Don't atheist contradict their own hypothesis?

Question

First, science and evolution do not disprove religion, thats absurd. Evolution is God and God is evolution, how bout that for both sides.

But 2 my point, most of you atagonists use science to try to prove your hyposthesis that there is no God, actually quite the wrong considering the greatest scientist's that ever lived believed in a higher entity, Einstein and Hawking. I did not say religion for you that try to be slick, I said they believe in a higher entity. So my question is, how do you conclude, based on your interpretation of reality, that we somehow came from nothing? Isnt that impossible, I mean you try to use science against us, yet the very basis of your thinking contradicts your own hypothesis'. Something cant come from nothing, everything is cause and effect so your own hypothesis is flawed? And please dont use infinity to somehow prove your point, infinite values do not exist in this universe. Einstein realized that, so are you saying you're smarter than him?

Yaweh's toaster, you are sheep, it just you look at it a little differently than me. You are a sheep to the atheist foundation. But then again Im just some dumb closed minded religious guy who simply dismisses science. Wrong again, whats more closed minded than what you stated and the fact you allow no one to email you to contradict your point, atleast some of you people have the guts to back up what you state, that is called keeping an open mind.

Answer 1

No, we've never said there is no god(s). Merely that we don't believe. (Definition of atheist: One who lacks belief in deities, all of them not just yours.)

If you expect us to accpet your mythology, we want to see some proof. And since no one has ever been able to show any valid proof, by default we lack belief.

Answer 2

You have made a very valid point. Though I am afraid that atheist's viewing this would use it against christians. I have never come across an atheist that could argue their point without the use of foul language. Of course at the same time before I became a christian, I found it difficult to conversate with christians without being condemned as a satan worshipper. I know many people, some who are good friends that don't exactly represent christians in the best light. One of those close friends says "if something is not honoring God directly, then it is of the devil, there is no in between" I can't help but make jest of this, because I believe there definetly is an in between. such as internet, does it straightforwardly honor God? No, but does it honor the devil, no. Many things can be manipulated to be either or. Another thing, christians also take things from other religions such as holidays and turn them into devil worship. By no means is everyother religion a blatant opposition called satanism, but to many christians out there, thats just what they call it. I apologize if this seems off track, but I'm merely offering mistakes on the christian side, who tend to think "we" are perfect.

Answer 3

There are very few atheists who believe that there is definitely no god.


Most chose not to believe in a god because there is no evidence to support that belief. This is where science is significant because it shows that for nearly all the big events that have historically been attributed to god actually have natural causes. Science does not, and can not prove the non-existence of god, or indeed anything, but it does show that there is no need for a god to exist.

WIth no evidence for something, and no need for it to exist why would you claim it's existence? I might as well claim that unicorns exist. It is equally valid.


Go study quantum physics. Something comes from nothing all the time at the quantum level. Is you physics so good that you want to argue about the application of quantum physics to the initial state of the universe prior to the big bang? How is your 11 dimensional math to argue over M-Theory?

Hawkings has not said that he believes in a god. Einstein was a deist. He also wasted much of his later life trying to disprove quantum physics purely because he wanted a causial universe. I am not saying the Einstein was not smart, he was a genius, but this shows that he could let his preconceptions cloud his rationality.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are both atheists. Does that mean that only atheist can be rich? This is the argument that you are trying to apply.

Finally, to call god 'evolution' or 'nature' or 'the universe' is just playing silly word games. There is a definition for all of these things none of them jive with the definition of god. I might as well claim that I am a super genius. But that is because I am defining super geniuses as people who are like me. Great for my ego, but totally meaningless in the real world.

Answer 4

OK your argument falls apart right from the start. We don't set out to disprove God. We realise that we can't prove a negative. The onus is on believers to provide evidence for God and so far they have come up short.

Hawking and Einstein used the belief in God reference for purely literary means. Einstein said "God does not play dice" but was later forced to admit that maybe he actually did and he deid agnostic. Hawking stated tha we would soon "know the mind of God" and what he meant was that we would soon have the power to explain everything.

Evolution occurs without God.

Big Bang - occurred without God. It is a law of physics. Try looking up the 1st law of thermodynamics - it states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. That means that all the matter that we see in the universe today has always existed as could not possibly have been created. It was always there. No creator, no God. Simple.

Answer 5

First, the question if Einstein was an atheist or not is a matter of debate.

I agree with you that evolution and a god do not necessarily rule out each other. A god could have created the world and then walked away, leaving it to evolution. I don't think that one did, though.

The problem with a creator god is how this god did come into existence? Claiming that a god created the universe answers nothing, because what created this god then? And if you say that a god does not need a creator, I can as well think that the universe does not need one. Case closed.

Oh, and I think that a god CAN be disproved. However, for disproving a god I need a definition of this god first.

Answer 6

The burden of proof is on the claimant im afraid, why do we need to prove something doesn't exist and that has no basis in fact? the very fact that there is no evidence is the proof.

This may sound like a cop-out but for me, and for many others i have read on here the conclusion is simple. Why follow the teachings and beliefs dictated by a religion which is, as far as the evidence shows, entirely made up, just because we can't explain something?

Millions of people in the world follow budhism, whats the point in believing in the christian world view when there is equally viable (read equally un-evidenced) alternative?

For me the "God" position is the end of thought. It equates to "We don't know the answer so we'll make something up and then let it dictate our lives". So i keep thinking and keep exploring, who knows, maybe one day we'll suddenly find evidence for God and realise it is all true, then i'll believe. Until then im sorry my friend, its a no sale. I don't believe.

Answer 7

First of all, no atheist I know tries to use science to disprove God. Only certain believers do that. They say that if certain scientific ideas, such as evolution or the Big Bang are true, it means that God doesn't exist. Scientists and atheists don't say that. Fundamentalist religionists do.

Second, whether or not Einstein believed in God is very debatable. He used the term God to describe that which is extremely complex about the universe. But he fundamentally believed that everything about the universe COULD be explained by science. He went to his grave searching for one unifying theory of physics that explained all the known forces in the universe. He never threw it up to a mystical and magical God that defied the laws of physics or that ruled our lives.

So, you can call that what you like but it if you call it belief in God, it is belief in a much, much different God than you probably believe in.

Answer 8

Einstein is not infallible, for one. He also believed in a God only in as much as he is represented by the laws of nature. No matter how you play around with the issue, something had to have come from nothing or there always had to be something. Yet, it seems easier to think that the universe came about by itself, or has always been, then to assume that a Creator exists merely because we do not have an explanation that proves otherwise. That is a leap that is a little too far.

Answer 9

Pluralize, it's "atheists."

I never claimed it did.

The only thing scientific I use to support my conviction that there is no god is that there is the same amount of evidence for it as there is for an invisible triceratops in my back yard: none.

NO ONE but the misguided who never bothered to study science claims that "everything came from nothing." The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, only transferred.

If infinity doesn't exist, then how does your god possibly exist?

I'm not a sheep. I do not follow a religious belief because it's "in" with the top scientists.

Answer 10

Nobody's trying to use science to disprove God.
Science has nothing to do with God.

What we have a problem with are people who ignore and deny scientific facts and evidence because it's not what they *want* to hear because it doesn't gel with their religious beliefs.

If someone wants to accept the evidence, and accept the facts, and then make a decision that they believe that that's just the way "God" did things, then fine.
Just don't try to tell my children ridiculous nonsense like "dinosaurs lived at the same time as people."

Answer 11

not everyone that believes in science is an atheist. my dad is a scientist and also a Christian. i believe in science and evolution but also believe that there is some sort of higher being (although i have issues with Christianity for separate reasons). why do some Christians believe that evolution is wrong because of the Bible?