That’s bollocks, the one question atheists ask is to provide some objective empirical evidence that God exists… and no theist can do it.
The best they come up with is bullshit logical arguments like the kalam cosmological argument, which doesn’t work.
There’s zero evidence, we just wish you lot would be honest.
Boring shite as always… fancy being offended that people would want some proof that your imaginary mate is real… fucking baffling.
Oh please! All atheism does is question god claims. There is no Philosophy of Atheism. Theists make claims for their god and all atheists do is look at those claims and hold them up to rational discourse. Perhaps you do not know how the word philosophy is used: (the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.) The thieves have a philosophy, a viewpoint. They attribute occurrences to their magical god. All atheists do is question why? This is not a world view.
Most atheists are skeptics, humanists, rationalists, etc… These are world views. Perhaps you need to fall back and re-evaluate your assertions. Atheism is non-belief in God claims and literally nothing more. The fact that someone does not believe in a God, tells me nothing at all about their philosopy of life, the universe, or everything.
How do you get from Natural Selection to thermodynamics? And from thermodynamics to abiogenisis? You are one confused puppy.
Elbert Branscomb 1, Michael J Russell 2
Well, you certainly used this information (Out of Context).
‘We argued in Part 1 of this series that because all living systems are extremely far-from-equilibrium dynamic confections of matter, they must necessarily be driven to that state by the conversion of chemically specific external disequilibria into specific internal disequilibria. Such conversions require task-specific macromolecular engines. We here argue that the same is not only true of life at its emergence; it is the enabling cause of that emergence; although here the external driving disequilibrium, and the conversion engines needed must have been abiotic. We argue further that the initial step in life’s emergence can only create an extremely simple non-equilibrium “seed” from which all the complexity of life must then develop. We assert that this complexity develops incrementally and progressively, each step tested for value added “in flight.” And we make the case that only the submarine alkaline hydrothermal vent (AHV) model has the potential to satisfy these requirements.’
If you could quantify God that would be helpful. Being constantly asked to provide proof for something that is never defined is a non runner.
As above , define and quantify God .
God is 3. Prove me wrong. (There you go. Quantified.)
Some people say the silliest things.
Yo, Genius! In case you missed the memo, it is YOUR responsibility to define/quantify the god(s) in which YOU believe. Or is that too complicated for you to understand?
(Edit to add: But since you asked so nicely, I’ll quantify god as a 4.76. But only because Cog said “3”.)
I’m not the theist, but by all means… take your pick.
Define and quantify your god till your hearts content, then follow that up please by showing any objective empirical evidence to demonstrate that God’s existence.
Blasphemy! I declare a holy war! The original version of God is the correct version of God. I will rip out your nuts and cast you onto rocks below. Of course, you bare full responsibility for your own suffering as you have the freedom to change your mind and join the one true religion before you are denutted.
Can we cast rocks too? There’s someone selling rocks with a point, slate and bags of gravel…
Yo back genius yerself . I don’t have to define or provide proof of anything to you . If you are asking the silly question of proof then you define the terms of what constitutes GOD and then we will go from there . Other than that it’s a BS question that has no answer .
It’s your belief, why would people who don’t share it need to quantify your belief for you?
Being constantly told something exists that is never defined is a non runner. It’s your belief, you define it and you evidence it. Do you expect us to believe you arrived in atheists debate forum by accident?
And no one has to believe your vapid claims, now why are you here?
What a spectacularly stupid assertion, you want us to quantify the deity you believe is real?
Oh it’s pretty clear you have no answers, and the inference is unavoidable.
So let’s be clear here . You want to be provided proof for something that you don’t have a clue what it is. ? Absolutely brilliant . Debating genius at its finest . Trolling to the max buddy .
Nope, sorry. You don’t get to Shift The Burden Of Proof. Anyone who makes god claims automatically accepts The Burden Of Proof. Therefore it’s your job. You came to an Atheist community. You opened your mouth. Demonstrate admissible evidence for a god. Oh wait, you have none.
I have never asked for proof only objective evidence, and it’s your belief which I don’t share, so how would I know what you believe when you can’t explain it.
Nothing you have posted suggests you want debate.
I just find it entertaining how Theists like Sid get mouthier and mouthier the longer a debate goes on. Their lousy arguments are walled off when evidence is demanded of them. Then like Sid, they snap and go nuts. I wonder if it’s religious psychosis brought on by mental illness that makes them volatile such as this one.
Haha , you wish. When I’m playing in somebody else’s sandbox I always try to be respectful and civil .
You are both hopelessly wrong!!
Anyone with even a modicum of awareness accepts that Graud is 1.61803398875…
Now, it seems to me that the responsibility for defining or identifying anything, lies with they who would declare the existence of such. The default position must necessarily be to reject claims of existence when claim is presented sans evidence. This position is set in concrete by the reluctance or belligerent refusal to even define that which is claimed to exist.
This is clearly a punk-ass tactic to once again declare an existence, so ambiguous and/or undefined, that the so-called existence can be credited with any and all things chosen to be attributed to the undemonstrated, undefined, defying any refutation due to the impossibility of falsifying the undefined.
Now, the accusation of trolling by a purveyor of
non-sensical gibberish, arguably contrived for the very purpose of rhetorical antagonism.
Edit ( tell me what I mean)
Spoken like a true hypocrite. You dishonestly called Sheldon a troll. That’s not playing nice. Now you’re dishonestly playing the victim. How pathetic. Different face, same games.
Stop the personal squabbling and debate about the subject.
If you could define what constitutes proof for a creator then I will gladly try my best to satisfy you but if you are completely clueless as to what defines a creator Oh wait ,you have no idea