Can you prove the non-existence of a god?
- Thread starter Matabele
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Maybe we can have both...
If the laws that govern the universe work in such a way that a series of 'cosmic accidents' eventually produce intelligent life, given enough planets and enough time, then there is no reason why the those intelligent beings could not be ascribed a purpose by a creator, who would have set the laws in place to begin with.
And Dan, about the energy stuff, a lecturer once told me: "There is no such thing as a free lunch", which pretty much sums it up I reckon. So yeah you can't create energy, just transform it.
ManlyBacker
Winging it
On energy, and to all my understandings - Fluffy is spot on. Doesn't matter what 'level' you look at it - you cannot create energy by colliding anything. It is just a conversion from one form to another.
Sorry Ryan - "Human life was created at some start point. We haven't been in existence forever (wether it be GOD, or some big bang theory etc)." I can't agree with this either. If you look at Big Bang / singularity, or string theory, or any of the others that are going around we will probably find that what is has probably always been and has just been converted (compressed and released at Big Bang, ala string) as far as energy is concerned.
On the topic of 'human' existance, the thinking creature that believes it operates on a higher plane with purpose from other organisms that have evolved, my guess is that there are other more evolved creatures that believe the same things about themselves. I wouldn't be surprised, and taking the fact we use only a small part of our evolving brain capacity, that we ourselves are way along our own possible path and (thanks Mata
) all may be 'revealed' some time in the future (light bending included ).
And Gronk, and there is no proof - BUT what if intelligent life is produced, given enough planets and enough time, and those intelligent beings become a 'creator' (more like energy conversion and environmental manipulators) and ascribe a purpose to other intelligent beings?....
:blah: :blah: :blah:
Sorry Ryan - "Human life was created at some start point. We haven't been in existence forever (wether it be GOD, or some big bang theory etc)." I can't agree with this either. If you look at Big Bang / singularity, or string theory, or any of the others that are going around we will probably find that what is has probably always been and has just been converted (compressed and released at Big Bang, ala string) as far as energy is concerned.
On the topic of 'human' existance, the thinking creature that believes it operates on a higher plane with purpose from other organisms that have evolved, my guess is that there are other more evolved creatures that believe the same things about themselves. I wouldn't be surprised, and taking the fact we use only a small part of our evolving brain capacity, that we ourselves are way along our own possible path and (thanks Mata
) all may be 'revealed' some time in the future (light bending included ).And Gronk, and there is no proof - BUT what if intelligent life is produced, given enough planets and enough time, and those intelligent beings become a 'creator' (more like energy conversion and environmental manipulators) and ascribe a purpose to other intelligent beings?....
:blah: :blah: :blah:
On energy, and to all my understandings - Fluffy is spot on. Doesn't matter what 'level' you look at it - you cannot create energy by colliding anything. It is just a conversion from one form to another.
Sorry Ryan - \"Human life was created at some start point. We haven't been in existence forever (wether it be GOD, or some big bang theory etc).\" I can't agree with this either. If you look at Big Bang / singularity, or string theory, or any of the others that are going around we will probably find that what is has probably always been and has just been converted (compressed and released at Big Bang, ala string) as far as energy is concerned.
On the topic of 'human' existance, the thinking creature that believes it operates on a higher plane with purpose from other organisms that have evolved, my guess is that there are other more evolved creatures that believe the same things about themselves. I wouldn't be surprised, and taking the fact we use only a small part of our evolving brain capacity, that we ourselves are way along our own possible path and (thanks Mata
And Gronk, and there is no proof - BUT what if intelligent life is produced, given enough planets and enough time, and those intelligent beings become a 'creator' (more like energy conversion and environmental manipulators) and ascribe a purpose to other intelligent beings?....
:blah: :blah: :blah:
Very interesting idea, and yeah entirely possible, even if there is a bit of a Douglas Adams ring to it. Given that homo sapiens has only come in to being in the last 3-4million years, and it has been 14 or so billion years since the big bang, there is every chance that another form of intelligent life could have evolved well before us, and be far greater advanced. Of course, any beings located within the universe will be limited in the feats they could achieve by the physical laws of the universe-which cannot be circumvented. A creator outside the universe on the other hand could supposedly have had control in setting up the laws in the first place-and would most likely be far more effective means of controlling things.
fLIP
UFO Hunter
With regards to the initial question. The answer is no. I cannot disprove the existance of god. As a matter of fact, the plain obvious will point you in a direction that indicates there must be a creator of all things. ie, the earth, life, solar system, univerce ect ect.
However, what I feel would be a more appropriate question to debate would be, can you disprove the (or my) 'perception' of god.
In that case, every religion in the world has its flaws. And it will. It was created by man. Created by us so that out beliefe in something greater will have a face to it. We know there is something more, people just need to be able to relate to it on a more human scale. For I believe the truth is to much for us to fathom.
The ultimate in vanity is those who create a god in their own image.
However, what I feel would be a more appropriate question to debate would be, can you disprove the (or my) 'perception' of god.
In that case, every religion in the world has its flaws. And it will. It was created by man. Created by us so that out beliefe in something greater will have a face to it. We know there is something more, people just need to be able to relate to it on a more human scale. For I believe the truth is to much for us to fathom.
The ultimate in vanity is those who create a god in their own image.
fLIP is correct with the very first part of his statement, I believe. Off the top of my head, at least, I have never heard of a proof of non-existence.
As far as I know, you can't prove that something doesn't exist, just as you can't prove that you can't do something. You can only prove that something does exist, or that you can do something.
As far as I know, you can't prove that something doesn't exist, just as you can't prove that you can't do something. You can only prove that something does exist, or that you can do something.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
Can you prove that???? :lol: :lol:
So because you have never seen it happen before is proof?
That is odd logic mate!
I have never seen the Taj mahal, I never saw it get built so using your logic, it must not exist!
hmmm thanks for clearing that up.
Science had never seen an atom at one stage mate, it had never seen electricity. It had never seen a lot of things. But they existed.
Just because something hasnt been observed by you doesn't mean that it doesnt exist.
I am aware by the same token you could use the argument that. Just because I havent seen a god doesnt mean it doesnt exist, the difference is that argument uses a presumption where as my argument is simple. "It can not be proven"
fLIP
UFO Hunter
I think you may have mis-interpreted that a little dan.
I can neither prove nor disprove a god or god like power.
What I am suggesting is to me, the blatant obvious points to some sort of creator. Or we wouldn't be here.
Obviously you are hung up on my example more so than the point I was trying to put forward.
I can neither prove nor disprove a god or god like power.
What I am suggesting is to me, the blatant obvious points to some sort of creator. Or we wouldn't be here.
Obviously you are hung up on my example more so than the point I was trying to put forward.
fLIP to say that it is blatantly obvious that there is a creator is beyond the ridiculous.
Just because some things are around doesn't mean they had to be created.
For isntance. oxygen or air. It is "created" every single second. No one or "creates" this change, it is just done
The same with other elements and their change of state.
To say it is obvious we were created just seems like a massive speculative leap with no evidence apart from the fact that things are there. This is the most non-sensical, non-logical and unscientific thing I have heard.
Suggest you do some reading on basic science and then re-join the argument since essentially this is a debate of a mixture of a few things
Science, Theology and religion. not wild speculation
Just because some things are around doesn't mean they had to be created.
For isntance. oxygen or air. It is "created" every single second. No one or "creates" this change, it is just done
The same with other elements and their change of state.
To say it is obvious we were created just seems like a massive speculative leap with no evidence apart from the fact that things are there. This is the most non-sensical, non-logical and unscientific thing I have heard.
Suggest you do some reading on basic science and then re-join the argument since essentially this is a debate of a mixture of a few things
Science, Theology and religion. not wild speculation
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 48 | 8 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 25 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 37 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -13 | 6 |
|
5 | 2 | 3 | -15 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -36 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -5 | 4 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -7 | 4 |
|
5 | 0 | 5 | -86 | 2 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 2 |
