Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is time I think to submit these bad boys to some kind of scrutiny rather than the time honoured skeptics way of hearing them, whacking off to petit mal and going on sweet way.

[Nearly Sane]

It is time I think to submit these bad boys to some kind of scrutiny rather than the time honoured skeptics way of hearing them, whacking off to petit mal and going on sweet way.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[Roses]

Vlad is off with the fairies again!

[Stranger]

It is time I think to submit these bad boys to some kind of scrutiny rather than the time honoured skeptics way of hearing them, whacking off to petit mal and going on sweet way.

There are no disproofs of god(s) in general (there are for some specific definitions of god), nor need there be. You've yet again forgotten the burden of proof.

[SteveH]

What on earth has epilepsy got to do with anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Disproof of God isn’t my claim.

[Nearly Sane]

Disproof of God isn’t my claim.

In order to disprove anything there would have to be a claim. Asking for a disproof of anything without a claim is meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are no disproofs of god(s) in general (there are for some specific definitions of god), nor need there be. You've yet again forgotten the burden of proof.

I haven’t claimed to have disproved God.

At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?

[Outrider]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis.  Job done, time for lunch?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In order to disprove anything there would have to be a claim. Asking for a disproof of anything without a claim is meaningless.

Disproving something with no eye or claim to an alternative seems meaningless.

Have you seen anything pop out of nowhere yet.........Hurry up people have got to move on with their lives you know.

I tell you what I suspect . The stock in trade here is absolutes.
Now supposing we switch to probabilities, you chaps don’t look so hot in my humble opinion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis.  Job done, time for lunch?

O.

put that scotch egg back...........what type of evidence are we talking about.......ha ha.

[Outrider]

put that scotch egg back...........what type of evidence are we talking about.......ha ha.

You're asking for a disproof of gods, there it is.  Until sufficient evidence to justify the claim has been presented, it can be dismissed on the same grounds as it was offered.  If there's a particular disproof you'd like to look at, by all means suggest it (and the claim that it specifically counters) and we can all join in.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I haven’t claimed to have disproved God.

At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?

What belief do you think I have 'appointed' as the default position?

[Nearly Sane]

Disproving something with no eye or claim to an alternative seems meaningless.

Have you seen anything pop out of nowhere yet.........Hurry up people have got to move on with their lives you know.

I tell you what I suspect . The stock in trade here is absolutes.
Now supposing we switch to probabilities, you chaps don’t look so hot in my humble opinion.

You can try and switch the burden of proof all you want but it just makes you look like an idiot.

[SteveH]

I haven’t claimed to have disproved God.

At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?

Because non-belief in anything is the default position. It is up to those with a belief in the existence of something - God, UFOs, etc - to come up with evidence and arguments for their belief. If they can't, non-belief wins. Occam's razor - look it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can try and switch the burden of proof all you want but it just makes you look like an idiot.

I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.

Why are you saying that atheism is the status quo?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because non-belief in anything is the default position. It is up to those with a belief in the existence of something - God, UFOs, etc - to come up with evidence and arguments for their belief. If they can't, non-belief wins. Occam's razor - look it up.

I can see Not UFOs being the status quo but not not God being the status quo.
I think you'll agree there has to be a justification behind the status quo.
Most people have never seen a UFO. Because seeing them or not seeing them is the basis of establishing the status quo.

How then is not God the status quo?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.

Why are you saying that atheism is the status quo?

I didn't say that I thought something could come from nothing, just that for the first premise of the Kalam to stand it would have to be demonstrated that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause'. In the absence of such a demonstration, the argument is worthless.

You need to make a specific claim for it to be disproved. Are you going to make one?

I don't even know what the statement 'atheism is the status quo' means, never mind me not saying it. Note default position is not the same as status quo. The Default Position play cover versions of Bing Crosby records.

[SteveH]

If everything that exists needs a pre-existent cause, then so does God.
If God can exist without a pre-existent cause, why not the universe?
Bertrand Russell (quoted from memory).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're asking for a disproof of gods, there it is.  Until sufficient evidence to justify the claim has been presented, it can be dismissed on the same grounds as it was offered.  If there's a particular disproof you'd like to look at, by all means suggest it (and the claim that it specifically counters) and we can all join in.

O.

I have seen at least 2 documents on line claiming disproof of God. I had no hand in their formulation but you can bet your arse that the arguments in them have appeared here.

[Outrider]

I have seen at least 2 documents on line claiming disproof of God. I had no hand in their formulation but you can bet your arse that the arguments in them have appeared here.

Well, at the risk of being presumptive about on-line resources I've perhaps not read, I'd suggest that they're either disproofs of particular conceptions of a god, or they're over-reaching (possibly both).  For my part, until there's a specific claim there can't be a disproof, so which claim are we discussing the disproof of?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If everything that exists needs a pre-existent cause, then so does God.
If God can exist without a pre-existent cause, why not the universe?
Bertrand Russell (quoted from memory).

Fine.....show me something that exists without a pre existent cause.......shouldn't be difficult since we got the universe on our doorsteps.

[Gordon]

I have seen at least 2 documents on line claiming disproof of God. I had no hand in their formulation but you can bet your arse that the arguments in them have appeared here.

Then cite them, and link them to posts here that you think echo the nature of these alleged disproofs, and since any disproof must involve a rebuttal of something we need to know about what it is that is being rebutted.

So I think you need to supply some details, Vlad.

[Enki]

I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.

Why are you saying that atheism is the status quo?

Why should I even try to disprove something that no one has proved to exist? It seems a rather fruitless waste of time to me. As far as the idea that something popped out of nothing, I haven't a clue how that even makes sense, including any idea that a god popped out of nothing of course. My position, like that of many others, is simple. In the light of the total lack of evidence that  god(s) exists, I see no reason to believe in it/them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, at the risk of being presumptive about on-line resources I've perhaps not read, I'd suggest that they're either disproofs of particular conceptions of a god, or they're over-reaching (possibly both).  For my part, until there's a specific claim there can't be a disproof, so which claim are we discussing the disproof of?

O.

That sounds as if the opportunity for missing the mark entirely vis a vis God is wide open. Particularly when one doesn't apparently have to Know anything about theology.