In the first six weeks of fetal development the basic structures are formed, including the skin, which comes with a set of nipples on your chest. In the following weeks the chromosomes that make up your gender are processed. If you are a female, certain glands are produced in the breasts to create milk. If you are a male, development of the breasts comes to an abrupt stop and the testes are developed for purposes of creating spermatozoa instead. If you are a hermaphrodite then an error in your chromosomes has caused you to develop both. So when it comes to a god whom (it is claimed) created a man first and a female later, we all know that this is just a story told by men who had no knowledge of biology.
As a male, I can be quite certain that the vestigial girly parts on my chest tell a completely different story.
Almost all religions have set themselves up so that their cloud deity is unfalsifiable, it cannot be proven or disproven. A lot of gods, for example the christian god as described in the bible is contradictory, thus it cannot exist.
Despite the lack of evidence and the simple fact that science has proven that everything we witness can be explained without a god, that is not definitive proof one does not exist.
That only applies to gods though. If I found the cause of all the evidence for Dark Matter to be huge transparent planets made of glass then Dark Matter wouldn’t exist anymore, it would be Transparent Matter.
If you WANT to believe something then facts have no influence on the subject.
I have no proof of anything, just obvious evidence, on my chest, same as you.
“Dark matter” is just label by scientists to denote that “dark” indicates they know very little about this phenomena. Fundamentally, recent calculations on the mass of this universe indicate that it possesses a heck of a lot more mass than thought. In fact it possesses 85% of the mass of the universe. Dark matter is not basically a “thing”, it is a more comprehensive understanding of the composition of this universe, a stage we have not reached yet.
Strictly speaking, what you are referring to is the order of creation in the mythologies of the abrahamic religions. Your objection is a good point per se, but I think it doesn’t quite follow up the promise of the thread title (How I Know God Doesn’t exist). You have shown that parts of the abrahamic creation mythology does not quite reflect actual observable development of the human foetus. However, this only shows that the “science” in the abrahamic fantasy trilogy is, at best, inaccurate. It is not something that disproves the abrahamic god, but can be used as one of many arguments for why you don’t believe in this god and find this god and her claimed library unlikely. Hypothetically, the god could exist, but the narrative written by humans is not quite up to par.
Note that I’m not trying to argue in favour of the existence of a god, but rather to point out that proving or “knowing” that a god does not exist will require far stronger arguments.
I don’t doubt that you are fully capable of reading your own text, but you are not the only one reading, and with busy threads it can be difficult to follow the discussion without context, especially when you enter the thread later without having participated. So that’s why.
I don’t, therefore I keep that door open to the possibility. Personally, I disbelieve any and all supernatural claims. But since I do not know a good argument that definitely proves there is no god, I attempt to be rational and keep my options open.
Please stop quoting me. I’ll not respond to posts with my words in them anymore. It is wasting space in my thread. Thank you.
So you think there is a possibility that there is a god? Is that what you mean? You’re just waiting for the evidence that shows there’s a god? When it doesn’t come you make the assumption that whoever is claiming a god is wrong? Do you not make the assessment that there is no god?
If not, if you still think a god might exist why haven’t you seen any evidence of one? Do gods not want you to know they exist? Are they hiding?
Ah, so it makes sense to copy text that’s already there and clog it up so others can read it multiple times? You copied my entire thread-post. How is that necessary? I don’t think anybody else needs a second copy of my post to read. They can read the first one.
That would depend on how one is defining god. I am an atheist as I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, however if a deity is being premised as an unfalsifiable concept, then I also have to be agnostic about it, but still withhold belief.
I cannot make an absolute claim no deity exists, as this would carry a burden of proof I cannot meet.
Perhaps not necessary, but sometimes you just get too lazy, or want to demonstrate a point, or just do it in pure defiance. Also, I personally strongly dislike being told what to do when it does not make sense, especially when I’m being told by someone who arrives out of nowhere, banging the door and asks everyone to follow his/her rules, disregarding the practices already in place at the site. So regard “demonstrate a point” and “pure defiance” as your answer.
As the thread gets longer, how would you know exactly what post is being replied to? When you encounter answer #76 with a generic answer, who and which post is it a reply to? And which parts of the post is being replied to? And as the thread develops, people answer to other replies, and those replies to replies are getting more replies, so without quoting it quickly degenerates into a highly random mess that is impossible to extract any sense from.
No, I will not. When I reply like this, I respond to separate parts of your post, and it is easier for the reader to follow the conversation and the trains of thought.
You know what? I can even quote your original post one more time, just for the hell of it:
And then I give a generic nonsense answer. Blah-di-blah. I am making so much sense here.