OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

The word "soul" is more often than not used as a referece to the Biblical term. The original Greek word that got translated as "soul" is "psyche", and it's often used in modern times simply untranslated into its original meaning --the seat of an individual's wants, desires, iow our motive force. The concept became a study/disciple all by itself, called "psychology".

You seem to infer that you don't believe you have a soul. I sense that yabbe has as much of a soul as I do, but the problem w/ the internet is we never really know when we're chatting w/ a 'bot so in your case I'll stay open to the possibility that you very well may be right...

 

All evidence suggests that the seat of an individual's wants, desires, iow our motive force is in the brain.....but anything is possible

 

He any kin to the Great Pumpkin?

 

Many people have that point of view, I know I feel that way often but then again there's a lot of times that the part of my body that's in charge is a couple feet south of my brain.

Just the same the topic's been a long standing controversy. There's some evidence that what you say is so, but it's neither acceptable nor convincing to all. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary that's likewise badly limited, but there are some points on the soul-side that to most folks will agree are a but hard to set aside. We can go there if you're interested.

 

I know of no evidence of a soul or even a mind

 

You and I must part ways. Darkness has a name. It is the absence of light, both physically and spiritually. The absence of light is a void.

 

I sense sarcasm. The soul is your emotions, intellect and personality.

 

No need for that snarkiness in this conversation.

You were talking about KNOWING what happens after we die.

If you want to make blind guesses about what happens after we die...do it. I'd rather simply acknowledge we do not know.

I have no problem with someone who wants to study what happens. Not sure how anyone could go about that, but...

 

If you want to think your definition has to hold...fine with me. I enjoy a good laugh.

In the meantime...if a thing exists...it is part of what IS. If ghosts exist...they are not "super" natural. If invisible beings exist...they are not "super" natural. They would merely be things that we do not currently realize are part of what IS...things that we humans do not currently know are part of nature.

 

Noted that you cannot provide even one tiny bit of evidence for the existance of a god. Also noted that you are unable to elucidate why you think the Bunney analogy is invalid.

 

No the point of this thread is to try and make the evidentiary requirements for believing n the existance of a god and believing in the non existance of a god equivalent. A well understood logic flaw convieniently ignored.

 

I'm still waiting for the OP to prove there are no leprechauns, unicorns or mermaids.

As with these(and countless others), why should I believe they exist until there is demonstrable proof they do?

This thread is pointless.

 

What are you talking about?

I have NO IDEA IF GODS EXIST OR NOT. And I see no unambiguous evidence in either direction.

Why would you expect me to provide evidence of the existence of a god?

I am saying that it is POSSIBLE that gods exist...and it is POSSIBLE that no gods exist.

Do you disagree with that? If so...we can discuss it.

If you want to discuss the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy...do it with a toddler or an atheist. They are fascinated by discussions about them.

 

I think that is where we are...not if everyone has a functioning brain.

Why "believe" (which is to say blindly guess) in either direction?

Why not just acknowledge that we do not know...and probably cannot know?

 

So what we got is you're hearing folks talk about their mind and "psyche", you're not familiar with them, and you've shown absolutely no interest in learning about them. That would explain why you'd never care to ask just what it is that apparently occupies so much time of most of the people you run into.

OK, I can believe that you're utterly mindless and completely devoid of a "psyche", now we got clarity, and that's even better than agreement --NEAT!

 

Because we are perfectly capable of knowing with a high degree of certainly based on available data. All you keep arguing is that both options are equally possible because neither can be proven with 100% certainty.

Might just as well claim it is blindly guessing to say the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

Theists blindly guess that the probability of "there is a god" is greater than the probability of "there are no gods." All it is...is a blind guess pretending to be something more.

Atheists blindly guess that the probability of "there are no gods" is greater than the probability of "there is a god." All it is...is a blind guess pretending to be something more.

I am saying "It is possible that gods exist"...and "it is possible that no gods exist."

If you want to take exception to that...do it. Or continue to hide and deflect.

Your choice.

 

Yes, I do understand and you are quite right. The opening thread was some time ago and the point gets sort of lost. My point was, people of faith, myself included, seldom try and evangelize on these threads. Our faith is enough and we are confident in it. It is the atheists that ridicule and attempt to diminish. I find it almost humorous we are labeled as "Bible Thumpers" trying to force our beliefs on others. We can merely respond with our beliefs, which is fair game. We don't have to do any "thumping".

 

You are correct on that, Yabb. And it must be interesting to see someone like Jester claiming that "there are no gods" is a position with "a high degree of certainty based on available data"...especially considering that there are no unambiguous data supporting "there are no gods."

At least the theists among us acknowledge their position is based on "faith." The atheistic position is based on the same thing...but apparently they do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that.

 

Maybe. Let's say we agree that personal attacks and ridicule are out of line here and at the same time toxic attitudes and poisonous ideas demand action.

You said that "the only thing we can do is to make blind guesses about what may or may not happen" presumably responding to the part about how we "have free will, and we apparently make decisions". What I honestly understand is that you've poisoned yourself w/ a toxic attitude and I really do hope you get better.

This is the kind of nonsense I run into w/ the crazy loony extreme left, they ignore what I say and out of nowhere accuse me of saying something absolutely stupid as an excuse to ramp up their attacks. A common problem is that too many people don't seem to know the difference between an 'argument' and a 'quarrel'. We may end up needing to give this a rest.

 

If you think your post #379 is something other than blind guesses (by you or blind guesses about other people's blind guesses) then we have a significant difference.

I feel you are intelligent enough to see that almost everything in that post is little more than blind guessing.

But...let's assume I read you wrong.

First, I will apologize.

Next, I will ask for the single most salient point you are trying to make about whether or not your (or my) individual existence ends or continues upon what we commonly refer to as death.

Just the single most salient point...we can work our way to others.

 

The problem may be that we're not using the same understanding of just what 'faith' is.

My take is one I found in a math book that explained how random numbers were individually unpredictable but over time we have faith that they'll average out. Faith is good, it works, it's useful, and it's absolutely necessary for math, for science, for business, and for understanding life's meaning.

 

That's an EXCELLENT IDEA! A lot of work but it sure keeps me honest. So, in twenty five words or less:

We see our "individual existence" has many forms, some cease at physical death and some forms interact with others beyond space/time even after physical death.​

 

Invisble pink unicorns have a name too, but they don't exist anywhere except in people's imagination.

Darkness doesn't exist as an independent thing. It is a descriptive term for a lack of something else, and even then "darkness" doesn't exist anywhere because the universe is full of light, just in spectrums that human eyes can't see.

Black holes give off light in the form of extreme low frequency radiation.

 

I think a black hole is an area of space where gravity is very dense causing matter to crush in on itself. It is the opposite of a void isn't it?