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

If it's a strawman, it's one raised by you when you said:

Don't you see that waiting for "irrefutable proof " is nonsensical. Do some research. Make a decision. Come to a conclusion. That's what you do with everything else in your life.

Are you afraid that a wrong "GOD" decision will result in an eternity in Hell?

 

You may be hearing me speak of the brain but most people who read the post will say that the word "brain" is simply not there. The word "brain" did however show up in my earlier post in responce to your understanding that our "motive force" is controlled by the brain. That's when I said--

Maybe where you're coming from is the idea that our physical actions appear to come from the muscles, and the muscles appear to be triggered by the brain.

If we're serious we can't stop there.

The brain may decide to do one thing but there are other parts of the body that can take charge and dictate what the brain 'thinks'. Remember when you asked if the soul was next to the kidneys? What really is next to the kidneys are the adrenal glands, and when they shoot adrenaline into the blood stream all hell can break loose. The brain obeys the glands just as the muscles obey the brain.

Let me spell out more clearly what I meant when I said "a couple feet south", I was talking about testosterone that not only can scramble communication between different parts of the brain, but it controls the nature of the brain's pursuit of an ordered personality structure --testosterone makes men confident.

Bottom line, the brain takes orders from elsewhere; it's not in charge.

 

You already said that you don't agree; you're also not saying that you agree to the opposite.

My post said that "We see our "individual existence" has many forms..." and you then failed to state whether you agreed that 'Our "individual existence" does not have more than one form..." You disagree w/ my saying it has many forms and you disagree w/ my saying it does not have many forms.

You seem very disagreeable today.

 

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument - Google

We disagree as to what a strawman argument is.

Making an argument about cars and houses in a thread about proving that God does not exsist is a strawman argument as we are not talking about cars or houses nor does the answer to one apply uniformly to all associated arguments. If you can prove for a fact that God does not exsist then let me hear your best argument.

I prefer facts over anecdotes and in the absence of fact I will either take a neutral stance or just say that it is my opinion as opposed to arguing a fact. But as I am here to argue fact I will take a position of neutrality until someone can prove the negative argument to be true... which is literally impossible.

My conclusion is neutrality in the absence of fact on the question of whether God exsist. I have my own opinions but as opinion is without limits I prefer to stay focused upon the pursuit of fact.

No as I have seen no evidence that is compelling enough to make me believe for a fact that hell exists.

 

--and this is where one might say that mindless fanatical murdering vicious atheists ignore even more. However, just as most scientists believe in God, we also have better things to do than respond in kind to name calling.

Meanwhile, you really might not want to seem oblivious to the fact that more often than not word have more than one definition and it's the context that assists in sharing an understanding of which definition applies. Like my guess is you already know this.

 

That there is an energy barrier that makes it difficult for your finger from penetrating your skull does not mean you are not connected to the moon. One can argue that the connection is weaker - because the space is more and the energy barrier is not that great. There are waves traveling through your body all the time .. just like you might travel through empty space.

When you can not explain something you say something like "you are straying" - There is something here you are not getting.

In another thread the question was posed - how did matter and energy come together in a form that gained knowledge if it's own existence.

In this post you put the egg before the chicken by saying the thought comes from the brain.

Where did that first "thought" come from ? You have inert matter and energy. You start making different configurations - putting atoms together - where does the thought come from ?

You say "your thoughts are neurons" ... this is a cop out because you do not know that. And in fact neurons are not thoughts. Neurons are transmitters of information. That information is in the form of electrons - but, electrons are not thoughts. They are electrons.

Even if you wanted to claim that "electrons in a certain configuration represent a thought" (which is quite bizarre to think about but, even if I grant this) how did these electrons get together to create that thought ?

You put some atoms/molecules together in a way that generates some electrical activity. Good for you - this is a hugely complicated thing to achieve but, this is not a thought. The power in the wires in your home are not thoughts.

We still have the massive problem of how to control those thoughts (the will).

You are throwing stuff against the wall - hoping something will stick - but have not really thought these things through.

 

We'll leave it at I disagree with what you wrote. I think the comment is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

If you want to make the assertion in pieces and substantiate them...we can discuss it.

If you cannot...and I strongly suspect you cannot...we'll just have to leave it.

 

Pretty easy. There is no evidence that a god exists. Done.

 

It is not a blind guess. Provide one single piece of evidence to support thst a god exists. Now go ahead and try to divert.

 

Of course. But as every good Southern person knows even a blind sow occasionally finds an acorn.

 

God doesn't exist because if he did, I wouldn't have to wipe my butt.

 

Based on your comments, you deem nothing as factual unless it has been established by "irrefutable proof ".

Enjoy your neutrality.

 

How is pointing out that the word "faith" has two definitions and that religionists often ignore that fact. That's not name calling; that's a statement of fact.

You, on the other hand are OK with referring to atheists as "mindless fanatical murdering vicious". Your hypocrisy is evident. And yes, I just called you a name - Hypocrite.

Yes I do know it. I even said the word "faith" has two meanings. I am also aware that context matters. It is obvious from exchanges like this:

Creationist: Your belief in evolution is just based on blind faith
ecco: No, it is based on faith I have in science and scientists
Creationist: See, I told you it was just based on blind faith.​

 

Good question. This whole discussion originated because I maintain everything has a Genisis or beginning. It was said matter has always existed. I believe that is a statement of faith in ones own reasoning, It is not proven scientifically or otherwise, My faith tells me matter exists because at one time a Creator spoke it into existence. Someone else might say, everything is in existence only because I perceive it in my brain. I am not one of those. I go with my faith.

 

It could very well, and most likely is, in the brain. Some have said the heart, many have said the gut. The whole premise is, at death the information carries on. It is regenerated. Some scientists expect that, but I believe it on faith. Since I was a child, I always believed that. It was instilled in me. Not by my parents either. It was something I perceived in my spirit. Now,,,,by faith I know it to be true.

 

The evidence is there in creation. You must not want to see it.

 

I believe you are right on!

 

It's funny, We see evidence all around us. Where does the notion of justice come from? Why do we have this drive to know where we came from? Why do we look at the stars and wonder what they are doing? Animals don't do this. They get hungry, they get tired, they have much of the same appetites we do. Go ahead....explain it all away. I contend you do so by faith. You have no evidence. You just seem content to belittle my faith as if yours is supreme. I am, however content in knowing, someday we'll find out.

 

Frank .... I believe you DID clear that up.

 

Even if I were to agree that "waves travel through my body all the time", it does mean that my brain exudes waves that can travel to the moon.

I will say "you are straying" from the subject when you are straying from the subject.

Actually, I didn't. You asked where they come from - not what they are.

And below you somewhat agree with that assessment...

Moving on...

Ask a scientist who specializes in that area. Realistically, he might say "We aren't too sure how this works".

That's a very profound observation. It is also meaningless.

I control my thoughts quite well. Since your writings are comprehensible, it is obvious that you control your thoughts quite well also.

You are the one who is "throwing stuff against the wall - hoping something will stick". Remember, your post #326 in which you made the leap from reality to woo:

 

The heart pumps blood and the gut digests food. This is like talking to a 14th century person

 

Actually I have never belittled anyones faith. What I do object to is pretending that belief in god is based on fact instead of faith.

And my guess is you have no real idea what animals think.

 

Please go outside. Grab anybody off the street and ask if they consider god to be a natural or a supernatural being. Grab 10 or 20 people. Your co-workers. Firends, family... anybody. If you do it honestly, you will find an overwhelming majority leaning the same way.

The purpose of words is simply to help people communicate with each other. If you arbitrarily change the commonly accepted meaning of a word, you are simply engaged in the equivalent to intellectual masturbation.

So the only logical conclusion from your reasoning (reductio ad absurdum) is that god doesn't exist. That, of course, is according to your reasoning. Not mine.

 

Yes you do. Got anything else?