There's probably no God

There's probably no God

There are 10128 comments on the Canada.com story from Jan 17, 2009, titled There's probably no God. In it, Canada.com reports that:

Atheists have started advertising. The most talked about ad campaign in England, now plastered across the outside of 800 British buses, declares: "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life." The campaign opened last week with rousing speeches by Richard Dawkins and representatives of the British Humanist Association, after a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Canada.com.

Paul WV

United States

#4950 Jul 26, 2009
Easter Bunny wrote:
Paul WV wrote:
How? Go by what I post and not by what I believe. What I believe is irrelevant to the facts.
<quoted text>
But why would you expect a fundie to know even know what "veracity" is? As if he'd have any interest in such a concept.
I think you are getting off the subject. What evidence do you have that God probably does not exist?
Second Coming of Dave D

Howell, MI

#4951 Jul 26, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a hang up with the Bible? Did I say anything about the Bible? If you don't even know if God exists, how can you assign any attributes to Him? The claim is: "There's probably no God." That is the claim that you need to prove. Now give me a scientific argument that supports this claim.
One other thing: If you are not referring to the Christian Bible, then you can only be referring to the Jewish/Hebrew Bible or the Qur'an.

No other holy texts are concerned with God (capital 'G'.)

And unless you explicitly state that the Intelligent Designer didn't knock up a pre-teen Arab chick, then I'll assume you believe that it did.

“If you say it, back it up”

Since: Jan 08

Ocoee, FL

#4952 Jul 26, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are two corollary arguments:
Take a very close look at an animal that has been killed and gutted by another animal which is consuming it. Is that not beautiful to watch? Ah, God is great!
And when the killer has eaten his fill, and the maggots finish the job, isn't that just GORGEOUS? Especially on a hot summer day, when the maggots are feasting, and the scent of that rotting flesh fills the air. Mmmmm, breathe that in and rejoice in God, who created that lovely aroma for YOU.
Yes, God loved his creation so much, he made the birds and the fish and all the animals in such a way that man and woman would find pleasure in them., even when they die and decompose and stink to the point that you vomit if you get close enough.
Second argument: miracles.
Miracles have been documented and verified in non-Christian cultures. Is that therefore evidence of other gods?
Why would your God, if he wants you to believe that he is the one true god, perform miracles among people who pray to Allah, Krishna, or some other deity?
One possible answer is that Satan is at work in those cultures, trying to keep people away from following your god.
The problem with that is, some of these miracles are beneficial and healing, so why would Satan perform good deeds?
Also, how can you know for sure that Satan isn't performing the miracles ascribed to YOUR god? You can't know, can you? There's no way to discern which supernatural being is performing which miracle.
All deities answer prayers, so again, how do you reach the conclusion that your god is the one true god?
Only a religious bigot would insist that the miracles performed by the Christian god are real, and that all others are either hoaxes or the work of demons.
Dave, this is good stuff. I am headed out the door. Give me some time to chew on this and get back to you.

“If you say it, back it up”

Since: Jan 08

Ocoee, FL

#4953 Jul 26, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say the bushman would think it assembled itself? No, I said he would believe that it was created by God.
If you want to have an honest debate, don't put words in my mouth, or the gloves will come off.
I do NOT believe in "intelligent" design. Nature is not "intelligent" Nature doesn't have a brain, nor does it have a grand design.
Nature tries things out, based on environment, survival, etc.
The things that work, nature keeps doing.
The ones that don't become extinct.
You HAVE heard of extinction, yes? Do you have any clue why species become extinct? Even species that live nowhere near man become extinct, so neither man nor man's byproducts (pollution, overpopulation, disease, etc.) cause those species to become extinct.
The bushman doesn't know he is ignorant, but WE do. We have the advantage because we have a superior purview.
However, in MY purview, YOU are one step up from the bushman. You cannot see what I see, just as the bushman cannot see what YOU see regarding him.
If you were up here with me, your eyes would open and you'd cast off your delusions.
Care to join me? I can loan you a ladder, but I want it back by Friday...
Oh stop with the gloves comment. Sheesh.

When I think I understand what someone is saying I repeat it back to make sure. How many times have I said on here, "Correct me if I am wrong."

You put those gloves back on...you'll catch a cold. What would your mother say??
Paul WV

United States

#4954 Jul 26, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
One other thing: If you are not referring to the Christian Bible, then you can only be referring to the Jewish/Hebrew Bible or the Qur'an.
No other holy texts are concerned with God (capital 'G'.)
And unless you explicitly state that the Intelligent Designer didn't knock up a pre-teen Arab chick, then I'll assume you believe that it did.
Why do you go off on different tangents and not address the problem at hand. Now give me scientific proof there's probably no God. This is the claim being made by atheist, now I want to see their scientific proof supporting this claim.
Paul WV

United States

#4955 Jul 26, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
Your capitalization of "God" and "Him" proves that you are referring to the God of the Bible.
If I'm incorrect, please explain.
Otherwise, my argument stands: if you believe that God is the Intelligent Designer, then it's easy to prove that that is false, in which case the Intelligent Designer may exist, but God cannot.
Okay prove an intelligent designer may exist but God cannot.
Second Coming of Dave D

Howell, MI

#4956 Jul 26, 2009
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh stop with the gloves comment. Sheesh.
When I think I understand what someone is saying I repeat it back to make sure. How many times have I said on here, "Correct me if I am wrong."
You put those gloves back on...you'll catch a cold. What would your mother say??
Okay, then:

You stand corrected!

LOL
Second Coming of Dave D

Howell, MI

#4957 Jul 26, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you go off on different tangents and not address the problem at hand. Now give me scientific proof there's probably no God. This is the claim being made by atheist, now I want to see their scientific proof supporting this claim.
The CONCLUSION that there is probably no God is NOT a CLAIM.

"God exists" is a CLAIM.

Here's how it breaks down:

The claim is made that God exists.

The skeptic asks for proof of that claim.

No proof is offered; instead, the argument is made that one must take it "on faith," which means that one is being asked to believe something that has not been proved.

Therefore, due to the lack of evidence, the claim "God exists" is not true, so it is false.

The person making the claim for the existence of something has the burden of proof. The burden of proof does NOT fall on the skeptic who, absent proof, concludes that the claim is false.

"Touching a toad causes warts" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "kissing a toad causes warts" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that kissing a toad does NOT cause warts.

"Disease is caused by demons" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "disease is caused by demons" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that demons do NOT cause disease.

"God created everything" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "God created everything" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that God did NOT create everything.

"God exists" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "God exists" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that God does NOT exist.

Touching toads PROBABLY does not cause warts. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for warts to be caused by touching toads? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.

Demons PROBABLY do not cause disease. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for disease to be caused by demons? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.

God PROBABLY did not create everything. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for everything to have been created by God? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.

God PROBABLY does not exist. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.

With one exception: the God of the Bible CANNOT exist, since in order for that God to exist, the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old, the Sun must orbit the Earth, vegetation must exist without sunlight, and there must have been day and night before there was a sun.

Once again, unless you can demonstrate that the God you speak of is other than the God of the Bible, that God cannot exist.
I cannot debate effectively or intelligently with someone who does not know or refuses to acknowledge the laws of logic and reasoning.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4958 Jul 26, 2009
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
Khatru,
In my opinion, Jehovah, but that is simply my opinion. It seems the most logical, but of course, that is just my opinion. ;-)
Look, I can guess where you are going with this and it is certainly a valid argument, but just because there are many perceptions of God based upon any plethora of regions, reasons, etc. does not negate the possibility or plausibility that there is one true God. I just happen to believe that Jehovah is the one true God. Not MY Jehovah that I created in my own mind, but the Jehovah of the Bible. The reason I believe that is not because I like everything in the Bible. There are multiple Old Testament writtings that are particularly distasteful to me....but I didn't get to vote.
For me, it comes down to the belief that there is too much complexity around me to deny the existance of some higher power. To my left is an H-P Color LaserJet 2600n. When I print out a Test Page, I see a vibrantly colorful toy train? Science (and H-P Tech Support) can certainly explain how the make up of the ink and how it sticks the the paper. My question for you is...can science explain how and why the toy train and 2 columns of H-P specs happened to show up on the paper itself? Well, I guess that depends upon your definition of science. At the very least, logic tells us that if a toy train and formatted text is appearing on the page, that there was a programmer that made it so. The train and words didn't just appear on the page in that order by mere chance and time.
I like Norm Geisler's example. Let's say, tomorrow morning, you walk to your kitchen and there is a spilled box of Alphabet cereals on your kitchen table. You look closer and contained within the spillage is the sentence, "Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop." Who among us could really believe that the sentence happened by chance?(Endulge my strawman for a moment). "WAIT," you say, "Not a valid example, for we are not talking about simply one random spillage. We are talking about tipping the box over billions of times over billions of years." Are you saying given enough time and chance the spilled box would result in the sentence? Maybe it could, but could chance and time really create an incredibly perfect code inside of DNA? That is just not logical to me.
By the way, my belief in a diety was affected by just observing my surroundings...admiring the majesty of a clear starry sky, watching my kids be born, making love to my wife, admiring the love two elderly people share holding hands walking down the sidewalk outside my office window...emotion, admiration, love, taste buds, the human brain...for that matter...the magnificance of the entire human body itself, the way eyes can discern color and beauty and how beauty is interpreted differently by different set of eyes... how smell is captured by the nose and immediately transferred to the brain for decoding and recognition. I could go on and on.
I am sorry, friend. I don't have that kind of faith.
Hello Michael

There wasn't enough room for my response to this and I didn' twant to delete your post so I'll post my reply immediately after this one....

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4959 Jul 26, 2009
I can respect your decision to believe in a god. I don't agree with it but it's your view and you are as entitled to it as I am of mine.

I've never heard of Norm Geisler although the example you mention is very similar to one credited to Fred Hoyle:

He said something like "The probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."

The idea of everything being created by design (from the smallest quark to the largest galaxy) is something I just can't believe in.

The universe is vast, possibly infinite in distance, although maybe not infinite in its lifespan. I believe that in the vast amount of time that has gone by some of the unlikliest improbabilities may become realities. Among those improbabilities is the natural development of life.

I also feel that a celestial designer with the ability to fine tune (as people say) our bit of the cosmos so that it is conducive to life is as improbable as the fine tuning that is alleged to have taken place.

Some people believe in other civilisations scattered across the galaxies but I'm not so sure. The fact that life developed at all is wonderous to the extreme and we are fortunate that the laws of physics enabled that to happen.

Michael, I don't think you'll disagree with the above paragraph and I don't think you'll disagree with the next one:

Your final paragraph conjures up some nice images and I can appreciate the beauty and wonderment in all of those examples. In that respect I'm no different to you.

Where we differ (of course) is that you don't accept my belief that we are here because of nature and I don't accept your belief that we owe our existence to a benevolent god.

As for Jehovah, well I take the view that if there is some intrinsic sacred dimension to our existence, I can't see it concerning itself with whether we eat pork or how much flesh a woman should display.

Slainte

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4960 Jul 26, 2009
Hmm, Topix is a bit ropey this evening

“Is that necessary?”

Since: Feb 09

Where I was born

#4961 Jul 26, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! You claim is: "There's probably no God." I say prove your claim. I say: "There's probably a God." I argue from design, what do you argue from?
Arguing from design is a failed argument. Here are a few reasons why.

Tail bones, wisdom teeth, appendix, choking, lower back pain, tonsils, chicken legs--with their scales, infant mortality rate, flu virus, snake hips... and the list goes on. If a creator who is supposedly all power created this, then he did a rather sh|tty job, and doesn't deserve to be called "all powerful". If, however a creator who was limited in capability created this, that is better understandable.. however, then we're faced with the problem that being substandard, as this creation is, and as the creator would have had to be tells us that it is not worthy of praise or adulation.

“Is that necessary?”

Since: Feb 09

Where I was born

#4962 Jul 26, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
I would examine the facts. Does the source of knowledge alter the facts?
It alters the meaning of the term "fact". To a schizophrenic, it is a FACT that they are the King of Holland.
jack13

United States

#4963 Jul 26, 2009
] If you put 10,000 monkeys in a room full of 1,000 typriters, and would not feed them until they finished typing every day 10,000 words for five years, you would get complete sentences and probaly a little verse. Would that be proof of a intellegent design? When you have a billion years to work with with the survival of the fittest in action, you can see that nature most likely brought about the human climb to the top on the food chain.As for the stars, At one time they were thought of as just miles away from earth. Today we know they are billions of miles way.
Who will end up inherationg the earth? I suspect it will be insects. There are millions of different types of insects and they have been here for before the dinosaurs and as we rae busy making earth uninhabital for humans, will be here after we are long gone. Perhaps that is gods plan?
Paul WV

United States

#4964 Jul 26, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
The CONCLUSION that there is probably no God is NOT a CLAIM.
"God exists" is a CLAIM.
Here's how it breaks down:
The claim is made that God exists.
The skeptic asks for proof of that claim.
No proof is offered; instead, the argument is made that one must take it "on faith," which means that one is being asked to believe something that has not been proved.
Therefore, due to the lack of evidence, the claim "God exists" is not true, so it is false.
The person making the claim for the existence of something has the burden of proof. The burden of proof does NOT fall on the skeptic who, absent proof, concludes that the claim is false.
"Touching a toad causes warts" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "kissing a toad causes warts" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that kissing a toad does NOT cause warts.
"Disease is caused by demons" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "disease is caused by demons" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that demons do NOT cause disease.
"God created everything" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "God created everything" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that God did NOT create everything.
"God exists" is a claim that has no evidence to back it up, therefore "God exists" is a false statement. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that God does NOT exist.
Touching toads PROBABLY does not cause warts. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for warts to be caused by touching toads? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.
Demons PROBABLY do not cause disease. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for disease to be caused by demons? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.
God PROBABLY did not create everything. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for everything to have been created by God? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.
God PROBABLY does not exist. Can I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist? No, but the probability of that being true is close to zero, since it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true.
With one exception: the God of the Bible CANNOT exist, since in order for that God to exist, the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old, the Sun must orbit the Earth, vegetation must exist without sunlight, and there must have been day and night before there was a sun.
Once again, unless you can demonstrate that the God you speak of is other than the God of the Bible, that God cannot exist.
I cannot debate effectively or intelligently with someone who does not know or refuses to acknowledge the laws of logic and reasoning.
I do question this logic of yours: "Therefore, due to the lack of evidence, the claim "God exists" is not true, so it is false." So if there is no evidence there is life on other planets, the claim there is life on other planets is not true, so it is false. Great logic there. Would you like to try again?

The problem with your understanding of Christianity is that you think all Christians are fundamentalist. I can assure you they are not. I can believe in the God of the Bible and still believe in evolution, the big bang, the universe being 13 to 17 billion years old, etc.
Paul WV

United States

#4965 Jul 26, 2009
The Heathen wrote:
<quoted text>
It alters the meaning of the term "fact". To a schizophrenic, it is a FACT that they are the King of Holland.
So if a schizophrenic tells you the earth revolves around the sun would alter "fact" that it does for you? I don't see how the personing telling you the earth revolves around the sun being a schizophrenic alters the fact? Can you explain how it does?
Easter Bunny

Taos, NM

#4966 Jul 26, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a hang up with the Bible? Did I say anything about the Bible? If you don't even know if God exists, how can you assign any attributes to Him? The claim is: "There's probably no God." That is the claim that you need to prove. Now give me a scientific argument that supports this claim.
I realize you haven't answered any questions put to you so far, but I just have to ask: Are you an idiot?

Like, you declare that people need to prove that there probably is no god, but you very well know that when somebody takes a position that something exists for which there has yet to be any evidence provided, it is up to you to support your position.

Challenging people to "prove" the truth of a phrase from an advertising slogan, otherwise your favorite spook is promoted to ruler of the universe, is positively the most idiotic thing I've ever heard on Topix.

Put more to the point (a process you've proved you know nothing about), the proof that the statement is reasonable enough to believe with confidence is that there is ZERO evidence to the contrary. To argue otherwise is equivalent to suggesting that the Easter Bunny is the ruler of the universe because Paul WV cannot disprove that claim.

But, please, entertain us with more non-sequiturs that supply ample motivation in the fight against religious nonsense.
Easter Bunny

Taos, NM

#4967 Jul 26, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
I do question this logic of yours: "Therefore, due to the lack of evidence, the claim "God exists" is not true, so it is false." So if there is no evidence there is life on other planets, the claim there is life on other planets is not true, so it is false. Great logic there. Would you like to try again?
Your dissembling is amazing.

The reason we say there might be life on other planets is because it would fit a pattern of other discoveries. After all, images from long time-exposures from the Hubble have looked at bits of sky that appeared to be totally dark, only to reveal thousands of distant galaxies in that one tiny patch of sky.

Just as we say the Sun will probably rise tomorrow although we have no ability to prove that it will. We conclude that it is reasonable to believe it, based on prior patterns that have proved themselves useful enough in life.

As far as we know right now, there is no life elsewhere in the universe, but it's also reasonable to figure that there probably is life out there. The same cannot be said for the spooks of your early indoctrination.

But I realize that you are too smart to not have already known all of those things. I mean, if you can tie your shoes, and figure that there is sometimes a reason to do so, then you're smart enough to see though the childish semantic games that nobody here falls for, including you, it seems.
Paul WV

United States

#4968 Jul 26, 2009
The Heathen wrote:
<quoted text>
Arguing from design is a failed argument. Here are a few reasons why.
Tail bones, wisdom teeth, appendix, choking, lower back pain, tonsils, chicken legs--with their scales, infant mortality rate, flu virus, snake hips... and the list goes on. If a creator who is supposedly all power created this, then he did a rather sh|tty job, and doesn't deserve to be called "all powerful". If, however a creator who was limited in capability created this, that is better understandable.. however, then we're faced with the problem that being substandard, as this creation is, and as the creator would have had to be tells us that it is not worthy of praise or adulation.
Neither argument proves there is not an intelligent designer, only that if there is one it does not measure up to what you would expect from an intelligent designer; but what you expect does not determine if there is or is not an intelligent designer.
Paul WV

United States

#4969 Jul 26, 2009
Easter Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize you haven't answered any questions put to you so far, but I just have to ask: Are you an idiot?
Like, you declare that people need to prove that there probably is no god, but you very well know that when somebody takes a position that something exists for which there has yet to be any evidence provided, it is up to you to support your position.
Challenging people to "prove" the truth of a phrase from an advertising slogan, otherwise your favorite spook is promoted to ruler of the universe, is positively the most idiotic thing I've ever heard on Topix.
Put more to the point (a process you've proved you know nothing about), the proof that the statement is reasonable enough to believe with confidence is that there is ZERO evidence to the contrary. To argue otherwise is equivalent to suggesting that the Easter Bunny is the ruler of the universe because Paul WV cannot disprove that claim.
But, please, entertain us with more non-sequiturs that supply ample motivation in the fight against religious nonsense.
I've argued from design that there probably is a God; which refutes your claim there probably is not a God. So far I've seen no arguments to support your side effectively. Would you want to start from the beginning?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 14 min Eagle 12 2,674
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Subduction Zone 61,198
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Dogen 28,314
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 15 hr IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web