God does not exist

Prove me wrong.

>>197

lesser observations, like?

>>201
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

Again, good science is built upon the feedback loops accomplished before.  The feedback loops are composed of theory and observation.  After many centuries, we're left with a lot of chickens and eggs and it just doesn't matter which came first.  The point is that we can use both chickens and eggs to make more chickens or eggs, per our desires.

Instead of lesser observations I should have used the term "precursor science".

>>202
so, like, galileo pulled some shit out of his ass and made some assumptions, and then stuff was checked much later, and you say that's somehow different.

>>203
No, fuckball, if you'd bother to learn to read, and having read, actually understand, then you'd realize that all science is a mix of theory and observation, and after centuries you can hardly determine which came first.  This is in extreme contrast to religion, which uses no observation whatsoever.  In other words, science works, regardless of how it got started; religion only works to get people killed and to get priests money, drugs and children to molest.

It's a little late to start doubting things like relativity, biology, and the characteristics of materials.  THOSE WORK.  Religion just doesn't work.  Since the former is at least based on observation, and the latter is based upon ZERO OBSERVATIONS, then the rational man (who is also not turned into a mewling weakling by the clearly correct concept of a dark, cold and godless universe) should reject the latter.  Religion is just bullshit.  The facts of that are clear.

fucking idiot

I don't get how people can believe in a god in this day and age, where we know that gods are mythical just like centaurs, satyrs, Medusa, Hydra, etc., and it's safe to say those things don't exist. I suppose the "true-neutral agnostic", as I like to call them, could explain the lack of evidence by saying maybe they all magically dissolved or some shit. But that's silly. At least one of the countless creatures of myth and legend would have left their skeletons behind like the dinosaurs did, yet not one of them did. That has to say something, and not, "Oh, well, we just haven't found them yet. Huh-huh huh-huh huh-huh." Screw that; dinos predate mythical beings by a longshot, so we should have found them by now.

That said, if by some freak chance "God" was proven real, I'd be mighty surprised. That's why I call myself an atheist instead of an agnostic. I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one; God is statistically improbable so as to be not worth considering.

Plus, arguments for theism have all been refuted. Pascal's Wager, Anselm's Ontological argument, the Cosmological argument, etc., etc. All shown to be flawed. And when all the "proofs" of something don't work, that should speak volumes.

For example: Anselm's Ontological Argument goes, "God is the perfect being, and it's better to exist in reality than in the imagination, therefore God is real." Now, it's not necessarily better for something to be real than imaginary; that's a matter of opinion. Just think of a virus, and you'll see what I mean. And perfection doesn't mean squat. Should the perfect lightsaber exist, then? I think not. Besides, I for one do not think God is perfect, I think he's a tyrant. "Acknowledge and worship me, or I will torture you for all eternity." Real nice, Goddie-boy. You'd think a friggin' all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent father-figure could create a universe where everyone wins, and something like Hell is not necessary, but nooooo. So, religious people had to account for our current crappy circumstances. In comes "Original Sin" and "Hell". Oh, and damn anyone who dares to question. It's the perfect scheme. And look at all the suckers there still are to this day.

" And when all the "proofs" of something don't work, that should speak volumes."

that's not all the proofs.  those are a couple attempted proofs that failed.  good luck finding all the proofs.  we'll talk when you're done.

also, not theist here, just pointing out stupid things.

>>206
saved for posterity

for me...
i think God didn't create man...
i think man created God...
God was created ever since man knew how to socialize (within socializing is making fights and when there's fights, there's war) ... they first relied on God to help them win battles and wars..
God back then was like a lucky charm (not much difference to most Gods believed in today)

People today are so lazy that they rely on God on every little thing they need even though they can get it themselves(For example: "God help me pass my exams." and "God kill that fag.")
If they didn't get what they want...they'd blame it on God(for example: "God! Where were you when i needed you?!" and also "God has forsaken me.")

It's just man's natural behavior to pass their responsibilities to others along with the blame if the responsibilities are not accomplished....

so... no science there... just psychology =P

>>207
O RLY? What's so stupid about what I said? I've been looking into the theist vs. atheist issue for a long time, and for a while I would hear a new argument for theism on occasion, but now I've come to a point where it's just the same old crap, recycled and reused, that has been refuted over and over again; there's never anything new. So, I'm quite convinced that I've heard it all.

Sure, I cited only a few examples, leaving out Paley's Watchmaker Analogy a.k.a. the Teleological Argument, among other things. But every other argument just seems to be some version of Pascal's Wager or the Teleological, Cosmological or Ontological arguments which have been refuted.

But, hey, maybe I did miss something after all. I'm willing to admit that possibility. So, what did I miss?

>>207
Alright, I just took a look around Wikipedia, and noticed that I indeed forgot a few. Argument from morality, argument from "miracles", and the one that goes, "we and the universe exist, therefore God exists." Yeah, see, I've heard those before, too, and refuted them at some point. Everyone has heard that tripe.

But hey, why didn't you help me out there, O wise sage who is wiser than I? You're a fellow non-theist, right?

>>209
Unknown divine entity(ies) create universe.
Man creates God according to what is optimal for maintaining a stable power structure.
Through rational reasoning, man overcomes God.
Religious fundamentalists retake over the world and all humanity dies.
Divine entity(ies) laugh.
Repeat.

>>207, 210
You can't defeat the theists by poking holes in every possible "proof" they can throw at you.  They can throw an infinite number of such things, and disproving them all would not be worth the effort.  After all, their blind faith gives them the patience to keep making moar.  It is sufficient to note that existence can only proved with evidence.

Oh, I always ask them for evidence when they preach to me. I'm just saying, the fact that their best proofs don't hold water only adds to the strength of my conviction.

>>212
There are good chances that the universe is self-generated due to an endless chain of event. If the universe itself collapses into a single point one in the distant future, it will be into a pre-bigbang situation.

>>214
TALKING OUT OF MY ASS

>>215
I actually find >>214's scenario quite likely, though some of those who buy into the 2nd law of thermo don't think it works.  I say bah to entropy.

>>There is no definitive proof of the existence of god or the nonexistence of god. Therefore, there's no point in debating it. So stfu.

Why isn't the lack of observeable evidence considered evidence for god not exsisting?

>>217
because it is possible that evidence exists and we haven't observed it.

i.e. even with the premises:

(there exists the entity god) if and only if (there is evidence of god)

(evidence of God is observed by humans) implies (there exists evidence of God)

not(evidence of God is observed by humans)

there is not sufficient knowledge to deduce:
not(there exists the entity god)

i.e. if you construct the truth table there are cases where it is both true and false, and so it can not be said with certainty that it is true.

because it is possible that evidence exists and we haven't observed it.

i.e. even with the premises:

(there exists the entity QUETZATCOATL) if and only if (there is evidence of QUETZATCOATL)

(evidence of QUETZATCOATL is observed by humans) implies (there exists evidence of QUETZATCOATL)

not(evidence of QUETZATCOATL is observed by humans)

there is not sufficient knowledge to deduce:
not(there exists the entity QUETZATCOATL)

i.e. if you construct the truth table there are cases where it is both true and false, and so it can not be said with certainty that it is true.

>>219

This technique of trolling is only meaningful when the post is referring to a specific god, say the christian god.
It's meant to highlight the fact that an argument for or against the existence of god doesn't imply necessarily that your chosen god is the right one.

It's meaningless when debating the existence of a god in general.


tl;dr UR DOIN IT RONG

>>219
yeah i actually had x in some spots and then changed it to god afterwards since that's what he was talking about and i didnt want to add extra FOLshit, hence the randomness of capitalization.

its just the name of a variable, so yeah, pretty much what you said, too.  if you prefer that variable name.

ask random people about god and they will almost instant respond or think about the judeo-christian god

>>222
fantastic, but that's not the point, since here god is just a variable name.  you can replace it with whatever you want, like QUEZTAWwtfever, and everything that you copy pasted is still true.  the interpretation of what the name means is something you impose on it, and it's independent of the truth of the statement.

>>223
use deity then not god

>>223
God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

>>224
>>225

listen, retard, you can call it "xnjkasnjb445ms" and it would be the same for the purposes of the post.  the assortment of letters you use to represent the variable do not have any impact.  its cute that you want to differentiate between what these words mean, but it doesnt have a fucking thing to do with this.  if you want to name the variable "deity" instead of "god" or "banana" or "the11thdayoftheweek" it doesnt make a difference.  this is why when you reposted what i said and all you did was change each "god" to a different word, you didn't change the argument.

>>227
read >>225

>>228
i did.  you're retarded.  everything you said is completely irrelevant.  it doesn't matter what word you replace it with, or the definitions of that word.  it doesn't matter what the definition of "deity" is.  go read a fucking logic book, or math book, or maybe even a linguistics book.

>>229
first things first
god is one deity
a deity its a conglomerade of supernatural being's
Im going to explain you why you post its a stupidity and it not valid
the same point you just writte can be say to every mythological creature, totem or even fantasy and scifi and that would not make them real
if you really cant comprehend that you are retarded and stupid

>>230
yes, the same point i made can be written to say the same thing about every single mythological creature, in fact, anything, any made up piece of shit you can ever imagine.  that was exactly the point in the last few posts.  because it was a variable that you can stick anything in for.  anything.

relatedly, i didn't say anything was real.  if you had half a fucking clue what you were talking about, you'd recognize that.  because, you know, you can fucking stick anything in there, and it didn't say anything about whether or not it actually exists.  it just had assumed conditionals about what would be the case IF it did or didn't.

i explained why a fallacy was a fallacy.  you apparently don't know how to read, and don't understand what a variable is.  so, in conclusion, no.  go home.

>>231
ok im going to start the cult of ishtar again

>>232
go for it, you can use my argument to respond to people who claim that the fact that we have no evidence of ishtar implies that ishtar does not exist.  however, watch out, because there could be other things which actually do imply that ishtar does not exist.

>>233
thats why you are going to be my main man

>>234
GILGAMESH IS THAT YOU? DONT MAKE QUETZAELCOATL JEALOUS

God is supposed to be all-powerful.  This is impossible in and of itself.  Suppose a god were to create an unbreakable wall.  The god would disprove himself/herself, as either he/she can't break it because is is unbreakable, or he/she cannot create it.  Either way it would prove omnipotence impossible, and thus a god as non-existent.

>>236
You're begging the question by assuming an omnipotent god is not powerful enough to allow a contradiction to exist.  Your argument relies on a contradiction implying that the situation is impossible, and therefore omnipotent god can't do it, and that would imply he is not omnipotent. But, if he's omnipotent, he can make something both true and false at the same time (otherwise, he wouldn't be omnipotent, it would be a contradiction :D ).  So he can both create a rock he can't lift and lift it, simultaneously.  In other words, the existence of an omnipotent god implies the possibility of p and not p for all p.  Duh.

>>237
quetzalcoatl you are indeed my main man

.

　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　VIVA MEOOWXICO putos!
　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　
　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
　 .　　　 ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼
　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
　　 ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |