Compelling evidence for the non-existence of God

[Delta4Embassy]

The deity mentioned in the Jewish Tanach did quite a lot. But looking around the world today, I see no evidence of any divine interventions. Either God never existed, died, or went away.

Think the God of the Bible would sit back and stay silent when so many carry out the worst atrocities ever in its' name? Tanach's God never sat back. And despite all that intervention, the entire world now worships false gods and versions of God as the plethora of other religions attest. Even modern Jews are fuzzy on how to worship God as orthodoxy has become marginalized, and more pagan versions like Reform have become dominant.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you not see His hand? It's all over history.

I see His influence in my life almost daily.

maybe if you followed your faith, you would recognize Him more. After all how does a man know a master he doesn't serve?

 

[midcan5]

This is an area in which you will never win. I remember when our granddaughter's fish died, how does one explain non-existence to a child whose mind is so conscious of being. I think I prefer George Williams approach, but it too is full of landmines and hard feelings.

"In the early chapters of this book I attempted to show that the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century God-is-smart tradition is fallacious. Now I plan an attack on what I'll call the God-is-good tradition.

Perhaps I should take a moment to deal with what I mean by God. I am not an atheist flaunting a caricature to offend people's religious sensitivities. In any theological discussion, I prefer to define atheism out of existence. Whatever entity or complex of entities is responsible for the universe being as we find it rather than some other way or not there at all, can be called God.

With God the Creator so defined, we can proceed to characterize and evaluate Him using the one source of evidence we have: His creation. On that basis I argued, in the first two chapters, that, contrary to the claims of Paley and others of the natural theology school, there is no evidence that God has any engineering expertise. Their arguments failed to recognize that functional design can arise not just from intelligent planning but also from blind trial and error. They failed to recognize that the apparently purposive structures and activities of living organisms are just what we would expect from trial-and-error production. Organisms show the expected stupid mistakes, the dysfunctional design features, that arise when understanding and planning are entirely absent." p 152, 'The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' George C. Williams

 

[Hollie]

I think that compelling evidence for the non-existence of anything Is a bogus approach. It's the "prove it isn't" weasel used by religionists to demand that their various gawds exist until "disproved".

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gods. There Is no reliable way to test for any of the claims to any of the supernatural gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of this simplistic argument, it is just not good enough to sway many people of a theistic bent.

 

[Taz]

How do you not see His hand? It's all over history.

I see His influence in my life almost daily.

maybe if you followed your faith, you would recognize Him more. After all how does a man know a master he doesn't serve?

I ain't nobody's servant. God can get his own fucking toast and coffee.

 

[Steven_R]

There may or may not be a god or gods or the Force or some other supernatural entity behind the universe. However, the scientific, historical, and archeological evidence is that Jehovah is no more real than Odin, Thor, or Superman.

 

[Blackrook]

You are all simply wrong. There is mountains of evidence that the Christian God is real, and there is plenty of evidence that of all Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church.

I have presented this evidence on prior occasions, and you simply discount it.

You are determined to remain ignorant of the truth, and there is no way to reach you.

I could provide more links now, but there is really no point in doing that, is there?

But here's one: the biography of Joan of Arc, from a secular source Wikipedia:

Joan of Arc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The life of Joan of Arc contains so many miracles and prophesies that came true, that there is no way it could have happened that way unless there is a God making it happen.

This is hard, cold historical evidence, not myth or legend. Joan of Arc was put on trial three times, so she is one of the best documented historical figures of all time.

Here's just one example:

At the age of 16, she asked a relative named Durand Lassois to take her to the nearby town of Vaucouleurs, where she petitioned the garrison commander, Robert de Baudricourt, for permission to visit the royal French court at Chinon. Baudricourt's sarcastic response did not deter her.[28] She returned the following January and gained support from two of Baudricourt's soldiers: Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy.[29] According to Jean de Metz, she told him that "I must be at the King's side... there will be no help (for the kingdom) if not from me. Although I would rather have remained spinning [wool] at my mother's side... yet must I go and must I do this thing, for my Lord wills that I do so."[30] Under the auspices of Metz and Poulengy, she gained a second meeting, where she made an announcement about a military reversal near Orléans several days before messengers arrived to report it.[31] Given the distance of the battle's location, Baudricourt felt Joan could only have known about the French defeat by Divine revelation, and this convinced him to take her seriously.

This is history, not myth or legend, recorded in Wikipedia and hundreds of other secular sources. If you refuse to believe this story is true, then you are rejecting recorded, proven fact.

 

[OZman]

Title should read "Jewish god". The Jewish people do not have a monopoly on the invention of gods.

 

[PostmodernProph]

But looking around the world today, I see no evidence of any divine interventions.

you are not the Pope.....I consider that an act of divine intervention......

 

[Delta4Embassy]

But looking around the world today, I see no evidence of any divine interventions.

you are not the Pope.....I consider that an act of divine intervention......

I could have been the Pope, but I have a problem with lying so no clergy for me

 

[PratchettFan]

The deity mentioned in the Jewish Tanach did quite a lot. But looking around the world today, I see no evidence of any divine interventions. Either God never existed, died, or went away.

Think the God of the Bible would sit back and stay silent when so many carry out the worst atrocities ever in its' name? Tanach's God never sat back. And despite all that intervention, the entire world now worships false gods and versions of God as the plethora of other religions attest. Even modern Jews are fuzzy on how to worship God as orthodoxy has become marginalized, and more pagan versions like Reform have become dominant.

I think you are looking at this with the assumption that if there were "divine intervention" you would recognize it. I have yet to see anyone present any kind of evidence at all, compelling or otherwise, to support the existence or non-existence of God. It is a matter of pure conjecture.

 

[indiajo]

You are all simply wrong. There is mountains of evidence that the Christian God is real, and there is plenty of evidence that of all Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church.

I have presented this evidence on prior occasions, and you simply discount it.

You are determined to remain ignorant of the truth, and there is no way to reach you.

I could provide more links now, but there is really no point in doing that, is there?

But here's one: the biography of Joan of Arc, from a secular source Wikipedia:

Joan of Arc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The life of Joan of Arc contains so many miracles and prophesies that came true, that there is no way it could have happened that way unless there is a God making it happen.

This is hard, cold historical evidence, not myth or legend. Joan of Arc was put on trial three times, so she is one of the best documented historical figures of all time.

Here's just one example:

At the age of 16, she asked a relative named Durand Lassois to take her to the nearby town of Vaucouleurs, where she petitioned the garrison commander, Robert de Baudricourt, for permission to visit the royal French court at Chinon. Baudricourt's sarcastic response did not deter her.[28] She returned the following January and gained support from two of Baudricourt's soldiers: Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy.[29] According to Jean de Metz, she told him that "I must be at the King's side... there will be no help (for the kingdom) if not from me. Although I would rather have remained spinning [wool] at my mother's side... yet must I go and must I do this thing, for my Lord wills that I do so."[30] Under the auspices of Metz and Poulengy, she gained a second meeting, where she made an announcement about a military reversal near Orléans several days before messengers arrived to report it.[31] Given the distance of the battle's location, Baudricourt felt Joan could only have known about the French defeat by Divine revelation, and this convinced him to take her seriously.

This is history, not myth or legend, recorded in Wikipedia and hundreds of other secular sources. If you refuse to believe this story is true, then you are rejecting recorded, proven fact.

Buy yourself a children's book of fairytales. We have actually a rich tradition here, like the Grimm brothers or Hans Christian Andersen.

You are, as any people taking bible stories as true, completely unaware of the mindsets of people during varous historical episodes.
The only true thing about Jeanne d'Arc (why the fuck are you Americans unable or unwilling to pronounce names correctly?) is that she really existed.
Her actual name was Darc, the ennobling of her family came later.
She took part as a mascot in a few battles with the british occupants, and she was wounded by an arrow. She was then killed by their own countrymen for witchcraft.
(O.k, she was captured by the British, but the bishop who sent her on the bonfire was french. )
And this is the keypoint. Witchcraft. All of this fantastic stories were set up, modified and bent to will for the inquisition trial. There is no neutral historical evidence of all the side stories.

She was for sure a religious fanatic and for whatever reason moonstruck for the Dauphin, a girlie thing.
Such occurances were nor uncommon at a time where monks sold so many "original" splinters from the holy cross, you could have built a whole fleet of ships from that.

 

[indiajo]

I think that compelling evidence for the non-existence of anything Is a bogus approach. It's the "prove it isn't" weasel used by religionists to demand that their various gawds exist until "disproved".

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gods. There Is no reliable way to test for any of the claims to any of the supernatural gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of this simplistic argument, it is just not good enough to sway many people of a theistic bent.

1. Right. There is no scientific way to proof the nonexistence of anyhing.
Russel's Teapot.

2. Right.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you are looking at this with the assumption that if there were "divine intervention" you would recognize it. I have yet to see anyone present any kind of evidence at all, compelling or otherwise, to support the existence or non-existence of God. It is a matter of pure conjecture.

And you will never see any evidence because the cheese apparently slid off your cracker years ago. I'm sorry, PratchettFan, but you are an utter moron. You have been repeating this same stupidity all over this forum. You are easily the most increadibly dense dimwit I've ever encountered in this regard. Hollie's got more sense than you . . . albeit, just barely.

The universe and the contents thereof, coupled with the ramifications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the objective, universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin: these things are the evidence for God's existence. In other words, the existence of the universe, our existence and the subsequent logical proofs/theological axioms of necessity regarding God's existence: that is the evidence! There is no other evidence. What other evidence would there be?

Further:

Conjecture and evidence are not synonymous.

Inference and evidence are not synonymous.​

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is flatly no Compelling evidence for the non-existence of God

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the utter wuckfits like Delta and M. D. stamp their feet, beat their chests, and yell they are right and ad hom their opponents because they have nothing else, all you can do is sigh and hope they were not monsters in childhood.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When the utter wuckfits like Delta and M. D. stamp their feet, beat their chests, and yell they are right and ad hom their opponents because they have nothing else, all you can do is sigh and hope they were not monsters in childhood.

And, then, suddenly, JakeStarkey stands up and challenges PratchettFan for the title of the Obtuse Dimwit of Dimwits:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

 

[Hollie]

I think you are looking at this with the assumption that if there were "divine intervention" you would recognize it. I have yet to see anyone present any kind of evidence at all, compelling or otherwise, to support the existence or non-existence of God. It is a matter of pure conjecture.

And you will never see any evidence because the cheese apparently slid off your cracker years ago. I'm sorry, PratchettFan, but you are an utter moron. You have been repeating this same stupidity all over this forum. You are easily the most increadibly dense dimwit I've ever encountered in this regard. Hollie's got more sense than you . . . albeit, just barely.

The universe and the contents thereof, coupled with the ramifications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the objective, universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin: these things are the evidence for God's existence. In other words, the existence of the universe, our existence and the subsequent logical proofs/theological axioms of necessity regarding God's existence: that is the evidence! There is no other evidence. What other evidence would there be?

Further:

Conjecture and evidence are not synonymous.

Inference and evidence are not synonymous.​

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Um, dear.

"the objective, universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin" is evidence only of your propensity to mindlessly cut and paste the same tired slogans multiple times in multiple threads.

You're suffering from Shaken Baby Syndrome. Get treatment.

 

[PratchettFan]

When the utter wuckfits like Delta and M. D. stamp their feet, beat their chests, and yell they are right and ad hom their opponents because they have nothing else, all you can do is sigh and hope they were not monsters in childhood.

There are posters just not worth reading, let alone responding to.

 

[Meriweather]

The deity mentioned in the Jewish Tanach did quite a lot. But looking around the world today, I see no evidence of any divine interventions. Either God never existed, died, or went away.

Think the God of the Bible would sit back and stay silent when so many carry out the worst atrocities ever in its' name? Tanach's God never sat back. And despite all that intervention, the entire world now worships false gods and versions of God as the plethora of other religions attest. Even modern Jews are fuzzy on how to worship God as orthodoxy has become marginalized, and more pagan versions like Reform have become dominant.

Take a look at Isaiah, Chapter 64. It says of God, "You have hidden your face from us...you have delivered us up to our guilt."

Jewish Scripture (Christian Old Testament) spans thousands of years, and we do read within it of the times God "Hid His face."

Like some here, I, too, can speak of God's presence--His fingerprints--in my life.

Some may say, "Fingerprints are not enough. I want to see God's face."

We are not the first generation with such a longing. Psalm 24 speaks of a people who longed to see His face.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. has nothing to offer than wuckfitian bozo philosophy.

He will talk you into senselessness much like his own.

The social con philosophers have nothing of worth to offer.