Evidence There is No God?

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

You chose a very poor example! The sky emits waves of light with a particular distribution of frequencies. Humanity (the great majority) calls that the color "blue." It's the definition of that shade of blue. If some lone individual defines that particular distribution of frequencies as the color "red," then we have that person's meaning of "red." When he talks about a "red" sky he means what you call a "blue" sky. There is no true/false issue to be settled!

As I explained in my Great Green Spider example, popularity does not determine the burden of proof. The burden of proof always, always falls on the shoulders of those advancing unproven claims.

mykcob4's picture
@ John

@ John
No, Atheism is the default because it came first. Belief in a god was a creation by man, NOT the natural state. It is up to believers to PROVE what they claim. It doesn't matter how old or widespread that belief is.
Intellectual laziness is to make a claim and then REFUSE to prove it. That, in a nutshell, is religion.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy:

John 61X Breezy:

I understand your point, but it's still true that if someone claims that the sky is blue the burden of proof is on his shoulders even as it is on the shoulders of the guy who claims that it is red. The only difference is that the first case has already met the burden of proof in the eyes of experts. Both advocates have the burden of proof since both are making positive statements.

In the case of atheism, we may reject theology for lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim about what exists or does not exist. (Rejecting the God idea for lack of evidence is not the same as claiming that God doesn't exist.) It's not our job to show that God doesn't exist (or else accept the idea). On that basis we would be accepting the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and a whole lot more!

mykcob4's picture
You say things like "logical"

You say things like "logical" and "makes sense" yet your stance is illogical and makes no sense. Believers made up their god, it is on them to prove it. I can make ANY ridiculous claim and the burden would be on ME to prove it no matter how popular or old or entrenched in society that claim may be.
I don't agree that not being able to disprove it makes it false, only likely to be false. But you can't just claim that since so many people are god believers that it is the responsibility of non-believers to disprove a god or gods. That is totally irrational.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

If most of the world believed in the Great Green Spider of Jupiter, does that mean you have the burden of proof to rebut it? If you have the burden of proof and must rebut it, then doesn't that mean that if you fail to rebut the Great Green Spider of Jupiter you must accept it as the default position? The burden of proof does make a difference! The atheist isn't the one making claims about what exists out there (unless he or she asserts that there is positively no god). The atheist need only lean back in his chair and ask "Where's the beef?" No evidence, no belief.

chimp3's picture
Gods cannot be disproven.

Gods cannot be disproven. That is not intellectual laziness. There is simply no way to disprove something so immaterial and nonexistent. I would say to John6IXBreezy that you could not possibly disprove the existence of Krishna even if you desired too. To place that burden on atheists is fallacious.

...'s picture
I don't think that's the case

I don't think that's the case. Of course as I mentioned I don't know anything about Krishna. But theres a reason why all the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman gods are expired. Because those gods make specific claims about the nature of the universe. Zeus, Thor, etc control lightning. The moment we can predict and control lightning those claims are disproven. If Santa Claus lives in the north pole, we can go to the north pole and disprove it. The God of the Bible also makes some pretty bold claims about the nature of the universe. If you want to disprove my religion, it's as easy as disproving those claims.

For example, abiogenesis. The moment we can create life, my religion collapses.

So like I said, making excuses for not knowing how to disprove something is intellectual laziness.

chimp3's picture
@John6IXBreezy: Krishna is

@John6IXBreezy: Krishna is alive and well in many, many peoples minds. They worship him, perform rituals in his honor, dance and sing to him. People witness how they experience his loving presence and look to him for guidance in their lives. I have been witnessed to by some of his devotees and shared prasad with them.Quite beautiful , gentle, and colorful actually!
Since he does not appear to be a dead god to many people why not try and disprove his existence?

...'s picture
Me personally? Why don't I do

Me personally? Why don't I do that? I already told you. Not because they need to prove it to me, but because it's not practical for me. I don't live with Hindus, I don't hear ppl talk about it, I don't know anything about it. When it becomes relevant in my life I'll focus on it.

The difference is I don't make excuses for that. But your post seemed to be brushing off that responsibility. If I misread then I apologize.

chimp3's picture
@John6IXBreezy: So , help me

@John6IXBreezy: So , help me out here. Since I say Krishna does not exist except in the imaginations of his devotees I will momentarily accept the responsibility of proving his nonexistence. OK , I have no clue as to how. Can you help me with this problem?

...'s picture
Well I don't know anything

Well I don't know anything about Krishna except that he's (or her) is blue. But I told you how to solve the problem. Find the claims it makes, and disprove those.

chimp3's picture
How does debunking a claim

How does debunking a claim about a god disprove that god? How does our knowledge of lightening disprove the existence of Zeus? One can simply say that Zeus controls the conditions for lightening and chooses its victims.

...'s picture
But we've tamed lightning. So

Because we've tamed lightning. So either Zeus can't control it, or he loves throwing it at our lightning rods.

So what does it mean to have a god that can't do what it claims? It means he's not a god.

chimp3's picture
John6IXBreezy: So , in the

John6IXBreezy: So , in the Book of Job god gives his longest speech and claims to be in control of the forces of nature. Job 38:35 god claims to be able to send lightning. Is the god of Job now disproven? Benjamin Franklin awaits the honor of being the Grand Debunker !

...'s picture
So here's the interesting

So here's the interesting thing about the Christian (Abrahamic) God. The claim our God makes is in being the creator rather than the mechanism. It's one thing to say I designed a car, than saying I'm the reason it runs.

God claims to have created the universe and all the laws that make it move, progress, and live. If we can control lightning, then God can too. But that's different from saying he's the god of lightning, which is the case of Greek gods.

chimp3's picture
Job38:35 god claims to be in

Job38:35 god claims to be in control of lightning. Since we can divert it I guess it is settled. At least according your previous post.

...'s picture
Ok I'll withdraw my claim

Ok I'll withdraw my claim until I can argue it better. The difference I wanted to make is in saying, "I can control lightning," and saying "I am the lightning, or I am the cause of it."

But I'm having trouble wording it.

God producing the sun, and setting it in motion, is different from Apollo that claims to move the sun with he's chariot across the sky.

Apollo is disproved by showing that the sun doesn't even move. The Christian God is disproved by showing He didn't create it. Thats why debates of Christianity happen with evolution or big bang, because those are claims which can disprove God.

Tieler's picture
"Apollo is disproved by

"Apollo is disproved by showing that the sun doesn't even move."

Seeing as how the Sun and all other objects in the Milky Way orbit a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy(sorry, I had to pick that).

Evolution: Proven Fact
Big Bang: Generally accepted.

chimp3's picture
John6IXBreezy: There is a new

John6IXBreezy: There is a new breakthrough in abiogenesis research. Not confirmed yet , but promising.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

"Dissipative-driven adaptation". How about that! Second law of thermodynamics being used to explain how life originated not how abiogenesis is impossible.

The Pragmatic's picture
LoL! Interesting if it holds

LoL! Interesting if it holds up!

I can almost hear creationist brains popping like popcorn!

Tieler's picture
"The moment we can create
...'s picture
I skimmed through the first

I skimmed through the first article. I think this is an interesting topic to start a new thread on. But from the surface it isn't really abiogenesis. They scanned a bacterias dna, copied it, and put it in a living cell. They essentially did a heart transplant, on a cellular level. The DNA sythesis part is pretty legit though. I wish they focused more on that than the clickbait "playing god" stance.

It's a first step though.

Tieler's picture
"I think this is an

"I think this is an interesting topic to start a new thread on."

Fire away!

Algebe's picture
"The moment we can create

"The moment we can create life, my religion collapses."

In addition to the biologists, computer scientists also seem to be on the verge of creating artificial life. I wonder if they'll call it HAL.

Tieler's picture
"I wonder if they'll call it

"I wonder if they'll call it HAL."

I'm sorry Algebe, but I'm afraid I can't let them do that.

MCD's picture
The moment we can create life

The moment we can create life... Sounds like its time for the Birds and the Bees talk. Creating life is a regular occurrence on this planet.

Tieler's picture
"The moment we can create

This comment has been edited in order to ensure the edit was done by the Department of Redundancy Department's Redundant Editing Department for Redundancy Editing.

If you would like a specialty redundant editing special, please hesitate to call:
1-8RE-DUN-DANT

The Pragmatic's picture
Stop petting your mouse! :P

Stop petting your mouse! :P

Tieler's picture
Hmm?

Hmm?
What? Did you say something?

Hawk Flint's picture
Lol

Lol

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.