God does not exist

In that case, a number of eminent scientists, like Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, Bernard Haisch, and Sir Arthur Eddington, Fred Hoyle, Kenneth Miller, Sir James Jeans, and Francis Collins have put forward compelling cases that the God hypothesis is consistent with the available scientific evidence, and in their opinions best fits the facts, although none of these scientists would say that there is scientific "proof" of God. On another thread I posted the arguments by Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God, which goes over the science and logic of the issue. Not too shabby. What kind of God are they talking about? An intelligent agent responsible for the integrated complexity of the universe. Intelligent Agent doesn't mean Intelligent Design. We're not talking about micro-management here. And "intelligence" is probably the best analogy we can come up with in talking about something so clearly "other" from us. Is this Yaweh or Allah? Does (S)he watch over us and hear our prayers? To my knowledge, that would be going way beyond the evidence. Awe at the felt presence of Something Big Out There can trigger attempts to figure it out, but I'm skeptical that these efforts have been successful. Still, I don't think people who sense the presence of a Higher Power are simply blowing smoke out their asses.

 

There is NO evidence for the existence of God. How many times must I state the obvious? If there was such proof of an almighty existence, then everyone would believe without question. The fact that people do question proves that there is no evidence of such a divine existence.

 

there is also no evidence that he doesn't

 

There is also evidence that lots of things do not exist, but reason dictates that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are not real. Therefore, the same logic can be applied to God.

 

no

 

Yes.

 

I'm sorry, but what?

There is evidence that lots of things do not exist. That's what you're saying?

That isn't even a response to the quoted post. It's just a random statement.

The statement was

I don't see how the fact that there is evidence which disproves some things disagrees at all with the fact that there is no evidence which disproves other things.

 

When there is no evidence for something it automatically disproves that something exists. Until such evidence can be found, one has only faith upon which to rely. Show me the proof, and I will believe. Otherwise, it does not exist.

 

You must learn to read a post carefully before you respond.

 

Then clarify, or is that too hard for you?

 

It doesn't work like that. Solid proof to one man is solid bullshit to another. We can all look at a simple rock on a hill and we will all see something different. This is the spice of life. If it were so cut and dry as you wish it were then life on Earth would be boring as shit.

 

you would still have questions beyond belief .

since you haven't recognized a personal experience of god , i suggest you propose
god isn't all mighty . if god is not almighty , then what ?
god is small , and
an experience of god is not the big whang doodle .

if god is impossible to experience , then why bother crazy people ? some
say jesus will return , stand on some cloud in the sky , and every knee shall
bend in recognition . what is everybody going to believe in then ... peace and love ?

yep , it's almost the end of the world . the world is all explored and filled
up . is the question peace or anihilation ? crazy . i already see words in the sky
written in the clouds , not words like these though . they are words i follow and
nothing bad happens from doing that , so obviously , they are peace words and of a
quiet sort of wonderfulness . they do not scream jesus jesus as if the world is
on fire . if god , god if .

love follows the peace .
peace is intersection . first with
the mother , later with with wind and sky , and
mmm is for magic christian , ha~ . i'll consider
the
m
like lips of an infant sucking the tee nah nah . ok ,
now who wants a zoozoo ?

 

If I must. Here are the posts in reference.

Jo King asserted that there is no evidence to disprove god. You retorted by asserting that there is evidence which disproves other things, such as the easter bunny and santa clause. Do you not see why your response doesn't apply to the original statement?

The fact that some things can be disproven(you said this)

does not preclude the possibility that other completely separate things may not be able to be proven or disproven. (Jo King said this)

The problem here is that Jo King made a statement which retorts your previous statement against the existence of god, and under the guise of responding to his retort you made a broad statement which appears to be valid, but truly has no relation to the original topic which you were responding to.

 

God is an uncompromising sadistic ****.....sentencing people to an eternity burning in lava for a few misdemeanours is way way over the top, what an ass-hole....

 

Yes, proof and knowledge does work like that. It is called reality, the knowledge of the real world. Not mythology based on fairy tale wishings and silly dreams.

 

Nope. Doesn't work like that. Reality can be subjective. I'm sure you'll disagree but that's like, just your opinion man. Whether you like it or not, you (nor I) will never understand this world and the forces behind it. It is out of our scope.

You claiming that there is 0% chance of there being a God is just as ignorant as someone saying that the Bible proves his existence.

There's never been a know-it-all who did.

 

How dare you athiests doubt my existence?

 

Hush you, you're a figment of imagination.