a-like to roll snakes out like Play-Doh. In that sense we have a natural explanation.

On the other hand, we haven't yet spent enough on astrobiology to figure out which hypothesis (if any) is ultimately correct.

But we are left with reasonable, naturalistic hypotheses that have not yet been ruled out as incongruant with the data. I chose my wording to correspond with the way that science reaches its findings: by disproving the false.

The logically equivalent way to demonstrate the existence of a deity is to disprove that he does not exist... That is to say establish an event that could happen if and only if this deity existed, and then verify the event occured as predicted.

The hard part is trying to figure out what types of events could occur if and only if a deity existed.

Tabula_rasa

Tick tick

Tabula_rasa