I understand that you don´t believe that God exists and that you want proof, but is it logical to say?

Question

Is it logical to take an empirical stance and say "God does not exist!" It seems closed minded and hard headed to say nothing exists which has not been proven. Could there be a paralel universe? What about the overwelming emptyness between the energetic particles that make up what we call reality? What is the power that holds them together that confounds the physisists?

Answer 1

As it is not possible to prove a negative the onus is on those who believe god exists to prove it. Until then god does not exist.

If you really believe that "god" is some energy and a few sub-atomic particles try substituting "energy and sub-atomic particles" for the word "god" next time you read the bible and see how laughable your argument is...

"...and energy and sub-atomic particles said 'let there be light'..."

"...and energy and sub-atomic particles breathed into the dust and brought Adam to life..."

"...and energy and sub-atomic particles handed Moses the stone tablets on which were written the ten commandments..."

"...and Jesus said forgive them, energy and sub-atomic particles, for they know not what they do..." and "energy and sub-atomic particles why hast thou forsaken me?"

Yeah right

Answer 2

Yes an infinite amount of parallel universes is possible as I understand from Super String Theory. Last time I read up on quantum mechanics, ti didn't seem that there was any "confounding" going on, are you sure that you're current in your research?

The point about evidence goes beyond god. Given that the bible is true and infallible, then there should be evidence to support it's historical accuracy and the miracles and sings that it records. So, creation along with Adam and Eve is verifiable false, the Flood verifiable false, the tower of babel no evidence, the Exodus no evidence but there should be some indication of it or of the 200 years+ that the Hebrews spent there, the sun stopping or moving backward no evidence or collaborating documentation from other existing cultures.

Then there are the inconsistencies and contradictions.

All in all, the Bible does not evaluate to a fact book.

Answer 3

There can never be proof or disproof of the existence of any god. That's why I am a philosophical agnostic. Zakir says atheists have no conception or definition of "God." I agree. But what he doesn't realize is that religious believers also either have no conception of God, or a very slap-dash concept. When we are honest with ourselves, we realize we are either theistic or atheistic agnostics. "If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam." By there fruits you shall know them. Not every Muslim is a terrorists, but the great majority of terrorists are Muslims. All 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Muslim. These are trends hardheaded analysts can't ignore, no matter that by doing so we offend the PC police. Islam, as a religion, has a lot of evil to own up to. "If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’" This is the Argument from Design as used by William Paley in his essay using a pocket watch in the same manner Zakir makes his argument. The problem with the argument is that human artifacts are well known to be precisely that--human artifacts. Assuming similar intentional design elements in natural objects is also precisely that---a large assumption, not a fact. Zakir hasn't proven the existence of God. All he proves is that old theistic arguments are recyclable.

Answer 4

"It seems closed minded and hard headed to say nothing exists which has not been proven."

Really? But that's the basis of Logic, because you cannot prove the non-existence of non-existence.

You need to draw a line between "ideas" and "theories".

Ideas are product of the imagination, which allows creativity. Theories are the observations of facts.

You should change your concept of reality. A basic way to do it is this:

Picture a dot inside a circle: this is you surrounded by facts. Draw another circle around it and you have: You, surrounded by facts, surrounded by theories. That, is the Perceived Reality.

Far from the last circle, draw a circle made of dots: that is the Perceived Reality inside the Possible Reality. Beyond it is non-reality.

Passed the circle of theories, draw bubbles. Those are ideas. You can draw them anywhere from Facts to Non-reality.

A person can fish out for ideas and drag them inside the Facts circle. But everytime, these ideas need to be filtrated by each circle. If you skip a circle or force it inside one, you fragilise your own coherence.

If you do it too often, there will be no more circles and you'll loose your grasp on the True Reality.

That's why it is as faulty to say "God does not exist" then say "God exists". We should all say "There are currently no facts to prove that God exists".

Absence of facts doesn't mean something does not exists, but neither does it mean something exists. If you accept that, you'll do fine...

Answer 5

Why complicate reality by coming up with these ridiculous notions of parallel universes and invisible creators who constructed said universes?

Why must there be a supernatural or science-fictional reason for things that cannot YET be explained by human science?

Why is it that every time the answer has yet to be found you psychos always want to jump to "god did it."

It is perfectly logical to say "I won't believe it unless there is evidence for it." Why should a "god" be any different? Why should anyone blindly follow this fictional god and the book that was written BY MEN to describe why this fictional god created us and what the fictional god expects from us?? You shouldn't take anything for face value. Skepticism is healthy in a logical mind.

When you get those emails from nigeria saying you've won the lottery, do you send them money to cover the expenses of the transfers? Or are you skeptical that it may be a scam?

Skepticism is necessary so you do not get suckered into believing something that is not true. If you refuse to be skeptical and you refuse to think critically about everything INCLUDING your religious beliefs, you are refusing to live your life on your own terms. You are sacrificing your individuality for a spot in your precious cult. If that's what makes you happy, good for you.... but realize that your religion is fiction. If even after realizing it's fiction you still feel you need it to keep you grounded, that's fine for you.... but religion is not for everyone.

Answer 6

If you're talking about atheism you've misdefined the word. What people often mean when they say that god does not exist is that for practical purposes the deity does not exist.

I do agree that people who claim to know absolutely one way or the other are not thinking or speaking logically.

The problem with the subject of religion in general is that you almost need to establish in what sense you're speaking about it before you talk about it. And in the end other than a pure academic discussion there is nowhere to go with it. You can state your opinion and you're pretty much done at that point.

Answer 7

There is nothing definitive to indicated that god does not exist, so technically all atheists are really agnostics. Since it's impossible to prove a negative there really isn't definitive proof that anything doesn't exist. I believe those who call themselves atheists (but who are really agnostics) do so to distinguish themselves from the agnostics who haven't the courage or conviction to make a decision on the matter.

As an atheist I charge the believers with providing positive proof for that which they claim to exist. Since none has ever been offered I am comfortable living my life under the assumption there is no god.

I see you're using your intellectually dishonest "teach the controversy" tactic on physics. Most disingenuous of you.

Answer 8

As an agnostic, I agree with you in this instance. One cannot conclusively prove a negative, especially in regard to the existence of a creator. Many physicists have expressed a feeling that there might be a God in the universe, though most of them reject the mainstream religions as being too limited to adequately explain the amazing mysteries that our universe holds. In any case, if you believe in God, that's okay with me, I just hope you keep an open mind--don't ever be too sure you have the answer to anything at all. Therein lies true wisdom.

Answer 9

There's an infinite number of absurd notions we could entertain (e.g.; Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and fritter away our time with, if the only criterion for giving it consideration is that someone, somewhere thinks it might be real.

In practice, we have to DISCRIMINATE -- to evaluate the proposal based on the evidence provided to determine if it warrants further investigation.

Answer 10

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god, not necessarily the firm belief that god does not exist.
Is it logical to take the stance that fairies exist simply because you can't prove they dont exist? I think not.
The "god of gaps" is getting smaller and smaller as science figures more out. We can't keep coming to the conclusion that THAT is what god is everytime scientists can't explain everything.