God does not exist

Exactly.

 

Really? When do you think "religion formed"? Why do you think "people were perfect" before that happened? And what do you mean by "people". Cro Magnons? Neanderthals? Homo erectus? Were any of those "perfect"? And if religion was such a bad thing, why did it develop, and why is there no society today that hasn't had a history of religion? Could anything do that without evolutionary advantage?

 

I do not think I have to explain this to you, but it is common knowledge according to archeological history that man has not always believed in a Higher Power. Primitive man was born with no knowledge of what existed around him, which is provable through evolution, and he only created God through a need to explain his origins.

 

religion gives people a sort of meaning so they dont feel completely hopeless.

Im not saying perfect just probably happy and satisfied with simply surviving. Im working too have a wealthy future im a clean person and i do like to believe there is a god, because i dont enjoy life right now. If i could smoke and fuck fine women all day i would love life and never have a problem but i dont want to be homeless. I hope you understood that i was kind of conveying an idea while venting.

 

So if you could do that, would you believe in God? You say you would like to believe, but do you? Or is your belief conditional on something?

 

Siding with it would be quoting it and offering help with examples from its text. We know for fact that Santa, The tooth fairy and the easter bunny were fabricated. Do you have evidence that undeniably shows that god doesn't exist? No. Does the religious man or woman have proof of divine existence, no. No one is right, and no one is wrong. I apologize if it appears as though I've taken a side. Such is not the case.

When you talk about god, or lack there of. Your talking about the creation of the known universe and any others that might exist. I am on the fence in argument, you've just grown so offensive on the subject that anyone believing something different than you is viewed as less than you. The only thing I've argued here is that We.Don't.Know.For.Sure. Claiming any more or less than that is based in nothing but a lack of fact. Just like mine, except you take the lack of fact as meaning something different. You take it and base an assumption that nothing is there. I take it and base nothing except humility on it.

 

It rather depends on who bears the onus (or, more properly, the burden) of proof. In other words, does an atheist bear the burden of proving the non-existence of God, or does a theist bear the burden of proving the existence of God?

It seems to me there are two very good reasons for requiring the theist to bear the burden.

First, the existence of God is fundamental to theism, and God's existence is universally asserted by theists. (For the moment ignore the differences in the asserted God, merely accept the fact of assertion of existence).

Secondly, requiring the proof of a negative- that is, requiring the atheist to disprove God's existence- is almost never undertaken when there is a dispute as the facts. The law almost exclusively requires that the person who asserts the positive must prove that state of affairs. Certain scientific experiments may be set up to disprove a theory or thesis, but that is materially different from having two diametrically opposed viewpoints.

If it is accepted that the burden rests on the persons asserting the positive (existence) case, then until that burden is discharged, God's existence is not proven. Whether that means he doesn't exist, or merely that his existence is the subject of an ongoing exercise in evidence gathering, is an issue that depends on the standard of proof required (for instance, on the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt, etc) and on many other factors.

I don't think, with respect, it is legitimate to assert that the failure to prove non-existence is the same as the failure to prove existence. The starting point must be that he who asserts the positive must prove it.

 

what is the name of the universe you are in?...

 

Talk about believing assumption as if it was absolute proof Well, as long as you believe it to be plausible it is all ok to take it as a fact right.

 

I agree. How can archaeologists know for certain what all of mankind believed or not believed 130,000 years ago (the approximate appearence of homo sapien)

 

They do not even claim to know that as far as I know. There are theories about religions indeed that are based on archeological proof but just because there is not proof before the earliest sign of organized religion doesn't say everything neither. Besides, the belief in a higher power can be there without being in a culture with organized religion and I highly doubt such beliefs were absent before.

 

Sigh. I suppose we will all just have to agree to disagree. I just wanted to chime in my perspective as religion is purely a perspective based relativity.

I thoroughly enjoyed discussing it.

 

Belief in higher power, that is as opposed to supernatural power, is synonymous psychically to belief in accuracy or truth. We debate authority.

 

As EventHorizon said, in the end it comes down to having to agree to disagree. But thedope makes an interesting observation here. In the sense that truth embodies something more comprehensive than accuracy, in like manner a higher power (God) embodies something more than a supernatural power?

That we are really debating authority . . . I think there is an element of truth there since if one were to acknowledge a higher power one has to then come to terms with the consequence of that. It's easier to just dismiss the notion.

 

I was responding to a questionable assertion, which you seemed to approve of, that "people were perfect" before the introduction of religion. I hope you can understand that your response here is non-responsive to my post. The statement that people were at any time "perfect" is incredible, so I was asking for clarification. Your assertion that primitive humans were "born with no knowledge of what existed around him" is a bit strong, but I would assume there was a time in human evolution when humans had no concept of God. The point I was questioning was that they were "perfect" instead of just pretty dumb. Contrary to your assertion, there is no "common knowledge according to archeological history that man has not always believed in a higher power" (think for a moment: how would such knowledge be acquired on the basis of an empirical record of prehistory that far back?) But I'd guess that would be the case on the basis of common sense. The idea that primitive man "created God through a need to explain his origins" is doubtful. More likely, he developed an idea of supernatural agents as a natural outgrowth of an evolved propensity to find patterns and agency in his surroundings, even where there might be none, because it contributes to survival to be safe rather than sorry. As Tylor said, "spirits are simply personified causes." But we don't "know" that. These are secular "just so" stories to give naturalistic explanations for phenomena we don't really have hard evidence for.

 

I'm a theist. Like many theists I know, I don't assert God's existence, I just believe in it. That's what faith is. Luther defined faith as a "joyful bet". A bet isn't an assertion. You bet on your horse, I'll bet on mine.

You're right. But that only applies to assertions. He who asserts must prove.

God's existence or non-existence cannot be "proven', but belief in God can be supported by evidence and reasons that convince the believer to bet.

I prefer "substantial evidence" and "reasonable suspicion".

Of course!

 

Not at all. Belief is a subjective matter, involving personal conviction. The non-existence of god is a truth question, involving an assertion about objective reality.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. If you assert, you assume the burden of proving--at least in debates and law courts.

Yes, I understand, but that would strictly apply mainly to a logical "proof". In explaining things like the Anthropic Principle, we can attribute it to a happy accident, multiple universes, a variety of cosmological theories or intelligent agency. Davies goes over all of these and makes a case for intelligent agency, that I happen to agree with. I find the "too good to be trueness" of our existence remarkable, and something to get mystical about, despite Wikepedia .

It wasn't Buddhist belief or non-belief in god that got me, but belief in maya, attachments, and illusion. This gave me a new understanding of the metaphor about the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve were in Paradise, but all they could think about was what they didn't have: The damned apple and knowledge of good and evil. Likewise, the concept of Atman gave me a new understanding of the passage about humans being created in the image and likeness of God. I still cling to my Christian understanding of a separation between God and humans, but I if humans are created in God's spiritual image, each of us is a reflection of God, or rather an aspect of God. After achieving that awareness, I've been unable to look at or interact with a human without seeing God--which makes going to WalMart and participating in these Forums such a delightful experience. Namaste.

 

Bertrand Russell once said that the truly rational person wouldn't expect the sun to appear in the sky tomorrow. I must admit, I'm not that rational. There are certainly plenty of smart people who think that there is a God. (Do I need to list some again? Paul Davies, Freeman Dyson, Sir Arthur Eddington, John Polkinghorne, Sir James Jeans, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, etc., etc.--all distinguished scientists who can match resumes with the best). If you read their publications, you'll get an idea of where they're coming from, although I don't think they've "proven" anything.. I agree with you that we can't be sure, and I think we should lead our lives according to our best assessment of the evidence available, including life experiences, reading, intuitions, and hunches.