Athiest can never disprove the existence of God

[ANDY-J3]

In science theories are as good as it gets. It might be hard for the layman to grasp because in everyday language the word theory implies that guesswork is being used however in science theories are often better than laws. A law states that a given phenomenon occurs whereas a scientific theory is a whole framework of mutually coroborating evidence and hypotheses that explain how and why it occurs. Big bang is a theory but it's the only one available that is based on sound evidence therefore at present it's the only explanation that I consider provides a viable explanation for the origin of the universe.

[Christian1]

God doesn't believe in atheists how does that sound?

[jobee]

Originally Posted by dattaswami

Athiest can never disprove the existence of God

The atheists can never disprove the existence of unimaginable God due to several unimaginable events (miracles) exhibited by several Godly people and due to several practical experiences of the existence of unimaginable power of God during the lives of several people in this world.

The miracles are exhibited not only by Godly people and human incarnations but also by evil people having very bad character and conduct, cheating the public in many ways. The development of atheism is mainly due to the existence of such evil people only. But, the atheists are also not analyzing the miracle performed by an evil person. The concept of the miracle is completely different and has nothing to do with the character of the person performing that miracle. A petty fellow, who has worst character due to bad habits like drinking etc., is announcing a rule of Municipality in a town to the public. The message of the announcement has nothing to do with the character of the announcer. Since, the announcer is a bad fellow, you cannot ignore the message of the Municipality and behave as you like. The announcer will be separately punished for his bad character. You will be also punished if you ignore his announcement based on the point that the announcer is not a good fellow.

Similarly, you have to take the point conveyed by the miracle and ignore the character of the evil person performing that miracle. God will punish him separately for his evil nature. From the unimaginable event (miracle), you should conclude the existence of unimaginable God. This is the message of any miracle to create the fundamental belief in God. Some people having jealousy on great devotees of God or the human incarnation of God, reject the greatness of devotees or incarnation based on miracles by saying “even dirty people perform these miracles. What is the greatness by such miracles?”.

They pass such comments due to two reasons:

1) they are jealous of the greatness of devotees or incarnation and
2) they have not understood the message conveyed by a miracle.

If a good fellow is announcing a message and if you say that the same message was also announced by a bad fellow previously and hence the message should be neglected, is it correct? A miracle is necessary for majority of human beings to have real belief in the existence of God. Several people are standing on the ground and require this to climb the first step. After having the full belief in the existence of God, miracles are not necessary because the second step is to attain the grace of God through practical sacrifice. But, several theists also need the observation of miracles, because their belief is not perfect and hence to strengthen their belief, miracles are necessary. Even a person having full faith in the existence of God should not criticize the miracles, because you cannot ignore the first step after climbing the second step.

I can prove its not a 'caring' God/Allah. Every single star /sun you see in the
cosmos will/has died. This planet will die when our sun becomes a red giant
and scorches all life on this planet to death. [All info available on your computer] The nearest planetary system is 73 thousand 'years' away at current speeds [ alpha centuri/proxima] We/mass can never travel at C =speed of light in a vacuum. What caring God/allah would leave us in that situation?

Praying to things that don't care is stupid.

See 'Blind faith Psychosis' on this forums poetry site.

[jobee]

[quote=Christian1;409678]God doesn't believe in atheists how does that sound?

Martin Luther was a jew bater ,did you know?

Much scholarly debate has focused on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that the Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis from 1933 to 1945.[8] As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.[9].

[Crofter]

I agree that in science theories are as good as it gets. I do not agree that in science theories are better than laws or facts. To a scientist or anyone else, a theory is a theory, and remains a theory until it is proved beyond doubt. Neither can they say it does not matter what caused this bang. Something caused it, and that something had to come from somewhere, and be made somehow.

The Big Bang theory is itself based on two other theories. Einstein’s general theory on the effects of gravitational pull, and the Cosmological theory that says the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and that from wherever in the universe it is observed from, it is the same. They also reckon that there was more than one Big Bang, and that they still occur out there somewhere.

Then they tell us of the Black Holes, caused by planets and solar systems imploding. These turn the gravitational theories on their head. Conditions in the wide universe are not necessarily the same as they were where Einstein was conducting his experiments. Nor are they necessarily the same as they appear to us in this part of the universe that we are able to observe.
They are attempting to reproduce the Big Bang here on earth. If their theories are correct, and the experiment is successful, there can be no other outcome than that we will be blasted into oblivion. They will not even have time to say “We told you”

Nothing that has been said on the subject so far can dispel the belief of those who maintain that in the beginning was the Word.

Regards,

Crofter.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Crofter

I agree that in science theories are as good as it gets. I do not agree that in science theories are better than laws or facts.


A law only states that a given phenomenon occurs - a theory, such as the theory of evolution can incorporate laws within it. A theory in science can be a framework of hypotheses and laws all supported by mutually corroborating evidence.




To a scientist or anyone else, a theory is a theory, and remains a theory until it is proved beyond doubt. Neither can they say it does not matter what caused this bang. Something caused it, and that something had to come from somewhere, and be made somehow.

Except in science even if something were 99.9% proven scientists would still term it a theory. How perverse would it be however to dispute the validity of a theory on the basis that there is a .1 % chance that it could be wrong. Therefore some theories in science are effectively facts. Big bang theory states that a super condensed particle of matter and energy reached critical mass and resulted in big bang. It doesn't touch upon how this particle came to be in existence. Maybe some deity created it, maybe it was even the God of Christianity but that is outwith the scope of physicists to comment upon. They deal only in the available evidence not the supernatural.


Nothing that has been said on the subject so far can dispel the belief of those who maintain that in the beginning was the Word.

It is not my intention to try and pro-actively dispel the beliefs of any religionists- I'm neutral towards belief in God(s). It is my intention to point out that there are natural explanations for the origins of the universe based on valid evidence. If evidence were put forward that pointed directly to a supernatural deity having had a hand in the creation of the universe then I would consider that objectively but in the absence of such evidence it isn't something that I think has to be brought into the equation.

[franfran]

Atheists can, by logical reasoning, satisfy themselves that there is no God. But to actually prove that God does not exist is another matter altogether. It is not so easy to disprove the existence of something that cannot be seen. The best that Atheists have been able to do, and the best that they can do and have done, is to assemble facts, observations and opinions and from them reason that God does not exist.

Epicurus wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And this is often quoted by Atheists as a justification for their position regarding religion. But then, many of the things that we consider to be evil in fact are capable of being sources of good. Is it malevolent of God to let humans use their own free will rather than force them do what is right? In quoting this passage are Atheists suggesting that we should be robots that are compelled to do good? No. God created humans, not robots. Humans have free will - free will that allows them to choose to do good or evil, free will that allows them to accept or reject God.

The attitude of most Atheists seems to be that if something is proven that means it is fact and if something cannot be proven then it must be assumed to be false.

Most educated believers (other than fundamentalists, whose attitudes and motives I find rather difficult to fathom) do not take Genesis literally, contrary to what a lot of Atheists assume. Everyone other than the fundamentalists (who seem to be mainly an American phenomenon) agree that the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago, and agree with Darwin that all life on Earth evolved from an initial life form. But Darwin did not explain how that initial life form came into being. This leaves open the possibility that it was influenced by a creator of our universe.