In other words, if your underlying assumption is: “There is no God”
…and these are the “glasses” through which you look at the world:
Then even the most definitive, indisputable, reproducible proof of the existence of God would still have to be dismissed based on the underlying assumption, “There is no God”.
Kind of like saying, “There is no moon”:
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
Does this mean that:
1) Atheists who ask for proof are actually agnostics?
2) Even if God does exist, it would be impossible for even God Himself to prove it to an atheist?
-
2007-11-30
06:54:09
·
31 answers
·
asked by
yachadhoo
6
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Gertrude:
Because, quite frankly...I care about you...and others. I use to be an atheist. Now, I know the truth. And my loving desire is for others to know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
2007-11-30
07:08:28 ·
update #1
Funny...most of you naysayers sound like the naysaysers who say that there is no moon! You use the same logic, the same points, the same arguments!
...wow...If I read too many of your answers, I might start to question the existence of the moon!
Behold: There is MORE proof of the existence of God then there is proof that the moon actually exists.
-
2007-11-30
07:12:38 ·
update #2
you can not prove to someone that the door is open if they do not look at the door.
2007-12-01 15:04:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by hmm 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If God actually existed in the physical realm any person would be able to prove his existence. The fact that no believer has ever been able to prove their own assertion that God exists, proves absolutely that the assertion is false and God does not exist.
It is obvious that you imagine reality depends on subjective mental experience. This is called Solipsism -- a philosophy invented by Aristotle. All religious people are Solipsists, because they necessarily believe their own mental experiences are capable of altering reality. Solipsism caused the Dark Ages because such people imagine their dreams and hallucinations are actually real. The early Church used Solipsism to create a civilization that revolved around superstition and mysticism. Because Solipsism also maintains that the physical realm is not real, early Western civilizations created very little technological progress.
Then Science was discovered during the seventeenth century and rescued humanity from the Church. Scientists know absolutely (proved, not superstition) that the physical realm is the only known objective reality. They also understand that everything else is little more than the result of humanity's persistent Solipsistic imagination -- and is not actually real. Everything that scientific human beings have created in the last three hundred years -- which basically means every non-organic thing in your life -- has been created because humanity finally realized Divine revelation was a fraud and that we can do a much better job of discovering the truth for ourselves. The key to this great wisdom is that Solipsism is utterly false -- reality does not depend on human subjective mental experience (as you obviously believe). The truth is that only the physical realm is objectively real and the God of our subjective mental experiences cannot be found there. What we humans believe or don't believe changes nothing. Reality exists independant of our thoughts. You should be ashamed of yourself for demonstrating such a profound misunderstanding of reality.
Edit: I've just read your additional details. If you actually think there is more proof for the existence of God than there is for the existence of the Moon, you are seriously mentally ill. Get help before you actually hurt someone you love.
2007-11-30 07:43:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Diogenes 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
You are not able to end up a poor. Meaning, you are not able to end up, that anything does NOT exists. It is the absence of end up FOR god, why Atheists don't consider in god. Atheism method "an absence in consider". It does now not imply, that we all know there's no god. We say, "there's so much commonly no god". Thats extraordinary, as to have a end up for a non-life of god. Also please notice and take delivery of, that if YOU make a assertion approximately anything, its approximately YOU to end up your factor, its now not approximately the opposite man to disprove it. Its like if I make a assertion approximately the life of the invisible purple unicorn, and ask you presently, to disprove its life. You are not able to. To disprove the life of a that invisible unicorn might imply, that you recognize the whole lot that there's, so you'll exclude the leisure. No human claims to grasp absolute the whole lot within the universe. God is the one feasible brain, who would disprove the life of the invisible unicorn, or his possess life :) I don't consider in god, practical due to the fact that there's no proof, and due to the fact that to me its undoubtedly there's no god for every other and detailled explanations. One instance is, that god is logically not possible (I understand the christians contra-argument for this, nonetheless...). Because there are such a lot of extraordinary religions and outlines approximately god. Would there be a truly one god, I might expect, that every person might have a transparent image and agree upon that one and identical being. God, faith, spirituality, are all merchandise of human minds, and now not the wrong way circular. Regarding technological know-how: Science is to explain how the universe works. Those descriptions are positioned into legislation and theories. More and extra phenomena scientist debunks as a made of nature, and now not of god. Like thinder and lights, isn't Zeus throwing it from mountain Olymp. We know the way thunder and lighing works, we will provide an explanation for it. In the time, while the bible was once written, persons inspiration, that the arena is flat and the middle of the universe, the solar orbiting the earth, and many others...Science discovered, and got here to the belief that it really works in a different way, and in these days we know the way and why. The extra technological know-how can provide an explanation for, the thinner the air will get for god. Even evolution is a reality, a few powerful believers denies it, and nonetheless places god and his production there. Scientific ways are truly. Just ignorant persons dont take delivery of that. How might a person consider, earth is simply 6000 years historical ? I cross with what we will notice, alternatively than a few invisible man dwelling external of house and time. You are not able to provide an explanation for god to me, however I can provide an explanation for technological know-how to you. Thats why.
2016-09-05 17:07:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by mcguinn 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are the one making assumptions, but I make no assumptions, so you are distorting things. I just answered a question about Christians saying un-Christian things on YA, and this applies to you. I say that there are no gods, whether one means Yahweh, Yu Ti, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, etc. You cannot produce any proof of any gods. Wiser men than you have tried for centuries, but no one has succeeded. Show me some real "definitive, indisputible, reproducible proof", if you can...but you certainly cannot. You are the one who is making some assumptions, and they are quite unfounded. You only discredit yourself and your beliefs with such stuff as this. How pathetic to try to boost a childish ego and naive beliefs by slandering someone! i am no agnostic, and i ask for nothing that cannot be given to me. If any gods exist, they would prove it. Your god is only one of many that men have invented, and it is no better than any other god.
2007-11-30 07:16:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by miyuki & kyojin 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
"Does this mean that:
1) Atheists who ask for proof are actually agnostics?
2) Even if God does exist, it would be impossible for even God Himself to prove it to an atheist?"
1. No – I’m an atheist; I am sure there is no god.
2. God does not exist - if he did he would find a way to prove it to me; isn't he supposed to be a bit like, and probably better at magic than, Jeannie outa 'I dream of Jeannie'?
Your reasoning is very flimsy - I'm sure theists would fall for it.
Do I think I am smart cos I'm an atheist?
Nah; I'm an atheist cos I'm so damned smart.
[edit]
I can see the moon on most cloudless nights and I can predict when I will be able to see it again.
This sort of thing can NOT be done with 'god'.
You should be ashamed of yourself for being so illogical.
.
2007-11-30 07:14:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
'Then even the most definitive, indisputable, reproducible proof of the existence of God would still have to be dismissed based on the underlying assumption, “There is no God”.'
--Right, because THERE IS NO GOD (no bible-god anyway). I have proven it so logically several times. He is self-contradictory and self-contradictory object cannot exist. I am agnostic toward non-self-contradictory gods.
1) I don't ask for proof because none will convince me. The logic is sound. He cannot exist.
2) No, if he does exist, he COULD prove it to me by altering my brain in such a way that I thought less critically, thereby accepting his proof no matter how inane it was.
2007-11-30 06:59:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Meat Bot 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
No. If we say there is no proof, and then "definitive, indisputable, reproducible proof" is presented, we would certainly accept it. What we are saying is that such proof, or even anything close to it, has not been presented. We are willing to accept the possibility, but we say that, since there is currently no reason to believe, then we do not believe.
I just checked out your Moon hoax link. And yes, if atheists behaved as you said they did (Which most of them don't), then that would be a good comparison. However, a better comparison for our purposes would be to say that theists are like people who say there are actually two moons.
2007-11-30 06:57:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
1) Well, most atheists know and understand that there never will be proof of god, therefore they actually aren't agnostics.
2) An atheist point of view is that there is no god, so there is no even or variable of proving his existence.
2007-11-30 07:00:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't see it that way. I base my beliefs on proof and evidence. My beliefs change as new evidence is presented to me. If indisputable concrete evidence pointed toward the existence of god, I would rethink and change my opinion.
1)-When I say 'give me proof' it just challenges religious folk to come up with something we all know doesn't exist. It isn't a question of my beliefs, it's a question of theirs.
2)-I have made that point many a time. If God is all knowing and all powerful and compassionate toward me, he would desire to show me proof of his existence in a way I would believe.
2007-11-30 07:01:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Can you give some proof that there is a God? You are telling me that there is a fire-breathing dragon in your garage, but when I look in your garage, I see nothing. If there were proof that there is a God and I was still an Atheist, I would be delusional. But since there is no proof of a God and you still believe in God, it means you are delusional.
2007-11-30 07:00:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Biggus Dickus 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Even if I were to accept that A god existed, there are very few ways for even God himself to show that the god that exists is the god of any particular religion. If that is the fault of the atheist for not jumping on board any given religion and calling it "Truth", then, I apologize in advance. I would think that a benevolent, omniscient god would understand...
2007-11-30 07:00:13
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋