• Muslim claims to have "destroyed" atheism with logical proof of gods existence.
    218 replies, posted
The only thing I have to contribute to this is I feel like the big bang theory was, well, theorized, and religion basically stepped in quick as possible and said "Oh, our god did that." I'm sure I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36106090]Metaphysically necessities derive from the nature of the universe, and they state that existence could not be other than it is at the moment due to the nature of the universe. The laws of physics deem something as metaphysically necessary.[/QUOTE] They [I]really[/I] don't. Metaphysics is [I]much[/I] broader than the discussion of the actual world. If something is metaphysically possible, by no means does it have to be true that its the case in the actual world. Its metaphysically possible that all the physical laws were different, for example. All the things that [I]physics[/I] deem necessary/possible are merely [I]physically [/I]necessary/possible. Isn't that obvious?
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36083972]Disprove the entire idea of creationism. I am an atheist, but just go on. Do it. My point is, we do not have enough evidence to prove or disprove creationism and that is simply how things are in this world. In the future we may, but not now.[/QUOTE] Killer, I see you're either new to debating or you're dumb. I'm going to assume the first one for now. When you make an assertion, you must provide the argument and the evidence to support your point. When a creationist says "There is a god and he created the universe", it is not I who must prove them wrong, but them who must prove themselves right. Science doesn't only deal in absolutes: it deals in probabilities as well, and according to the evidence we currently have, the Big Bang theory is more probable than "god did it". On a related note, the nature and idea of god doesn't allow for it to be disproved at all. How can you disprove something they say you can't ever know or understand? This creates another question: if god is unknowable, than how did man first make contact with god or otherwise become aware of its existence? Through intermediates? How did they know god? etc etc. End result is, the question never gets answered. We're left wondering how, if god is unknowable, were people thousands of years ago sure god(s) existed? The only conclusion left to make is that perhaps god IS knowable. If that is the case, that means in one way or another we can be aware of god. But then where is god? Why can some [del]con man[/del] faith healer know of god, but all the science in the world can't? God as a being and concept, is either unknowable, leaving me wondering how our ancestors came to the conclusion god(s) exist... or god IS knowable, and somehow the brightest minds in the world are all missing something totally obvious to other people.
Sorry to bump, but I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think I've come to a singular conclusion on the matter. Touching on the above post, though in a more friendly and complete manner... [QUOTE=Quq;35776332]trying to prove religion is missing the point just as much as trying to disprove religion[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mustachio;35819999]Neither is there evidence against it.[/QUOTE] I think these points showcase why all religion can be dismissed. To assert that something exists/is true, such as Christianity, there lies a burden of proof on the one claiming existence (called a "positive" claim or result, in this case the existence of god.) However, there is no burden of proof on the one claiming nonexistence, because it is impossible to prove that something does *not* exist. For example, most people know what unicorns are, and most believe them to be a nonexistent figment of fiction. However, and I emphasize, nobody can outright prove that unicorns never actually existed. Despite this, most rational people still unquestionably deny the existence of unicorns (you might even feel silly reading this as an example.) [img]http://a57.foxnews.com/images/379376/350/450/1_21_061108_unicorn.jpg[/img] Fun fact: the bible makes several mentions of unicorns, but has been translated to "wild ox" in the American Standard Version (perhaps an attempt to differentiate the bible from folklore?) If you understand the above paragraph, you would naturally come to correct conclusion that until christians (whose claim in its simplest form is "god exists, along with everything else we humans can observe, which the origin of is explained by the creation by god") come up with verifiable evidence of the existence of god, there is no god (as long as the atheist's claim is "nothing exists, except for everything we humans can observe, which we can't quite explain the origin of because we haven't observed enough yet, *though we have some ideas*"), and that this holds true for all religions with such proposals of otherwise divine existence. However, if you're still a bit blurry, let me drive the point home. The bible begins with "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." It then continues to explain how god created everything else we can observe, to fulfill the "along with everything else we can observe" part of the claim. Now, if we were to go backwards through these claims, it is obvious that right before the very first verse is fulfilled, there is no "heavens and the earth," but there is still god. So, for the sake of completeness, the "0th" verse *must* be "First there was God," followed by "in the beginning, god created..." and so on. That "hidden 0th verse" is the location of the inherent positive claim of christianity, which then must be proven with verifiable evidence, which it can't, and so the positive claim remains refuted and only the atheist claim still holds. To believe in the religion without verifiable evidence is exactly equal to claiming that "unicorns are real because nobody can prove they're not and the special books tell me so." I read somewhere a while back that christians are inherently incapable of understanding "burden of proof" and my observations so far in life seem to validate this. Other posts on this track: [QUOTE=Noble;35831354][url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance"]So what?[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Megafan;36084328]Well, it is a Creationist's job to prove it, not an Atheist's job to disprove it. As I've said, something is not deemed probable or even possible until there is some backing for it in fact.[/QUOTE] As far as I am aware, this is an absolutely bulletproof argument against the existence of any religion. (I "destroyed" religion!) I'd love to get feedback from both sides of the camp.
What he did, in essense, was say: God is something that is outside our physics so we cannot disprove him (he forgot the or prove it bit too) because he is god
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE] But the existence of things does not necessitate a creator. Is there any law of nature that explicitly precludes the possibility of Michelangelo's David from occurring in the natural world with no human interaction?
yes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.