[demadone]

In the United States today, we have tens of thousands of priests, rabbis, mullahs, pastors, and preachers who are paid professionals, who claim to be active and functioning mediators between people and omnipotent invisible masters of the universe. They make specific claims about their god's nature, what he's made of and what he isn't, how he thinks and acts, what you should do to propitiate it…they somehow seem to have amazingly detailed information about this being. Yet, when a scientist approaches with a critical eye, suddenly it is a creature that not only has never been observed, but cannot observed, and its actions invisible, impalpible, and immaterial.

If that's the evidence against God's existence....
You are asking the wrong people.

From what I gathered from that article, there is absolutely nothing to prove God's nonexistence. Worse still he is just making fun of creationists. Once you start generalizing creationists, then you are not playing by the rules. I for one don't think dinosaurs are proof that God doesn't exist or even the old ape fossils.

Creationism is by me the notion of the universe created by intelligence and not by impossible chance.

Darwin never concluded that he's observations and deductions meant God doesn't exist. He's followers though try to depict it that way.

I never said I have mathematical proof of God's existence. It's an absurd notion.

[_Stefan_]

You're not making much sense. You haven't read the blog entry properly either.

"Worse still"?
"Creationism is by me the notion of the universe created by intelligence and not by impossible chance."
That's the kind of creationism that academics are fighting against.

This is not about Darwin. Science does not depend on Darwin.

If you have unambiguous evidence for anything you are claiming, please present it. Otherwise, please stop making stuff up.

[demadone]

You're not making much sense. You haven't read the blog entry properly either.

Maybe you can show me what evidence is there in the blog. I didn't see any. For one thing one of the blog users gives a good example of something influenced on by the spirit realm, dowsing. Though I believe it is influenced by bad spirits.

And to say God hidden from man is way too much. The whole universe is a good example. Do you know the most influential man ever on earth?

[_Stefan_]

I can't imagine what it must be like to be in your head. I can't follow your logic.

Pharyngula readers are influenced by bad spirits? WTF?

The blog was pointing out that there is no evidence for god. It's up to those who claim there is a god to provide the evidence.

To say that the universe and it's contents is evidence for god is not valid, because there is no way to distinguish this from the alternative, that the universe arose and developed by natural processes. There is no way to test that god hypothesis and reach the conclusion that god is real, because all the evidence can be explained by reasonable natural answers.

If god wanted science to think that he doesn't exist, he's done everything in his power to make it seem that way.

[demadone]

Pharyngula readers are influenced by bad spirits?

I never said that. Dowsing is.

To say that the universe and it's contents is evidence for god is not valid, because there is no way to distinguish this from the alternative, that the universe arose and developed by natural processes. There is no way to test that god hypothesis and reach the conclusion that god is real, because all the evidence can be explained by reasonable natural answers.

And have you ever sat down to think that those 'reasonable natural answers' are guided by certain rules that made it possible for the universe to exist in the first place?

that the universe arose and developed by natural processes

An unguided explosion would have left many loop holes for chaotic debris that could not be studied by 'reasonable' science. And by all means even if the singularity had no source, it would never have exploded into a sustainable universe with all the elements we know.

Talking of the big bang, the early empty spaces that made it possible for the stars to ignite can not be explained if the big bang was not designed and guided. Note too that singularities don't explode under normal conditions. By 'reasonable' science, they don't explode.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be in your head. I can't follow your logic.

Try to read my threads carefully and with a neutral perspective.

[demadone]

The fact that you need to ask for examples means that you are ignorant of how science works and/or have not read the bible. Just open up to almost any page where the topic is God and you'll see the contradictions between God and reality.

I think that is what make things up is. You still can't come up with any examples of what you mean.

[Don_1]

For pity sake!!!!

There can be no evidence, mathematical or otherwise, fore or against the existence of any Gods.

We all make our own individual choice based on what evidence there is, what theory there is and the writings, findings, theories and beliefs of scientists and theologians and the bloke down the pub.

We are free to follow whichever path we choose, be it atheist, agnostic, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism or paganism, just as we are free to follow Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, Take That or Dolly Parton; just as we are free to choose between Ford, Nissan or BMW.

My atheism has no effect on any other person. It is my choice and my choice alone. If you choose to believe in God, so be it, may your God be with you.

Can we not be adult enough to leave it at that, and agree to disagree? This argument is getting nobody anywhere.

[demadone]

There can be no evidence, mathematical or otherwise, fore or against the existence of any Gods.

I through in a few lines of evidence in the thread (MessageID: 228803). Unless perhaps you don't know much about the big bang and it's early stages.

[dentstudent]

This is basically just a big game of "Spot the Logical Fallacy". God of the Gaps features very prominantly....Any additions anyone?

[BenV]

I'm with Don_1 on this, and will re-state my earlier post:

You think there is a god, I do not.  You cannot prove it to me, and I cannot disprove it to you.

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove your fairy exists, you feel it's my responsibility to prove it doesn't.

Where is this going to get us?

There is no sensible debate here, and certainly no science.  We could continue to argue this forever, as there is no scientific evidence for god, yet those who believe in a god see 'evidence' everywhere they look.

I hope everyone can be happy believing what they want to believe, without trying to foist it upon others.

I'm locking this thread now.  PM me if you feel it's really worth having this thread still ongoing on a science forum.