God does not exist

Prove me wrong.

God is the universe.
The universe exists.
Therefore, God exists.

The ultimate proof of god's omnipotence is that he does not need to exist in order to save us.

god exists in every divide by zero operation.

>>2
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is God.

Makes just as much sense.

The last "prophet" of God was alive long ago.
Anybody claiming to be a prophet of God, or the second coming of Jesus, is deemed crazy and insane.
The last "accepted" proof of an act of God or proof of a prophet or Jesus being the son of God was in the Bible.
The Bible was written long ago.
Therefore, the Bible is unreliable.
Therefore, God's existence is unreliable.
There has been no visible proof of God in any of our lifetimes.
There has not been any or sufficient proof that God exists to prevent those from disproving the existence of God.
Therefore, God does not exist.

thread over.

Just because God does not necessarily exist (i.e. there is no proof that He exists) does not mean that He certainly doesn't exist.

>>7
That doesn't make sense.. :/
Anyway, there's no way to find out if God exists or not..
The only reason why we know God exists is because of the Bible.

But does anyone know when Adam and Eve where born?
What about the Aboriginies? They were in Australia since 70,000+ years ago I believe.. Maybe even more..

>>8
Sorry, I'll rephrase.

No proof that God exists means that God does not have to exist (God does not necessarily exist).

No proof that God exists does not equal proof that God does not exist (God certainly does not exist).

What I was trying to say is that lack of proof that God exists does not mean that He does not exist. No proof of God does not mean no God.

I agree that there is no scientific way to determine the existence of God, that's why we have "faith".

Or as >>9 should have said: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

Agnosticism

Thread over.

>>1
Don't hold your breath.

The only reason why we know God exists is because of the Bible.

Because the Bible wasn't written by humans, but by God himself. It somehow just magically appeared. Spoilers: The Bible is a book of stories.

>>11
Are you also agnostic about the Easter Bunny?

ITT idiots.

no need to prove you wrong its the truth

God does not exist.  Period.

>>14

While I have not personally encountered the Easter Bunny, nor has anyone I have been in contact with, I do not have concrete evidence to support a belief that the Easter Bunny does not exist.  Effectively, my belief in the Easter Bunny does not appear to be relevant in my daily life and I see no clear reason to support the claim of existence of the Easter Bunny.  I personally make the assumption that the Easter Bunny does not exist.  However, this assumption is arbitrary.  I have no reason to assert that there is not nor has their ever been an Easter Bunny; it is simply an idea I have assumed in lieu of certainty regarding the issue.  I am incapable of making such a judgment with complete accuracy.

Religion is for fools.

>>17
You can't even trust your senses, so really, nothing is certain (except for some vague things like 'I can think'): If you don't form any beliefs at all, you cannot function in the world.
How do you choose what to remain completely agnostic about?

>>14
Easter bunny is a ruse to amuse children.  People readily admit to this fact.

God may/may not be a ruse to rule over people.  Nobody admits as such.

There is a difference.

>>19

I remain skeptical about whatever I haven't seen proven, I remain agnostic about what feel I won't ever be proven, but that's not really the point.  There's a difference between belief and assumption, and a difference between belief and fact.  One shouldn't pretend to be certain about things they don't have proof of.

"God Is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups"
Best quote ever and hell it explains alot.
I think people are insecure about what to do i.e. what path to lead in life and need somthing to base everything on or its all just a blur. God or Buddah or whoever are there simply to give a sense of security to people in this insane world. Though some people take religion over board and others dont even belive, just like when you were 5 - theres nothing wrong with an imaginary friend but you have to grow up somtime.

>>21
Atheists don't pretend they're certain. They just consider it nearly impossible that any sort of god exists. They don't know he doesn't, but they believe it, either because of their upbringing, or based on their faith in science and reason, or for whatever other reason.

Agnostics, on the other hand, are just a bunch of fags.

>>23
if you admit you don't know, then youre an agnostic.  it's pretty straightforward.

Can God compute the halting problem on a turing machine?

Can God compute the halting problem on himself?

>>14

Yes, I am agnostic about the Easter Bunny's existence. I have proof neither that he exists or that he doesn't.

ITT agnostics rule, atheists druelle.

>>23
No. Absolute knowledge is a rare thing. Atheism is well-founded belief.

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. Kill yourself.

>>26
fag, too scared to take sides

I think that anyone who thinks they know enough about the universe to say they can tell whether or not a god exists outside of it is full of it. That is, assuming there even is an "outside of the universe."

Those who say they "know" there is no God seem to forget that there are those who say, with equal conviction, that they "know" there is a God. And yet, neither party brings any unambiguous, conclusive evidence to the table.

Atheists have their Easter Bunny analogy whereas theists have their Watchmaker analogy, among other things. These are both valid analogies, and good points, but equally so -- and they are mutually exclusive. Also, they both commit the same logical fallacy -- the argument from ignorance, that is to say that they both assume that what's generally true here on Earth holds true everywhere else as well. But, see, here's the thing, the universe is a pretty darn big place, and Earth is like a speck of dust when you look at the big picture. So I reeeally don't think our Earthly, everyday experiences give us a good enough idea as to what's out there. A deity or a rabbit-like alien who IDs itself as the "Easter Bunny" could bite a naysayer in the arse one day, and he or she wouldn't even know it! That's why it's good to keep an open mind.















P.S.: I am one fat dude who loves the cock, and my bitchtits are so humongous I can squeeze them and make milk totally squirt out. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>>28

capricious fag, believing that there isn't a big douchebag up in the sky without rigorously proving it.

>>27 was meant to be a reply to >>24.

Also, before you say disbelief is a lack of belief (ie weak vs strong atheism), that still doesn't imply certainty.

>>31

I'm aware of the difference between "not believing" and "believing not" if that makes sense to you.  But for the sake of consistency, I put people who don't believe (are not convinced) in the category of agnostics, and those who do believe (are convinced god does not exist).  If you're an atheists who fits the definition of agnostic, then you're an agnostic, imo, and should leave the word atheist for those who are pretending to be knowledgable.

my pet peeve is atheists who tell me that they are right.  i ask them, what proof do you have?  they either give a logical fallacy (theres no evidence of god), a terrible argument (at most attacking one aspect of one god), or they immediately start interchangably using the words "religion" and "god" (look at all the terrible religious people/wars/etc).

i am certain i do not know whether or not there is a god for sure.  my proof is: i have yet to see proof in favor of either conslusion.  therefore, i believe it is possible for a god to exist; i also believe it is possible for a god not to exist.
a theist believes it is not possible for a god not to exist.
an atheist believes it is not possible for a god to exist.

>>32
Ok, so you're just bending definitions.

my pet peeve is atheists who tell me that they are right.  i ask them, what proof do you have?
Of course there are atheists who don't fully understand the philosophical issues.

i have yet to see proof in favor of either conslusion.
It all depends on what kind of proof you want, and how you define the concept of 'god'. Some types of gods cannot logically exist, some are scientifically improbable, etc.

an atheist believes it is not possible for a god to exist.
No, they believe that it's at least unlikely; 'scientifically impossible'. And, again, it depends on what kind of god you're talking about.

At best, agnosticism is a meaningless philosophical observation, at worst, it's intellectually lazy fence-sitting.

>>32
"I put people who don't believe (are not convinced) in the category of agnostics"

Wrong

I agree that I am bending definitions, because I think the current definitions provide for unnecessary overlap and lack of clarity.  In the context of debate, the definitions being discussed need to be clear and agree upon for any discussion to be meaningful.  I have stated how I have used them.  If you prefer that I use different words, please suggest which ones with definition so that we might agree upon them for the sake of a sense of purpose to our words.  However, I point out again for your consideration that there currently seems to be two meanings to "atheism".  If you would like, write "hard atheist" wherever I said "atheist" earlier.

I'm a mathematician; there's only one kind of proof :D  I haven't seen anything I could consider scientific evidence for or against the existence of gods, either.  Perhaps against certain ideas of what god is or certain interpretations of what god has done, and I agree that it does matter entirely how you define god.

>>33
Example of God(ess)([e]s) that cannot logically exist, plz?

Agnostics piss me off because they're either totally ignorant about the subject, or they're fucking elitist. "You can't KNOW FOR SURE that my cat didn't create the universe yesterday and implant all our memories. You just BELIEVE it didn't, so you're no better than theists."

Congratulations assholes, you've realized that something unfalsifiable is unknowable. The rest of us who, you know, _understand science_, already know this painfully obvious fact. These simply aren't the gods we're talking about when we call ourselves atheists.

Gods that are unfalsifiable have no effect on the universe, so it's nonsense to even wonder whether or not they exist. It's not a knowable thing. I call myself an atheist because I consider the gods of mainstream religions to be not only falsifiable, but already falsified by science.

>>37
What do you mean they've been falsified by science?

>>37
Have you considered that some superior being did create the universe, albeit not the one described in the bible?

The first thing we should always do when debating 'god(s)' is to clearly specify what kind of god we're talking about.

There is always the unspoken assumption in western culture that we're speaking about a theistic god.

I forgot who said it, but there is a much bigger difference between a deist and a theist than there is between an atheist and a deist (or other versions of non-theistic gods)