Prove God doesn't exist.

[POOPIES]

What does it mean to be an atheist in a God-fearing nation like the United States? Anywhere from 90 percent to 95 percent of Americans profess to believe in a deity. No wonder some self-avowed atheists are proud of their dissident status. A Web site of "atheist celebrities" lists, among others, Woody Allen, Richard Avedon, Marlon Brando, Jodie Foster, Jack Germond, Christopher Hitchens, Jack Nicholson, Penn and Teller, and Gore Vidal. Hitchens and Vidal have trumpeted their atheism in print; ditto for the columnist Katha Pollitt and the science writer Natalie Angier. Since these four are intellectuals, we might expect from them some powerful arguments for the nonexistence of God, arguments that would shake the faith of a reasonable believer. But a look at their public statements makes it doubtful whether they have even earned the honorific "atheist."

Katha Pollitt may have declared herself an atheist on Crossfire, but she neglected to disclose her grounds for taking this position. In fact, she says, she is not even anti-religion. She is merely "anti-clerical": She doesn't like priests and ministers. Well, neither did Voltaire, but he was not an atheist. Natalie Angier, in her "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," complained that "nothing seems as despised, illicit and un-American as atheism." But she adduced no reasoning that might bring other Americans into her camp and hence render her less lonely. Gore Vidal has had great fun railing against the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "sky-god," in whose name all sorts of evils have been committed. Then he cites the countervailing wisdom of the deist Thomas Jefferson.

Of all the public-intellectual atheists, the most stalwart and lucid is probably Christopher Hitchens. "I'm an atheist," Hitchens said in a recent interview. "I'm not just neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one." Being anti-religion, however, is not intellectually equivalent to affirming the nonexistence of God. Bertrand Russell, who occupied the same ground as Hitchens, was careful to stress that he was agnostic, not atheist: "An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. … The agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or denial."

Being an atheist is a philosophical stance. It is not enough simply to declare yourself one: That is mere dogmatism—like announcing, without further argument, that you don't believe in free will or objective values. If you wish to be an intellectually interesting atheist, you are obliged to give some evidence for your position. After all, there are plenty of rational and fiercely intelligent thinkers—Garry Wills, to name one—who don't agree with you.

The evidentiary ledger has two sides: reasons for believing God exists, and reasons for believing God doesn't exist. It is sometimes claimed that science has annihilated all the reasons in the pro-God column. That was close to being true in the 19th century. Victorian geologists were able to show that the Earth was vastly older than the Bible supposed. Chemists demystified life by synthesizing organic molecules in the lab. Darwin scuppered the notion that a divine artificer was needed to explain the marvelously adaptive designs found in nature. By the end of the 19th century, a purely material worldview—one that excluded supernatural explanations or spiritual phenomena, let alone a deity—seemed quite plausible.

That is pretty much the worldview staked out by today's public atheists. They haven't come to terms with 20 th-century science, which revived some of the reasons in the pro-God column. The discovery that the universe began with a creationlike Big Bang around 13 billion years ago, for example, breathed new life into the so-called cosmological argument, which posits God as the first cause of nature. The discovery that the fundamental laws of nature contained constants that appear to have been fine-tuned so that the cosmos would eventually yield intelligent life lent new credence to the design argument for God's existence. Quantum theory dematerialized reality, making the cosmos seem more like a thought than like a machine. But whose thought?

Such scientific ideas have been invoked by a new generation of what might be called "cosmic deists," including the physicists Paul Davies and Frank Tipler and the Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne. In his book Nonzero, sometime Slate columnist Robert Wright observes that "an appraisal of the state of things from a scientific standpoint yields more evidence of divinity than you might expect." The divinity they have in mind is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or even of Garry Wills. It is just some intelligent entity that somehow has something to do with the ordering of the universe.

At least one public atheist, the physics Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg, has done much to undermine the new scientific pro-God evidence. Even if our universe had a beginning in time, Weinberg points out, current theory indicates that it may be part of an eternal network of Big Bangs. And in this many-universe model, it is not surprising that one of the universes should chance to be congenial to intelligent life, or that we should find ourselves in it. No need for the God hypothesis, Weinberg argues.

But is there any evidence against this hypothesis? Can the existence of God be disproved, or at least rendered highly improbable, as the atheist wishes to do? There are only two arguments for the nonexistence of God with any intellectual merit. The first says that the concept of God is incoherent: that, for instance, omnipotence gives rise to paradoxes (can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?), or that moral perfection is incompatible with divine freedom. This is very much a philosopher's argument, and it has been worked over to the point of inconclusiveness.

The second argument, the argument from evil, has much more force. How can there be evil in a world presided over by an all-powerful and all-good being? Either God was willing but unable to prevent Auschwitz, or he was able but unwilling.

[POOPIES]

From Leibniz down to the present this argument has been countered with tremendous subtlety, most recently by the Notre Dame philosopher Peter van Inwagen. In a trio of lectures titled "Is It Possible To Disprove the Existence of God?" that he delivered this fall at Princeton, van Inwagen gave the classic free-will explanation of the existence of evil: To ask God to give me free choice between x and y and to see to it that I chose x instead of y is to ask him to do the logically impossible.

Van Inwagen concluded his lectures by saying that although his own belief in God was not based on reasons he could state, no one had provided a particularly good argument for supposing it was irrational. By symmetry, if you just happen to be of an atheist kidney, like Katha Pollitt and Christopher Hitchens, or indeed Marlon Brando and Jodie Foster, no theist will be able to convict you of irrationality, either.

For everyone else, there would appear to be three theological options. 1) You can believe, as I do, that the universe is presided over by a being that is 100 percent malevolent but only 80 percent effective (which explains pretty much everything). 2) You can agree with logical positivists, who claimed that "God exists" is cognitively meaningless and hence neither true nor false. Or 3) you can become a Unitarian.

Which puts me in mind of a joke. Q: How do you protest the fact that a Unitarian family has moved into your neighborhood? A: You burn a question mark on their lawn.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/21/06 01:05 AM, KemCab wrote: If you wish to be an intellectually interesting atheist, you are obliged to give some evidence for your position. After all, there are plenty of rational and fiercely intelligent thinkers—Garry Wills, to name one—who don't agree with you.

If it's asked, I'll go into a long philosophical debate about why I'm an atheist. Who gives a shit about being "intellectually interesting" though?

But whose thought?

Those really don't necessarily hint at a higher being creating and setting the guidlines for them. It can be interpretted that way, but that isn't the only logical interpretation.

But is there any evidence against this hypothesis?

There is no die-hard evidence against it, and never will be.

or at least rendered highly improbable, as the atheist wishes to do?

Obviously it can, if atheists exist.

There are only two arguments for the nonexistence of God with any intellectual merit. The first says that the concept of God is incoherent: that, for instance, omnipotence gives rise to paradoxes (can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?), or that moral perfection is incompatible with divine freedom. This is very much a philosopher's argument, and it has been worked over to the point of inconclusiveness.

The second argument, the argument from evil, has much more force. How can there be evil in a world presided over by an all-powerful and all-good being? Either God was willing but unable to prevent Auschwitz, or he was able but unwilling.

I suppose it depends on what you consider as "intellectual merit". Would you consider philosophically driven questions and ideas as holding "intellectual merit"? There are many more topics that could be further discussed than these to convince one to become atheist. One such is the thought that the human mind was created too complex for itself; it was able to question, but unable to recieve any definate answers in this aspect. But that's for another time.

It's quite possible to believe in very atheistic things, such as the idea that everything is an incredible series of coincidences. I am personally quite positive that there is no higher being of any sort, but I won't attempt to explain my reasoning further because I feel that religion is a very noble institution, and like Voltaire said, "If there wasn't a God, he would have to be created." If you are really interested in having a discussion about this, feel free to contact me on aim sometime.

[LightMemories]

N one ever said God didn't exist.........not me anyway......

[Camarohusky]

You neglect to look at the opposite view, the main view of the athiests. it's the same exact question you pose, but turned around. "How can you prove that god DOES exist?"

Both of those questions are by nature worthless, and arrogant. They solve nothing, because neither can be confrimed, nor denied. To think that any human could ever prove either way, especially with as little as we know now is just plain arrogant. No human KNOWS and no humen proably ever will. Yes many believe, but belief and concrete knowledge, althoughthey can mimic each otehr aret wo completely different things.

The better question is, "How can we use what we believe to benefit the world around us?" Too much time is spent on fighting over who is right and not on whether it makes a difference. It doesn't, just flat out does not, what makes a difference is how one uses their belief, or lack there of.

[Lardosama]

Does it really matter whether or not a person is an atheist in the scheme of things politically?

[Bizarro]

Atheists reserve as much a right as to not believe in god as those who do believe in god. Just because they believe something different from whats mostly accepted doesnt mean its true or that you need to interrogate their wishes. I didnt really read most of your post becuase its seemed extraneous and not really relevant to what you titled your post.

[beardofchuck]

You can prove that the christian god doesn't exist. You cannot prove a higher power doesn't exist though. I am an athiest incase you wanted to know. :P
I will demonsrate my theory.

The bible is the word of god, god speaks no lies.
God said the world was created aprox. five thousand years ago.
The world is BILLIONS! of years old, so this is a lie.
Bing bada boom done. I'm not trying to offend anyone but the christian god just doesn't exist. I'm also not saying that a higher power doesn't exist because thats impossible unless you know what happened before the big bang. For thoughs who are offended... Christianity could just be a very popular take on the real religion.

Also my two cents on religion. I think any sort of religion was just invented to keep order in the masses wthout an actual army. Keep order to the army too. Religion in my eyes was invented to stop everyone chopping each others head off for the sake of something like a sandwich.

[Bizarro]

At 11/21/06 11:03 AM, beardofchuck wrote: The bible is the word of god, god speaks no lies.
God said the world was created aprox. five thousand years ago.
The world is BILLIONS! of years old, so this is a lie.
Bing bada boom done.

Thats a load of crap though because you cant take everything in the bible as literal world could refer to the actual formation of the earth which ages back to billions of years, or it could refer to the world in the sense of mans existence either way Christians don't believe that the world is billions of years old anyway, they only think thousands, hence their argument of evolution not being true. You cant really use some paradox crap to disprove a god because noone will believe it, people normally need more proof than someone playing with words

Also my two cents on religion. I think any sort of religion was just invented to keep order in the masses wthout an actual army. Keep order to the army too. Religion in my eyes was invented to stop everyone chopping each others head off for the sake of something like a sandwich.

Again not really on the mark with this. Religion dates back to a long long long time ago and was used to describe things that humans couldn't understand such as the romans and greeks having gods for just about anything(sun, love, sea and so on). In later times religion may have been used to encourage army's and give them hope and power in their battles, but that was not its sole purpose

[Peter-II]

http://www.slate.com/id/2075653/

At least give credit to the websites you plagiarize.

[Bizarro]

At 11/21/06 11:22 AM, Peter-II wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/2075653/

At least give credit to the websites you plagiarize.

Wow...thats amazing it's hard to believe people can suck that much...good job there KemCab you've set the standard for being an asshole

[beardofchuck]

Hey, Bizzaro. Just my opinion, nobody needs to even listen to me. You have however made me go away and re-think a new theory to disprove any singular religion being the right one. I think all religions are just interpretations of one major hidden one. I respect what your saying dude, don't be too touchy on what I say though. I speak alot of shit sometimes.

[Bizarro]

At 11/21/06 11:41 AM, beardofchuck wrote: Hey, Bizzaro. Just my opinion, nobody needs to even listen to me. You have however made me go away and re-think a new theory to disprove any singular religion being the right one. I think all religions are just interpretations of one major hidden one. I respect what your saying dude, don't be too touchy on what I say though. I speak alot of shit sometimes.

Yeah what you stated in the last part was your opinion but it turned out to be wrong. It is true that religion was used that way now, but don't bastardize the creation of religion, which we most likely owe our existence to, to something like a tool of war. As for being too touchy, I wasn't trying to come off that way, I was just arguing the points you presented. Personally I have little to no solid opinion on religion so I like arguing for both sides...its fun.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

Why is it that religious people make what they want in the Bible metaphoricle and literal.

"Lets see the Bible says the Earth is 5 thousand years old"
"But science says the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old"
"Well then..umm.....In God time 1 year for him is a billion years for us"

"God made the Universe"
"Acually using scientific studie and mathmatical equasions, weve determined that a huge explosion using microwave radiation, matter and anti matter caused the elements to create other things such as suns, planets, black holes and so on"
"God made the big bang"

Religion keeps making excuses for inacurate data made from a time when going to school was saved for the super rich.

I mean its easier to trust a scientist with tones of PHD's and an IQ above 200, rather than a priest who didnt even finish school.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/21/06 12:15 PM, scottish-cunt wrote: I mean its easier to trust a scientist with tones of PHD's and an IQ above 200, rather than a priest who didnt even finish school.

You could name more world-changing scientists that believed in God than world-changing scientists that didn't.

[beardofchuck]

Cunt, I couldnt put it better myself. You hit the nail on the head, my opinion exactly. This is were I start waving the Lion Rampant with a big smile on my face and wait for a good comeback from somebody. Or be shot... jokin :P

[Bizarro]

At 11/21/06 12:15 PM, scottish-cunt wrote: Religion keeps making excuses for inacurate data made from a time when going to school was saved for the super rich.

I mean its easier to trust a scientist with tones of PHD's and an IQ above 200, rather than a priest who didnt even finish school.

If they didn't, change things to try and make sense with what they believe then they wouldn't have their religion, which is very important to people. They aren't doing ti just to be assholes they are doing it so they can accept both discoveries of science and god

[LazyDrunk]

could God make a rock so large he could not lift it?

Could a man build a structure so large he couldn't devise a way to transport it, ever? Answer: if he htought it was worth it :)

God wouldn't be a computer program, but an entity with sway over his own programming.

If life existed within us (bacteria being the largest, comparable to a galaxy) wouldn't the inhabitants of some gifted earth-like proton (one in a sea of seemingly unending "dead" planets) eventually observe their surroundings? If our genes acted as the physical "laws of nature" within our own bodies, would we be considered their unwitting Gods?

Space is a vaccuum. Wouldn't that entail enclosure of some sort? A contained environment maybe?

Just thoughts.

[beardofchuck]

Also my opinion exactly. People can believe what they want, who are we to say they shouldn't by even trying to prove and religion is flawed. This goes the same for others aswell, people should not try convert the "lost" souls. If you get my meaning.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/21/06 12:23 PM, beardofchuck wrote: wait for a good comeback from somebody. Or be shot... jokin :P

See my post above.

Not only did the majority of people who ushered-in huge advanced in thought and science believe in God, but even as of around last year the majority of the general scientific community believes in God also.

So yeah, trust the people with the Ph. D's.

:P

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

You know what I was thinking if there was a jesus and what would happen if he came back.

We'd call him a lier and stuff him in the looney bin. lolol

Or just kill him again

"Father I was crucified.....AGAIN!"
"It doesnt matter son. Third times the charm"
"Why is it me getting all the punishment? Next time you go down and get your ass shot off"
"umm....ehhh....I cant son. I cannot leave heaven. For I would....die"
"Your lieing bastard. You just dont want to face your mistake!"
"That is not true son. I love all those horrible people down there"
"Its not my fault that you made walking fuck ups"

Its soo brilliant its...EVIL! mu ha ha ha ha

[beardofchuck]

At 11/21/06 12:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Space is a vaccuum. Wouldn't that entail enclosure of some sort? A contained environment maybe?

Just thoughts.

Are you suggesting we are living within the bowels of god? Interesting theory... I can't think of anything to prove it wrong.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 11/21/06 12:47 PM, beardofchuck wrote:

At 11/21/06 12:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Space is a vaccuum. Wouldn't that entail enclosure of some sort? A contained environment maybe?

Just thoughts.

Are you suggesting we are living within the bowels of god? Interesting theory... I can't think of anything to prove it wrong.

God has constepation! Everyone hold on!

[LazyDrunk]

What makes an electron an electron? It has energy, and almost all are bound within their respective atoms... with a few straying once in awhile when influenced by forces imposed upon them.

Stay in school kids, become a scientist on the forefront of molecular research and find these things for me.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 11/21/06 12:57 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What makes an electron an electron? It has energy, and almost all are bound within their respective atoms... with a few straying once in awhile when influenced by forces imposed upon them.

Stay in school kids, become a scientist on the forefront of molecular research and find these things for me.

Left school. and forgot all the other languages, maths and english the second I passed that front gate

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/21/06 12:47 PM, beardofchuck wrote:

At 11/21/06 12:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Space is a vaccuum. Wouldn't that entail enclosure of some sort? A contained environment maybe?

Just thoughts.

Are you suggesting we are living within the bowels of god? Interesting theory... I can't think of anything to prove it wrong.

Wouldnt that fall into pantheism?

Anyway, i'm an atheist (in a sense). You just have to think, every body that is in motion has a force acting upon it. Everything that exists has a creator.. In essence you could argue that a creator exists however, why does this creator have to be that which is described in religious scriptures? Also, if everything that exists has a cause to its existence wouldn't that mean that theres an infinite chain of events which caused our universe? If so then the Abrahamic view of god cannot exist as all scriptures state that "god" is eternal and an unmoved mover.. How is this possible if all that exists, all that existed and all that will exist has something which caused its existence?

While i don't dispute the existence of a "creator" of the universe (it ultimately would be illogical to suggest otherwise) i do dispute the existence of a sentient creator afterall it is far more logical to suggest that the caus eof the universe is just a "blind" force, nothing more.

[Erkie]

The ideal of selfnesses: destroying a man's mind so he is disillusioned into wanting god, then needing god, because the recognition validates that his meaningless life is meaningful by submiting and envying to someone else.

Apparently a lot of people get on fine without that. Are you denying that possibility? A man can't fulfill his own fantasies?

[beardofchuck]

I have another theory!

God gave us free will right. Well according to the chaos theory free will is an illusion. Chaos theory spawned from newtons third law. All actions have an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore everything must have a pattern. If there is a pattern then you can predict the future. If you knew where every atom in the universe was at one point (doesn't matter when) and you knew where they were going you could tell the story of the universe. You would know all that happened and all that will happen. So I have established free will to be an illusion. Therefore god doesn't exist or he's telling big pork pies.

P.S. - The chaos theory also means if you went out and shot one hundred people it wouldn't matter because you were going to go out and shoot one hundred people anyway. A pretty lame excuse as the chaos theory doesn't stop you going to jail and being hated by billions. :P

[cold-as-hell]

At 11/21/06 02:52 PM, beardofchuck wrote: I have another theory!

God gave us free will right. Well according to the chaos theory free will is an illusion. Chaos theory spawned from newtons third law. All actions have an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore everything must have a pattern. If there is a pattern then you can predict the future. If you knew where every atom in the universe was at one point (doesn't matter when) and you knew where they were going you could tell the story of the universe. You would know all that happened and all that will happen. So I have established free will to be an illusion. Therefore god doesn't exist or he's telling big pork pies.

P.S. - The chaos theory also means if you went out and shot one hundred people it wouldn't matter because you were going to go out and shoot one hundred people anyway. A pretty lame excuse as the chaos theory doesn't stop you going to jail and being hated by billions. :P

I thought the chaos theory was unpredictibility. Like in theory if you had a room with no window or doors just a man and a bouncy ball. If you threw the ball you could predict its where its going to land in after its 30th impact on the wall. But the mass varibles made this prediction almost impossible. Like trying to predict the weather for months to come. But I got it from Micheal Crichton's Jurassic park (Yes I read a novel)

[SolInvictus]

not again. *sigh*