Has science proved there is no God?

[sealybobo]

Ok

When I say Adam and eve I mean the first humans. Now go back and answer the question without adding rhetoric.

There was no rhetoric added. You asked me a question about Adam and Eve. First of all, I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans and I don't believe the Bible says they were. Some may draw that interpretation, but the Bible doesn't say it. I have always believed the story is symbolic of how God enlightened man with spiritual awareness. Whether it is true or not is totally irrelevant to me. I'm not here to defend it either way.

Now you pretend that you were asking about the first humans and accuse me of adding rhetoric! You got a lot of fucking nerve, boob! Why didn't you ask the damn question without the rhetoric if that's what you wanted?

I don't know anything about the first humans. As far back as we've found civilizations of humans, we see evidence of spirituality. We know the first Neanderthals were not spiritual and didn't form civilizations or create and invent tools and such. For a time, they coexisted with homo sapiens who were spiritual, formed civilizations and invented tools. There is even some evidence the Neanderthals attempted to mimic this behavior toward the end, but it was too late to save their species.

You're asking me the impossible question of where and how did it all start... well, how did humans learn to breathe air and have lungs instead of gills? See, there is not a simple answer one can present on a message board for this question... it is far too complex. I imagine, at some point, some of our ancestors realized there was something greater than self which they could be inspired by to do the impossible. The realization they could achieve things they didn't believe they could, was a confirmation to them that something more powerful was a factor.

.So you believe because our ape ancestors imagined it up. Shows me you have some evolving to do.

 

[sealybobo]

Psychology is the scientific evidence why we invented god. Hell you are evidence. They thought like you. They/you invented god. You're a caveman.

So what evidence did Adam and eve have a god existed?

Remember they thought the universe revolved around them because the earth wasn't moving. They knew we were the center of it all. We know better now. At least I do.

Nonsense. Psychology is evidence we couldn't have created Spirituality. I'm not a caveman, I didn't invent God, nor did my thoughts. When are you going to produce some fucking evidence? Stop dancing around trying to be cute and present your evidence if you have any. If you don't have evidence, admit that you don't. See.. we go through this about every week, you'll say something stupid you can't back up with evidence and I call you out on it, but then you start changing the subject, dancing around, distracting and diverting, dodging the request for evidence. All your buddies line up and give you thanks and thumbs up, and I guess that means something to you?

Why are you changing the subject away from human spirituality and back to Adam and Eve? The Adam and Eve story is maybe 4-6k years old, human spirituality is over 100k years old. Adam and Eve could be a metaphor or allegory and nothing to do with a real event and real people. It does not matter because that's not when people began being spiritual. I'm not here to defend stories from the Bible, I don't know if any of them are true or not. All religions are invented by man, human spirituality is not.

Yes... People once believed the Earth was center of the universe, and perhaps their spirituality was somewhat responsible for that line of thinking? But what you are saying should demonstrate how profoundly important spirituality is to humans. Humans didn't stop being spiritual when they found out they were wrong. If it were all fake and made up, stuff like that would have killed it stone dead. But nope... 95% of us still believe in something greater than self and about 5% do not. Same as it has been for 100k+ years.

Now present some goddamn science evidence that contradicts this or stop pretending it has been refuted.

You have conveniently forgotten that you have never offered any legitimate evidence to support your cliches' and slogans for ".....95%", "......100,000 years", and your ".....intrinsic....." memes.

"....because I say so" is hardly a convincing argument.

You were right about boss. But not because Boss says so. God is real because the most primitive uneducated superstitious unevolved ancestors said so. Something "bigger than self" whatever.

 

[sealybobo]

God of the gaps.

And psychological evidence explains why fearful humans invented god.

And I have been through this argument with you before. I have a degree in Psychology.

What you are presenting is an opinion. There is absolutely NO psychological evidence to support this opinion. NONE... NADDA!

As a matter of fact, this opinion actually contradicts everything we know about animal psychology in nature. No other animal or life form has ever created a behavior out of fear that was totally superficial and irrational based on imagination. It simply doesn't happen in nature. And IF it happened, it certainly wouldn't be effective unless there was something to it.

You see, from a purely philosophical standpoint, any "reasons" you come up with for man "inventing" spirituality, it must have been effective, we kept the attribute. How can something imaginary and superficial ward off fear effectively? Does belief in something that isn't real sound like it would work to protect you from whatever you fear? Any example in nature where this is the case? Any other animals using imagination as defense?

Yes I explained this to you. Being religious has many benefits. Ignorant bliss and social bonds you get in church to name a couple. Trust me you are wrong not Tyson and Sagan. The fact that you say you are 100% sure means you're being intellectually dishonest to yourself

 

[Boss]

So you believe because our ape ancestors imagined it up. Shows me you have some evolving to do.

I didn't say anything remotely close to this. "Realizing" and "imagining" are two completely different concepts.

 

[Boss]

Yes I explained this to you. Being religious has many benefits. Ignorant bliss and social bonds you get in church to name a couple. Trust me you are wrong not Tyson and Sagan. The fact that you say you are 100% sure means you're being intellectually dishonest to yourself

Your explanation doesn't explain anything. You're back to talking down religion again and religions didn't come along until much later.

So now you're trying to claim that we used our minds to fool ourselves into believing there were social benefits to this imaginary thing we invented that has no power whatsoever and is all in our heads?

I agree that Spirituality has lots of benefits to man, we couldn't exist without it! You're the one who has argued there is no benefit and we'd be better off without it and it's all in our heads and invented from imagination. You couldn't logically support that supposition, you were given plenty of opportunity to present some evidence but you dodged and darted around, changed the subject to religion-bashing and then tried to credit the fundamental benefits we receive from being spiritual creatures for why we are spiritual in the first place. Totally circular logic.

You are the one being dishonest and you're pulling out all the stops to support your dishonesty. I've shown you Carl Sagan's own quotes to prove that he was certainly no Atheist... and your retort for that is that he was forced by society to say those things out of fear of being ostracized. So no one can EVER win an argument with you because no matter what, you can always conjure up some bird-brain spin to explain your convoluted wrongheaded thinking. Whenever you are pushed to provide hard evidence, you go into 'fainting goat' mode and stagger off into some half-baked anecdote that doesn't even pertain to what you're saying.

 

[sealybobo]

So you believe because our ape ancestors imagined it up. Shows me you have some evolving to do.

I didn't say anything remotely close to this. "Realizing" and "imagining" are two completely different concepts.

Wishful thinking

 

[sealybobo]

Yes I explained this to you. Being religious has many benefits. Ignorant bliss and social bonds you get in church to name a couple. Trust me you are wrong not Tyson and Sagan. The fact that you say you are 100% sure means you're being intellectually dishonest to yourself

Your explanation doesn't explain anything. You're back to talking down religion again and religions didn't come along until much later.

So now you're trying to claim that we used our minds to fool ourselves into believing there were social benefits to this imaginary thing we invented that has no power whatsoever and is all in our heads?

I agree that Spirituality has lots of benefits to man, we couldn't exist without it! You're the one who has argued there is no benefit and we'd be better off without it and it's all in our heads and invented from imagination. You couldn't logically support that supposition, you were given plenty of opportunity to present some evidence but you dodged and darted around, changed the subject to religion-bashing and then tried to credit the fundamental benefits we receive from being spiritual creatures for why we are spiritual in the first place. Totally circular logic.

You are the one being dishonest and you're pulling out all the stops to support your dishonesty. I've shown you Carl Sagan's own quotes to prove that he was certainly no Atheist... and your retort for that is that he was forced by society to say those things out of fear of being ostracized. So no one can EVER win an argument with you because no matter what, you can always conjure up some bird-brain spin to explain your convoluted wrongheaded thinking. Whenever you are pushed to provide hard evidence, you go into 'fainting goat' mode and stagger off into some half-baked anecdote that doesn't even pertain to what you're saying.

I think wed exist just fine without spirituality. Maybe it was helpful early for petty primitive reasons but today we do fine without worrying what happens when we die. Please dont confuse agnostic atheism with being unsure. Sagan didn't believe but Hitler did.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes I explained this to you. Being religious has many benefits. Ignorant bliss and social bonds you get in church to name a couple. Trust me you are wrong not Tyson and Sagan. The fact that you say you are 100% sure means you're being intellectually dishonest to yourself

Your explanation doesn't explain anything. You're back to talking down religion again and religions didn't come along until much later.

So now you're trying to claim that we used our minds to fool ourselves into believing there were social benefits to this imaginary thing we invented that has no power whatsoever and is all in our heads?

I agree that Spirituality has lots of benefits to man, we couldn't exist without it! You're the one who has argued there is no benefit and we'd be better off without it and it's all in our heads and invented from imagination. You couldn't logically support that supposition, you were given plenty of opportunity to present some evidence but you dodged and darted around, changed the subject to religion-bashing and then tried to credit the fundamental benefits we receive from being spiritual creatures for why we are spiritual in the first place. Totally circular logic.

You are the one being dishonest and you're pulling out all the stops to support your dishonesty. I've shown you Carl Sagan's own quotes to prove that he was certainly no Atheist... and your retort for that is that he was forced by society to say those things out of fear of being ostracized. So no one can EVER win an argument with you because no matter what, you can always conjure up some bird-brain spin to explain your convoluted wrongheaded thinking. Whenever you are pushed to provide hard evidence, you go into 'fainting goat' mode and stagger off into some half-baked anecdote that doesn't even pertain to what you're saying.

Let's start over. Let's say I'm raised by two parents who dont tell me about god but teach me right from wrong. You meet me and bring up god. I say who? And you say what?

 

[Boss]

I think wed exist just fine without spirituality. Maybe it was helpful early for petty primitive reasons but today we do fine without worrying what happens when we die. Please dont confuse agnostic atheism with being unsure. Sagan didn't believe but Hitler did.

This view even contradicts your own flawed premise for human spirituality! We invented it because we were so worried about what happens when we die, and we kept it for 100k+ years because we had to have it and couldn't live without it, but all the sudden in the 21st Century, it's no longer required? (..Even though most people are still very spiritual....shhhh!)

Nothing you are saying is making any sense, boob. You're all over the board! Aside from the fact that you continue to offer NO SCIENCE of any kind to support a damn thing you've said. It's nothing more than a stupid unfounded opinion that you stubbornly refuse to back up.

As for Sagan, here is a direct quote:
“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.” ~Carl Sagan

 

[sealybobo]

I think wed exist just fine without spirituality. Maybe it was helpful early for petty primitive reasons but today we do fine without worrying what happens when we die. Please dont confuse agnostic atheism with being unsure. Sagan didn't believe but Hitler did.

This view even contradicts your own flawed premise for human spirituality! We invented it because we were so worried about what happens when we die, and we kept it for 100k+ years because we had to have it and couldn't live without it, but all the sudden in the 21st Century, it's no longer required? (..Even though most people are still very spiritual....shhhh!)

Nothing you are saying is making any sense, boob. You're all over the board! Aside from the fact that you continue to offer NO SCIENCE of any kind to support a damn thing you've said. It's nothing more than a stupid unfounded opinion that you stubbornly refuse to back up.

As for Sagan, here is a direct quote:
“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.” ~Carl Sagan

We've already explained you'd have to be a god to know there is no god. Dont argue in circles. 99% sure no god.

And you aren't offering anything that's evidence of god. Just talk talk talk.

Explain what god is again? From the beginning. What did primitive man realize? "Something" greater than self? This god created the universe? How did they/you come to this conclusion? Does it care? Are we alone in the universe? How do you know a heaven exists? Maybe something created everything but what makes you think a heaven exists?

An answer should demand so many follow up questions

 

[Boss]

Let's start over. Let's say I'm raised by two parents who dont tell me about god but teach me right from wrong. You meet me and bring up god. I say who? And you say what?

I don't understand your point. If you were a human raised in captivity without any social interaction of other humans and devoid of any teaching of language and such... would you know things? Could you be taught things? Does the fact that you don't know things make you less of a human? Does it have anything to do with your capacity to learn? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Sigmund Freud once stated, "If there was no God, man would have to create God." Some will take that quote out of context and say "ahaa! he's saying man had to create god!" But that's not what he is talking about. Freud is discussing the nature of the human psyche. How our minds work as highly-intelligent, imaginative and creative creatures driven by our emotions. We simply would not survive without something to regulate our morals because our minds are too much for nature to bear. The human psyche would have destroyed everything if we operated on sheer animal instinct. Our morals, a spiritually inspired thing, are the reason humans have been able to advance and thrive with nature.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's start over. Let's say I'm raised by two parents who dont tell me about god but teach me right from wrong. You meet me and bring up god. I say who? And you say what?

I don't understand your point. If you were a human raised in captivity without any social interaction of other humans and devoid of any teaching of language and such... would you know things? Could you be taught things? Does the fact that you don't know things make you less of a human? Does it have anything to do with your capacity to learn? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Sigmund Freud once stated, "If there was no God, man would have to create God." Some will take that quote out of context and say "ahaa! he's saying man had to create god!" But that's not what he is talking about. Freud is discussing the nature of the human psyche. How our minds work as highly-intelligent, imaginative and creative creatures driven by our emotions. We simply would not survive without something to regulate our morals because our minds are too much for nature to bear. The human psyche would have destroyed everything if we operated on sheer animal instinct. Our morals, a spiritually inspired thing, are the reason humans have been able to advance and thrive with nature.

So we are spiritusl emotional beings so what? I'm sorry I'm clearly not into it tonight.

I get what you're saying but not agreeing.

 

[Boss]

Explain what god is again? From the beginning. What did primitive man realize? "Something" greater than self? This god created the universe? How did they/you come to this conclusion? Does it care? Are we alone in the universe? How do you know a heaven exists? Maybe something created everything but what makes you think a heaven exists?

God is a form of energy for lack of a better term. That's the only grunting sound we can make that comes close to defining God. This force is not physical in nature, it is spiritual. This means, physical examination is not possible as best we can tell at this time. Perhaps we don't understand how to unlock the mystery? Perhaps it's not intended for us to "know" as humans?

I've already said I don't know how it started with primitive man. Perhaps it never started? Maybe it has just always been? All I know is, as long as humans have had civilizations they've been spiritual. That's all the evidence science has revealed.

As for God creating the universe, I've argued that physical nature cannot create itself. This defies logic as well as physics. If we dismiss physical nature as the cause of physical nature, that only leaves spiritual nature or else... "magic." I don't think it was "magic" because I don't believe in magic. I think physical nature had to be created by spiritual nature... that makes sense to me since spiritual nature is not constrained by time or space.

With regard to various "attributes" of God, I don't believe in religious incarnations. Why would an omnipotent God "care" or "want" something from his creation? Makes absolutely no sense to me.. why didn't God just make a perfect universe where everyone just does what God wants? Why not just save all the problems and make us all where we believe in the one true God and we're not even here debating this right now?

So you see, to me... the notion of a God who "cares" or "wants" is kind of dumb. I just don't believe that, but some people do and I am fine with that. Religions were created to help man better relate to his spirituality. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. For me, God is a spiritual energy which is readily available at all times, there for any human being to tap into and enable inspiration, strength, conviction, passion, courage, love, forgiveness, empathy, sympathy, humanity... all the stuff that makes us so awesome as a species of life.

On "heaven and hell" ...again, these are religious incarnations based on human perceptions of God. I don't know if the Biblical stories are true. I don't get the feeling spiritually that there is any punishment for not being spiritual or being spiritually indifferent. I think you just miss out on the benefits and that's all. However, I leave the possibility open that our spirits could be in a "pre-flight" simulation here. There seems to be an arrow spiritual natures takes toward positive, good, light, moral, right... if we are guided this way, there must be some reason for that. Could be that our "souls" or "spirits" do have a "judgement day" of sorts, where our afterlife course is determined on how well-cultivated our spirits are? I don't dismiss such a possibility, and if you want to call it "heaven and hell" that's fine.

 

[Boss]

So we are spiritusl emotional beings so what? I'm sorry I'm clearly not into it tonight.

I get what you're saying but not agreeing.

Whether you agree with me or not doesn't have anything to do with the truth.

You have gone on record to state that you think we'd do just fine with no human spirituality at all! Okay.... So when we remove human spirituality, we remove any basis for what we know as human morality and humanity. It no longer applies and the "law of the jungle" takes charge. Oh, maybe you somehow hold it all together for a few decades by arguing that morals don't have to be based on spiritual beliefs... but eventually, nature is going to prevail. Natural selection, the strongest survive, the weakest perish. Your tribe gets wiped out by a tsunami, tough shit... way it goes! Less competition for resources baby! My big tribe drives your little tribe off their lands... oh fucking well? That's nature, it's how it works!

Civilization collapses and we turn into a Mad Max world.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Has science proved there is no God?"

Science can't 'prove' that something that never existed in the first place doesn't now exist.

 

[orogenicman]

The discovery of the Higgs Boson particle has led physicists to claim there can be no undiscovered particles, and there are no unknowns. So there can be no after life.
Watch the video and tell me why they are wrong.

I don't have to watch a video to tell you that you are wrong. Physicists have NOT declared that there are no unknowns, or no undiscovered particles. That claim is simply nonsense.

 

[Politico]

Let's start over. Let's say I'm raised by two parents who dont tell me about god but teach me right from wrong. You meet me and bring up god. I say who? And you say what?

I don't understand your point. If you were a human raised in captivity without any social interaction of other humans and devoid of any teaching of language and such... would you know things? Could you be taught things? Does the fact that you don't know things make you less of a human? Does it have anything to do with your capacity to learn? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Sigmund Freud once stated, "If there was no God, man would have to create God." Some will take that quote out of context and say "ahaa! he's saying man had to create god!" But that's not what he is talking about. Freud is discussing the nature of the human psyche. How our minds work as highly-intelligent, imaginative and creative creatures driven by our emotions. We simply would not survive without something to regulate our morals because our minds are too much for nature to bear. The human psyche would have destroyed everything if we operated on sheer animal instinct. Our morals, a spiritually inspired thing, are the reason humans have been able to advance and thrive with nature.

Sorry you don't understand. The point is you don't need God to be a moral person. And Freud was an idiot.

 

[Boss]

"Has science proved there is no God?"

Science can't 'prove' that something that never existed in the first place doesn't now exist.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PostmodernProph]

Let's start over. Let's say I'm raised by two parents who dont tell me about god but teach me right from wrong. You meet me and bring up god. I say who? And you say what?

I thought you objected to evangelism......

 

[Boss]

Let's start over. Let's say I'm raised by two parents who dont tell me about god but teach me right from wrong. You meet me and bring up god. I say who? And you say what?

I don't understand your point. If you were a human raised in captivity without any social interaction of other humans and devoid of any teaching of language and such... would you know things? Could you be taught things? Does the fact that you don't know things make you less of a human? Does it have anything to do with your capacity to learn? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Sigmund Freud once stated, "If there was no God, man would have to create God." Some will take that quote out of context and say "ahaa! he's saying man had to create god!" But that's not what he is talking about. Freud is discussing the nature of the human psyche. How our minds work as highly-intelligent, imaginative and creative creatures driven by our emotions. We simply would not survive without something to regulate our morals because our minds are too much for nature to bear. The human psyche would have destroyed everything if we operated on sheer animal instinct. Our morals, a spiritually inspired thing, are the reason humans have been able to advance and thrive with nature.

Sorry you don't understand. The point is you don't need God to be a moral person. And Freud was an idiot.

Yes... the father of psychoanalysis was an idiot and you're genius! This should demonstrate for any open-minded person, that you are fully prepared to reject any evidence presented and declare the presenter an idiot if what they have to say contradicts your disbelief in God. You are not interested in the truth, you are only interested in protecting your disbelief in God.. at ALL costs!

This is a question for all of you who aren't aboard the Magic Bus with Neil "Nutty Professor" Tyson and his hoard of Atheist Scientists in outright rejection of God.... How quickly do you believe these people would completely abandon science if science accidentally discovered proof for God?
...I'm betting, less than a Planck Unit.

The point is you don't need God to be a moral person.

And if you were ever successful at completely wiping out the concept of God from the minds of mankind, you would discover very quickly how flawed this opinion is.

Ultimately, when you remove the authority of something greater than man, there is no foundational logical basis for human morality. There is nothing to hold the immoral accountable. In such an environment, those who cling to morality in spite of having no foundational basis would become the idiots of humanity-- destined for their demise at the hands of those who aren't handicapped with moral constraint.