Why do some people use contrived abstractions to "disprove" the existence of "god"?

Question

Attempting to prove something without empirical evidence,
which I assume rational people accept, is like making up
one's own religion. Establishing a set of "truths" and then
adhering to them whether they have any common sense or not.

Sorry, I just think it's common sense that it can't be proven or disproven. Still waiting for empircal evidence.

I am neither Christian nor Atheist.

Anxiously awaiting abstractions...no, make that emprical evidence. Somebody, please go back to the beginning of time and take a picture of whoever or whatever caused the big bang...That will settle it..won't it?

Dear Spamandham,

I refer to the proposed creator of the universe. However, I qualify that it is a creator(or creators) who still transcends our knowledge, rules or physical laws. I don't believe in human-limited premises to prove or disprove.

Devil's Advocate (If I may use your full name)...I agree with what you say...but there are those who think along different lines...they actually claim they have proof that god does not exist...it's even here on this site.

All of you...so many good and heartfelt answers...I myself have faith (gasp! I'm going to catch if for that statement)...but I am not Christian either (another gaps!)...but I believe there is truth spread throughout all the answers...and I have to admit there's a strong case for inner empirical evidence...even though it's a stretch of the term from a scientific perspective...and risky because many heartfelt beliefs have been proven wrong.
thanks to you all...

Answer 1

Some people are simply ignorant. Some people are going to believe what they believe regardless of how much empirical evidence supports or disproves their belief. Some people get pleasure from demeaning others. Some people just like to be argumentative. I think the bottom line is we all believe in something, whether its God, enlightenment, science, humanism, or even the superiority of our own thoughts ... everybody believes in something and belief is largely a matter of faith. So even though they might deny it, I guess you could say that even atheist have faith.

Answer 2

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. We cannot go back in time to see the beginning of the Big Bang, but we can see by the way the universe is moving and expanding that there was a bang in the beginning. But, the Big Bang is still (and maybe forever will be) a theory. And we still only have theories as to what caused the Big Bang. But, here, why don't you read this about the Big Bang theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Answer 3

You seem to be an honest seeker of truth, so I will attempt an answer. Empirical evidence of the creation of the universe and how it was done is a tall order--as I have not mastered time travel. In my view there are really only two choices. The universe just happened by "naturalistic means," OR it was "created." If there is a third choice I cannot guess what that would be, no have I heard a third scenario put forth.

If everything has occurred by so-called Naturalistic means then at some point non-living matter became living matter all by itself. Meaning we all would be descended from rocks. (Might explain a few of our fellow posters.) That process is called abiogenesis. Check out this link regarding that process:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
It is too lengthy to try to post and too involved an argument to try and shorten. Not the easiest read but a worthy one if you are really seeking truth and evidence.
Abiogenesis, for me is the greatest stumbling block to the notion of natural processes. Although there are many others, if you are willing to put in the work, there is much information regarding them.

These first two are easy reads.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html

Two lists of goodies:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm

One of the best collections of information on this topic is in the book: "The Case For A Creator," by Lee Strobel
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=736559&sp=72595&p=1018818

BUT the hands down best (at least my personal favorite) collection of evidences is a cool little book called: "The Signature of God" (Enlarged & Revised Edition) by Grant R. Jeffrey
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=signature+of+god&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1
This is not a list of vague suppositions and contrivances but has some real meat to it.

Answer 4

I don't put my full faith in anything, but what I think is most likely is that we have been around forever,and there have been hundreds of big bangs. Red-shifted stars tell us the universe is expanding, and since gravity causes everything to be attracted to everything else, being pulled back into a singularity is inevitable. Not proof, just what I think is most likely. If something more likely presents itself I will trash my theory and accept that one.

Answer 5

outstanding theory. So enable's get right down to organization. what's your hypothesis for proving the existence of the 'Leprechaun' human beings? Which 'pattern body' will you take advantage of? how can you differentiate the 'Leprechaun' persons from different short, pointy eared persons? (like Yoda impersonators) ... and how can you discredit your critics even as they unfairly and mischievously declare your preposterous declare is only a 'get-wealthy-quick' scheme...? I watch for your organization plan with prepared interest... further... pricey Mr Seals, I easily have positioned your organization plan before my Investments Committee, and their findings will be printed on Monday. Their findings will be that you've responded each and every of the questions, and they look to make some type of expertise. we are able to hence recommend that 'Swipe global' diverts countless billion kilos worth of so referred to as public funds into your undertaking. do not tell the clicking in basic terms yet, they are having a gap of difficulty with weeping widows and such. i look ahead to each and every citizen contained in the united kingdom possessing a minimum of a percentage in a leprechaun contained in the foreseeable destiny.

Answer 6

Well...maybe all the stuff that needs to be seen or heard isn't something that we actually need. Its a test from God to show that through lack of information about the past other than the bible that faith is key. I'm not christian and no where near it but I do believe in him and that is what I think he expects from us. Not to question just to have faith.

Answer 7

God proves his existence in human hearts that seek him.

You can call this empirical--in that it is observable--but an individual's soul is not observable to anyone else.

So the empirical proof is invisible to many while manifested in the individual.

It's like asking someone to prove that love is real. You can see them acting loving, but this doesn't prove that they have love, because they can be faking it. Only the person knows him- or herself whether there is love in his or her heart.

Answer 8

Neither a theist or an atheist...hmmmmm
empirical evidence or else the heck with it.....hmmmmm
common sense rather than faith.....hmmmmmmm

the term you have been struggling with is called "Agnostic"

Answer 9

What's the point of disproving god?

The burden of proof is always on the side of those who believe, not those who disbelieve.



If you think it's the other way around, I have an invisible bridge that I'd like to sell you. Trust me, it's there.

Answer 10

Define god in a consistent way first, then you can demand evidence.