2006-12-16 03:56:50 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The lack of evidence I have not seen suggests the proability is very low. You cannot prove non-existence.
2006-12-16 03:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't "know" that there is no god -- for me to say so would be as wrong as the ignorants who say they "know" he does exist. Guess what -- nobody "knows" one way or the other.
However...there is no testable, verifiable evidence of any kind that god exists. There is considerable evidence to show that every god that humans have worshipped in their entire history is made up by humans to serve certain needs. There is no evidence that any "miracles" have ever happened, there is no evidence any god had anything to do with creating the world, life, or people...and again, considerable evidence that these things are all natural occurrences, with no god involved.
Therefore, given the evidence, it is logical to conclude that there is no god. Arriving at such a conclusion does not omit the slight possibility that there may indeed be one, but if there is one he/she/it certainly isn't involved with our universe, world, or lives in any way...so what does it matter?
2006-12-16 12:07:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Atheists know that God doesn't exist for the same reason that people, prior to 1927, knew that the universe was unchanging. The Big Bang theory made that view obsolete.
But if you'd asked anyone back in '26 (and in fact, for some years after) if the present universe began with a huge explosion... they would have said something like, "Right, and I believe in the Easter Bunny, too!"
The fact is that there's all kinds of scientific evidence to support the idea that there's an underlying intelligence at the root of existance, but the present scientific paradigm refuses to fully consider that evidence or to see where it leads. The foundational philosophy of mainstream science is that there is no God. That is the a priori position and any scientific evidence that comes forth supporting that possibility is immedietly given another hypothetical explaination, or simply ignored. For instance, even though statistical analysis makes any number of events or processes in nature a virtual impossibility based on the supposition that random chance was responsible, the usual response to that analysis (from mainstream science) is... "Well, there must be something that we're failing to factor in, because an intelligent cause is just out of the question". That's an a priori conclusion based on nothing. Certainly based on nothing scientific.
Mainstream science takes, by faith, the non-existance of an intelligent first cause to existance. It's assumed by people who put a great deal of emphasis on their own autonomous role in the universe. Science doesn't prove the non-existance of God. In many ways science supports the possibility of a God.
When the Big Bang theory first came into the scientific arena, all but a few scientists rejected it out of hand. Why? Because they thought it would lend support to creationism. They rejected it, not because it was invalid, but for purely philophical reasons.
As time goes by, we will see more and more science that supports a directed universe. We are not here by chance.
2006-12-16 12:35:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
For a non biblical display of His existence look at biology. You will find that chirality of both proteins and DNA makes spontaneous life impossible... After which there is His word. First a person must come to see that God is then then He will reward those that seek him.... Jim
2006-12-16 12:19:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Christians have given the god you speak of the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, two properties that an entity can not logically have, never mind together... the two are mutually exclusive and each one is self-destructing.
Therefore, not only does god not exist, he CAN NOT exist.
All this tautology about "look around you" and "I have faith"... it's not knowledge. Faith is belief in something without any evidence to support it... faith is proof of nothing except blind acceptance and denial of reality.
If God really existed, he wouldn't need faith to verify it.
Are there other gods? Maybe, but I prefer to remain agnostic about them... if there is any sort of god, it's an amoral entity.
2006-12-16 12:06:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just “appeared” out of nowhere or that it had always existed. Based on the watch’s design, I would assume it had a designer. But I see far greater design and precision in the world around us. Our measurement of time is not based on wristwatches, but on God’s handiwork—the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.
2006-12-16 12:07:28 · answer #6 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The kind of extraordinary evidence that would be needed to prove such an extraordinary being as God simply does not exist. That's how I know.
2006-12-16 12:00:48 · answer #7 · answered by . 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
There is no proof, one way or the other, regarding the existance of God.
2006-12-16 12:03:22 · answer #8 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't KNOW he doesn't exist anymore that I KNOW leprechauns and Zeus don't exist. There's just no evidence for any of them.
2006-12-16 12:05:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't claim to know that God or any other deity does or does not exist, for it is impossible to have such knowledge.
2006-12-16 12:01:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋