shadeyinka:


I don't need you to validate my points: not at all. I don't need to validate God's existence. It is you who need to validate God's non-existence. Morality and Righteousness is relative. The point is , relative to what standard is Righteousness?

Athiesm is a kind of faith! Where the Creator God is replaced with Self or self worship. Before you start screaming, do you have evidence that God doesn't exist? If you do, bring it out! ;Then athiesm would not be a religion if you can prove it.

Yes you do have a doctrine! Disbelieve in the existence of God/God's. Like ATR, you don't have a scripture!


Edited:
Why I am not a Muslim?
I almost said the Shahada in my 200L. I was genuinely seeking for God...... So, I know the Bible and I know enough Islam to make an intelligent choice at the end of the day. The details is not relevant to you!

shadeyinka:
It is you who need to validate God's non-existence.

JujuSugar:


Lol. Come on now. Your sob argument of "you can't prove that god doesn't exist" is a logical fallacy of which I'm not even going to go into details yet. But since I can't disprove a negative, is it then philosophical proof that he doesn't exist since his nonexistence can't be proven?

shadeyinka:

No!
It just shows that both of us are people of Faith!

shadeyinka:


I don't need you to validate my points: not at all. I don't need to validate God's existence. It is you who need to validate God's non-existence. Morality and Righteousness is relative. The point is , relative to what standard is Righteousness?

Athiesm is a kind of faith! Where the Creator God is replaced with Self or self worship. Before you start screaming, do you have evidence that God doesn't exist? If you do, bring it out! ;Then athiesm would not be a religion if you can prove it.

Yes you do have a doctrine! Disbelieve in the existence of God/God's. Like ATR, you don't have a scripture!


Edited:
Why I am not a Muslim?
I almost said the Shahada in my 200L. I was genuinely seeking for God...... So, I know the Bible and I know enough Islam to make an intelligent choice at the end of the day. The details is not relevant to you!

JujuSugar:

Can you disprove that we aren't in a Matrix? No, you can't. Saying that "you can't prove that god doesn't exists" is stupid because I can put in literally anything I want in that sentence: Unicorns, that we are in the matrix, giant 3 headed dogs, super powers, a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter, etc etc. Literally anything.

Here's a fun mental exercise. Try to prove that: a giant teapot that orbits Jupiter in such a way that we will never see it, doesn't exist. You can present me with all the evidence you want, and I can just make up all contrived bull shit I want to argue against your every point.

Its not about what you can disprove, its about what you can prove. That's all that matters. In science at least. There's a quote that goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Well its not evidence of existence either. Its just lack of evidence. Don't let any christian tell you that the absence of evidence is actually evidence of existence. That's not how it works.

Don't you christians hate when you create your own storms but forget to bring an umbrella?

. Don't let any christian tell you that the absence of evidence is actually evidence of existence. That's not how it works.

shadeyinka:

Life would have been so simple if everything can be proved. Unfortunatly not!
I wonder why any christian would use that kind of evidence

The Only Truth is,
1. I cant proof He exists
2. You cant prove He doesnt exist

Then we hold a position of faith in the existence or in existence of Him.

Of course, we are in a Matrix.
Some things seem not to add up!
Some people seem to have received enlightenment
While others are lost in the maze
No one seems to know why things are the way they are

TheArranger:

Can you disprove that I'm God?

No, you can't ask me to demonstrate anything. I'm not a vending machine. I act according to my will and my will alone and you can not possibly comprehend why everything I do is what results in the best of all possible worlds. But everything in the universe acts according to my will and my will alone, unless you can prove otherwise.

So, can you prove that I'm not God? No? Then are you ready to accept me as your personal Lord and Savior? If not, why not?

The reason you give me is the reason I don't believe in your god.

shadeyinka:

Your logic is Faulty! Very faulty!

If I prove that you are God, then you must be God
If I prove that you are not God, then you aren't

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove God. Why?
The disparity between God and man is so wide that our dimension isn't sufficient to comprehend Him. However, the reverse is very true. God can prove Himself to be God IFF He chooses to.

Can Bacteria prove that I exist?

JujuSugar:

As per the bolded statement above ===> If you agree that we're experiencing a shared reality, then one of us sees reality as it is, and the other (the theist) is adding something onto it (god). There's your burden of proof.

shadeyinka:

Like in the matrix,: what is reality?

To you, reality is defined solely by what can be seen, touched, weighed, dimensioned etc. Like in Classical Physics

For me, reality is defined by what can be seen, touched, weighed, dimensioned AND what can't. Like in Quantum Physics.

Since your God cannot be seen, touched, weighed, dimensioned, he doesn't exist. It is called narrow minded world view.

My God cannot be seen, touched, weighed, dimensioned AND He does exist. It is called wide minded world view.

How do you think Albert Einstein will explain Wave-Particle duality of matter to Isaac Newton without Newton becoming like Einstein?

JujuSugar:

As per the bolded statement above ===> If you agree that we're experiencing a shared reality, then one of us sees reality as it is, and the other (the theist) is adding something onto it (god). There's your burden of proof.

JujuSugar:

You actually can prove nonexistence if the entity said to be existing is self-contradicting, as is the Christian deity. But no, it is not philosophical proof that a god doesn't exist since nonexistence can't be proven.

DeSepiero:


It's this easy:

After death, what if you don't find Jesus but instead you find Anubis waiting to judge you?

JujuSugar:

Shadeyinka, remember what I said about creating your own storms without bringing your umbrella along?.....
Slow down. You're putting the cart way ahead of the horse.
First of all, Quantum physics suggests that the universe is inherently probabilistic and statistical. There's no implication of a god whatsoever here.
I'll give you the notion that God is not calculable. To ask "Does god exist" is not quantifiable. The only thing, as an atheist, I can think of that can possibly exist as a form of "God" is whatever is before the big bang. However, what you need to realize here is that lack of knowledge doesn't quench the burden of evidence. No God of Abraham is, in my opinion, compatible in any way to physics. The relationship you're trying to create between quantum physics and the Christian God YHWH is not just working, fam.

shadeyinka:


Can Bacteria prove that I exist?

shadeyinka:

Could it be that you are the one deducting from the existing reality. Limiting it strictly to the physical

shadeyinka:

If Christians have claimed a physical God, then you have a point BUT since the Christians God is a Spirit you Atheists will have to go spiritual to prove God doesn't exist. But since you can't, your inability has become your proof

shadeyinka:

Why go tangent to what is clearly presented. I never insinuated that Quantum physics is a proof of God.

If you can't comprehend, let me break it in lay mans language.
Impossibilities in the Classical Space ARE Possibilities in the Quantum Space.

Like in Classical Physics, Is it possible that matter exist as both particles and waves?

budaatum:

Yes now! Using it's criteria of existence, it can.

JujuSugar:

I have neither deducted, NOR added to reality sir

Lol. I chuckled when you said "we will have to go spiritual to prove God doesn't exist.". Hell, I can't even get people to define "spirituality" in a way that significantly differs from what we know about brain chemistry or other measurable, medical reactions in our bodies!
If I can't so much as get a distinct, basic definition, how the heck could I even begin to evaluate claims about the existence and qualities of this so-called "spirituality"?
You must have heard of the God of the Gaps, Shadeyinka?
The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena.

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[15][16] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.

Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."

Wherever there have been gaps in our scientific understanding, religious apologists will always point at the gaps and say, "That's God! Right There!" The non-intuitive 'weirdness' of Quantum mechanics attracts a lot of these people, and for a while now, Quantum mechanics has attracted all sort of crackpots, new age types, etc. It would be best, Shadeyinka, not to latch onto a discarded notion that never was widely accepted by the scientific community in the first place, and use that to launch a series of related arguments that lead from that premise. It's a weird new sort of self deceit.

shadeyinka:

Really?
How do you think a Bacteria can communicate the reality of the presence of human beings who walk on two legs, with height (relatively to the size of a bacteria 22million kilometers, weight like 100million megatons and with liquid rain than can wipe out a continent of bacteria consisting of more than 800 million precious bacteria souls!

Pls answer the above question based on what we know about bacteria.

shadeyinka:


I could talk of the gaps if I wish but not like you think not as a proof of God's existence but to show you that there are many things that defy scientific explanation.

budaatum:

Depends on the bacteria, of course. But when it tries to feed on you and can (feeding on you being it's sole reason for being concerned whether you exist or not, and how it determines if you do or not), it would stay on you and thrive, knowing you most definitely must exist, because if you didn't exist it would likely jump somewhere more sustaining or die. And if you could ask it afterwards if you didn't exist, (provided you speak and understand bacteriumba, or bacterianglish, depending which it speaks), it would most likely say, "I thought you existed. But when I tried to eat you I found you didn't, and look now, I'm dead!" Whereas, if you existed, it would say "look at me, I multiplied. Ergo, you most definitely must exist!" In bacteriumba, or bacterianglish, and "based on what we know about bacteria", of course.

JujuSugar:

Still see no evidence for YHWH here. If you can't prove something, why believe in it?

CAPSLOCKED:



TODAY I CONCLUDE THERE'S NOBODY AS DUMB AS A CHRISTIAN.
CHANGE MY MIND.

budaatum:

Depends on the bacteria, of course. But when it tries to feed on you and can (feeding on you being it's sole reason for being concerned whether you exist or not, and how it determines if you do or not), it would stay on you and thrive, knowing you most definitely must exist, because if you didn't exist it would likely jump somewhere more sustaining or die. And if you could ask it afterwards if you didn't exist, (provided you speak and understand bacteriumba, or bacterianglish, depending which it speaks), it would most likely say, "I thought you existed. But when I tried to eat you I found you didn't, and look now, I'm dead!" Whereas, if you existed, it would say "look at me, I multiplied. Ergo, you most definitely must exist!" In bacteriumba, or bacterianglish, and "based on what we know about bacteria", of course.

shadeyinka:

Yes you deducted from existing realities by assuming that reality consist only of that which obeys the physical laws.

I didn't use the Quantum/Classical mechanics disparity to prove any gap theory. I just used it to illustriate that impossible things in the Classical realm does not really imply correctness...but lack of complete information.

The athiest is willing to consider the probability of other lives and conciousness outside our Galaxy but yet deny the existence of God because He isn't made up of Carbon, Nitrogen , Hydrogen and Oxygen . He is willing to believe that a thousand years from now, man will be able to travel to the next Galaxy and found a civilization.

I could talk of the gsps if I wish but not like you think not as a proof of God's existence but to show you that there are many things that defy scientific explanation.

budaatum:

So anything that that defies "scientific explanation", is evidence for the existence of a thing?

How does that work?

.

shadeyinka:

Lack of scientific explanation is never an evidence for the existence or lack of existence of God. No!
However, it is a scientific means of saying that the probability of it existing or not is neither 0% nor 100%

Now, it means you are the one playing a Russian Roulette with your soul.
For me, I don't need any scientific validation to believe in God...and I have nothing to loose even if I am wrong. (I am not about discussing Pascal's Wager)

JujuSugar:

I didn't deduct anything. My apologies if you think I said something to imply deduction from reality. When it comes to the claim of a god's existence, we have to consider whether the proposed "god" in this scenario is falsifiable.

YHWH, for example, IS falsifiable. If the god you believed in had to have flooded the entire planet to wipe out all human life but one family and then ordered said family to repopulate the world via incest sex, then that god DOES NOT exist and cannot exist.
Why? Because
A, we aren't all retards due to incest sex. And
B, the global flood never happened in the first place. So the god that did those things logically cannot exist.

The other example is the metaphorical christian god. "Oh everything in the bible is just a metaphor, Jesus is just an example to live up to, he wasn't actually real, it's all spirit and immaterial and god doesn't really interact with the world in any detectable way . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah."
Or attempting to make God an abstract property like love, hate, fear etc etc

That's an unfalsifiable god. I can't prove or disprove anything about him, because there's nothing to really address proof wise.
The one thing I can say about unfalsefiable god claims though, is that because I can't prove anything, there's no rational reason to believe in one.
Which leads up to where we currently stand. ALL god/supernatural claims thus fitting into one of 2 categories ONLY.

1. Claims that have been tested and shown to be false.
2. Claims that can't be tested and are therefore useless.

There is no 3rd category of claims that have been tested and shown to be true. If there were, god would be taught in science classes.

A, we aren't all retards due to incest sex. And
B, the global flood never happened in the first place. So the god that did those things logically cannot exist

ALL god/supernatural claims thus fitting into one of 2 categories ONLY.

1. Claims that have been tested and shown to be false.
2. Claims that can't be tested and are therefore useless.

TheArranger:

Your last paragraph looks like Pascal's wager to me.

shadeyinka:

Like why believe in Love when you can't quantify it.
Why control fear when it cannot be measured
Why should words of an order be obeyed

Before you start screaming that these are emotions and not personalities! No one can prove the spiritual!

shadeyinka:

What if you discover that God really exist, what would be your reaction and response?