And of course you can prove with logic and empirical evidence that not something, but God in this particular case does not exist. Since you have no facts and no arguments to prove that what you say is true every word you say is an just expression of your blind fanatical beliefs.
Yes I attacked the argument of the OP. As I posted, it’s an ontological argument. No disrespect to the OP but it’s an old one. The finest ontological argument I’ve read is that of St Thomas Aquinas. It’s beautiful. It is a logical proof. And that’s it. it seems to me that science is not able to prove the God hypothesis. Humans are capable of using our senses to be aware of the world around us. So are most other animal forms. I think it’s only humans who actually think about how it all got to be and humans who formulated the God hypothesis. That hypothesis cannot be tested. We can’t rely on science to help us work out if God exists. God exists for those who believe. God doesn’t exist for those who don’t believe. But the world around us exists, despite our personal beliefs. Someone could walk around all day believing the world doesn’t exist but it has no effect at all on the perceptions of everyone else that the world does exist (allowing for the brain in the vat hypothesis of course). You don't believe in the theory of evolution. That lack of belief is personal for you as you've stated, but your belief doesn't affect the standing of the theory of evolution. Unlike the God hypothesis, the theory of evolution is amenable to scientific observation. It's simply a theory about how living things have changed over millions of years. I don't think it's even a proof in the sense of it being absolute. It's possibly a tentative theory but it seems to be the best explanation we have at present and it was derived from observation, not from reason. It will do until a better explanation comes along and the effect will probably be akin to the shift in human understanding from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. Nothing will actually change in the real world. All the observations will still be there, it's just that our understanding of those observations will have changed. The existence of God is not proven by any empirical evidence. If there's any there I would be pleased to be better informed.
lol, if something like matter needs a creator, then would not something more complex like your God need one too? many Atheists believe in a life after death, they just do not believe in your God, kinda like all the Gods you disbelieve in
lol, you made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Provide these arguments based on EMPIRICAL evidence.
So, you have evidence of god? Have you told the Pope and all the other religious leaders and religious scholars around the world, because they don't know of any. I'm sure they'd appreciate your special insight. Truly.
Huh? Nobody needs a book to explain how not to believe in god. It would be like writing a book to explain to non-smokers how to not smoke or a book that tells people who have no desire to skydive how to not skydive. Silly.
I have yet to see an atheist family dressed in their finest atheist attire walk up to my door on a Saturday or Sunday and plea through the words of a small child for my conversion. I have yet to see any politician end a speech by proclaiming that God does not exist or that, gasp, reason and logic should guide us not some ancient text written by ignorant savages from the Bronze Age. I do see atheists standing up for themselves in forums like this that are meant to be open discussions where clearly any and all propositions can be challenged. So the idea that atheists are somehow promoting their lack of faith in any way that compares to the religious movements is projection.
You probably know boatloads of atheists without realizing it, because most atheists don't ever think about god. When you bow your head to thank god for the beautiful food on the table, we just bow our heads politely and sit quietly while you do that. We may even pretend to mumble an amen, just so you know we are in the 'club.' Mostly, we really want to talk about it as little as possible while going about our lives.
When I helped sort books at a charity shop I used to sling nonchristian books in the rubbish skip out back after tearing out a handfull of pages first so nobody could fish them out later..
YES, you "want to talk about it" so little that you obsess over it, and come back to any thread again and again and again, repeating how "little" you think about God. But back to the subject of the thread I created, which is science - discovering what is already there, waiting for us. Adventures of Some Early Jesuit Scientists José de Acosta, S.J. - 1600: Pioneer of the Geophysical Sciences François De Aguilon, S.J. - 1617: and his Six books on Optics Roger Joseph Boscovich, S.J. - 1787: and his atomic theory Christopher Clavius, S.J. - 1612: and his Gregorian Calendar Honoré Fabri, S.J. - 1688: and his post-calculus geometry Francesco M. Grimaldi, S.J. - 1663: and his diffraction of light Paul Guldin, S.J. - 1643: applications of Guldin's Rule Maximilian Hell, S.J. - 1792: and his Mesmerizing encounters Athanasius Kircher, S.J. - 1680: The Master of a Hundred Arts Francesco Lana-Terzi, S.J. - 1687: The Father of Aeronautics Francis Line, S.J. - 1654: the hunted and elusive clock maker Juan Molina, S.J. - 1829: The First Scientist of Chile Jerôme Nadal, S.J. -1580: perspective art and composition of place Ignace Pardies, S.J. - 1673: and his influence on Newton Andrea Pozzo, S.J. - 1709: and his perspective geometry Vincent Riccati, S.J. - 1775: and his hyperbolic functions Matteo Ricci, S.J. - 1610: who brought scientific innovations to China John Baptist Riccioli, S.J. - 167I: and his long-lived selenograph Girolamo Saccheri, S.J. - 1733: and his solution to Euclid's blemish Theorems of Saccheri, S.J. - 1733: and his non Euclidean Geometry Christopher Scheiner, S.J. - 1650: sunspots and his equatorial mount Gaspar Schott, S.J. - 1666: and the experiment at Magdeburg Angelo Secchi, S.J. - 1878: the Father of Astrophysics Joseph Stepling, S.J. - 1650: symbolic logic and his research academy André Tacquet, S.J. - 1660: and his treatment of infinitesimals Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S. J. - 1955: and The Phenomenon of man Ferdinand Verbiest, S.J. - 1688: an influential Jesuit scientist in China Juan Bautista Villalpando, S.J. - 1608: and his version of Solomon's Temple Gregory Saint Vincent, S.J. - 1667: and his polar coordinates Nicolas Zucchi, S.J. - 1670: the renowned telescope maker
I have no issues debating about it on a forum. As a recovering Catholic, I find it cathartic. Going about my life, though? Nah... hardly ever comes up and when it does, I don't tell anyone I'm atheist. (well, more agnostic, really.)
[PDF] Deprogramming Members of Religious Sects - FLASH: The ... http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2305&context=flr - similar pages
I used to visit a specialist bookshop that dealt with all the New Age guff but also had a very good philosophy section. I used to refer to the second hand shelf as the Reincarnation section.
You mentioned Teilhard. Brilliant man. Pity the Church gave him such a hard time. But back to the subject. Yes, science is about discovery but it's also about explanation, not just description. It's also about prediction. It's a wonderful tool. But it's not so wonderful as to be able to discover what isn't there.
What? "Science" in your dialectic, "discovered" anthropogenic climate change, which isn't there and that was almost 150 years after it "discovered" Darwinian evolution, which also isn't there. Then too, your brand of pretend "science" also discovered "The Multiverse" which is a pathetic way to try to circumvent the Anthropic Principle, which is there and is profoundly consistent, insuperably so.
I'm not a scientist so I get things wrong about science all the time. However I'm pretty sure that there's consensus at present on the climate and on evolution. That can change of course, science does that because it isn't restricted by dogma.
Science has never claimed to have created the things it studies. Unless it does actually verifiably create the things it studies. You seem confused.
What on earth does that have to do with Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribal lore? Because I'm going to take a wild guess here, and assume that's what you're alluding to.
