What Would You Tell Me

[DoctorBarber]

Lets say I was never a believer in Christ, and you were being paid $1,000,000 to convince me God does not exist. What would be the first thing you would tell me?

What do you consider your strongest, most powerful argument of why God isn't real and why does science's explanation of "the beginning" make more sense.

I'm just curious.

[barts]

Quote by: DoctorBarber What would be the first thing you would tell me?

Think.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: DoctorBarber Lets say I was never a believer in Christ, and you were being paid $1,000,000 to convince me God does not exist. What would be the first thing you would tell me?

That your backer has money to burn.

[Chinook]

Quote by: DoctorBarber Lets say I was never a believer in Christ, and you were being paid $1,000,000 to convince me God does not exist. What would be the first thing you would tell me? What do you consider your strongest, most powerful argument of why God isn't real and why does science's explanation of "the beginning" make more sense. I'm just curious.

I'd say, open your eyes, look around and use the brain between your ears.

I'd say, open your mind and accept that the existence of a god is quite possible mutually exclusive with the chain of events that led to the creation of our universe, our planet and ourselves.

I think the most comprehensible evidence for the events which shaped the Earth and life thereupon as we know would be the geologic record. Ancient rocks and fossils compared to recent ones, compared to even older ones devoid of fossils compared to meteorites telling us about the conditions of the solar system before it finished forming. Outside and the world around us would be the "argument" I'd use to tell someone who didn't ponder otherwise about the creation of the planet.

I would never try to convince someone there is no god, but I will happily argue against the existence of gods described in books for fables like the Bible, Qur'an, etc.

[Clementine]

Either there is a god, father of christ, or there isn't. There is no scientific proof of the existence of god. Scientific fact says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, christians say the earth is 6500 (according to Bible, not fact). Scientific fact proves evolution, the bible claims we all come from Adam's rib. Likely. The bible is not fact. The bible is a book written by men. I could go on and on. It's rather easy to discount the ridiculousness that is Christianity

[Feynman235]

Scientific fact...are you suggesting absolutes? Isnt science mans attempt to explain our surroundings?

[Compugasm]

Quote by: DoctorBarber convince me God does not exist. What would be the first thing you would tell me?

E=mc^2

That's case closed IMO.

[Clementine]

Quote by: Feynman235 Scientific fact...are you suggesting absolutes? Isnt science mans attempt to explain our surroundings?

It's based on evidence.

Christianity isn't based on evidence.

[Thanatos]

Hey, want $500,000 to pretend you don't believe in God for five minutes?

How do I put this without breaking the rules? You... aren't nearly as brilliant as you think you are. Ignorance I can fix but this isn't ignorance. No one will ever convince you of anything.

[Feynman235]

Saying "The Bible is not fact. The Bible is a book written by men." is an attempt to say, regardless of the evidence, that since the Bible is written by men its likely not fact. So, with the same reasonong, regardless of evidence, one could say that science is likely not fact because the theories are written/postulated by men. Evolution is not absolutely true; its mans best geuss to help explain how we came to be (scientific fact does not prove evolution. Its the evidence that is found that supports the theory, that helps turn it into "scientific fact"). The age of the Earth you cannot prove so, you take the word of scientists (man) and use it in an argument for disproving God.

[Feynman235]

Quote by: doctorbarber lets say i was never a believer in christ, and you were being paid $1,000,000 to convince me god does not exist. What would be the first thing you would tell me? What do you consider your strongest, most powerful argument of why god isn't real and why does science's explanation of "the beginning" make more sense. I'm just curious.

........42

[Sapien]

Quote by: Feynman235 Saying "The Bible is not fact. The Bible is a book written by men." is an attempt to say, regardless of the evidence, that since the Bible is written by men its likely not fact. So, with the same reasonong, regardless of evidence, one could say that science is likely not fact because the theories are written/postulated by men.

Incorrect, the Bible was CREATED by man, while scientific theories are merely observations and experiments put into writing. Writing is a form of communication, and can consist of both truth and falsehood. "I am chewing on a sandwich." The fact that it is written by man (me) doesn't make it false. However, if I was to write "I'm chewing on my spine.", that would not be true.

We (man) did not create the natural forces that we observe, study and write about, and while some of what we write may be incorrect, and some of what we observe may be one-sided and our interpretations false.. that doesn't make the evidence wrong. Science is not the evidence itself, but our interpretation of it.

OP: I'd tell you to spend $60k on college, or $2 on a library card. Preferably the $2, more money for me. Spirited debates about science and theology are one thing, but asking for someone to convince you of something as simple as the existence of God is.. lazy. No, we cannot disprove God. Ever. You cannot prove a lack of something. The onus is on YOU (or anyone who insists a God does exist) to prove that it does. I no more need proof that God doesn't exist than I need proof that I'm not a woman. From what I've observed so far it's pretty obvious that I'm not, and until convinced otherwise.. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

We have little reason to think that physicists from thousands of years ago wrote the laws of the universe as we know them today, in an attempt to hide the truth of Christianity from the world and trick math geeks into spending money on college. That alone should put you on the side of science. As amusing as it is, many believe that The Devil created scientific evidence to cause believers to doubt their god.

Oh. And there IS no evidence to support the bible. Merely proving that a person mentioned in a text exists is not sufficient to prove the validity of said text. Myself, I see the bible as the pre-Tolkien, X-Rated LOTR. Plus it had a better publicist; name ONE person who died in order to translate The Two Towers.

A flaw in your request is that you want the explanations of science to "make sense". There are many things we don't (and probably never will) know about the universe, and as such there are many things that do not make sense. The most commonly known one is time! Humans have this little assumption that everything must have a beginning.. because we're seemingly incapable of imagining something existing without one. Scientists solve this by saying that a beginning isn't necessary, while theists just say that God did it. Although apparently God doesn't need a beginning either. So, really, what good is God?

Basically, fact vs fantasy. If you're intent on ignoring fact, nothing I say could possibly convince you. If you're looking for facts, it shouldn't be that hard for rid you of a fantasy. Despite our (atheists) attempts, Christians (and others) are *rarely* dissuaded by rousing intellectual debate. Their beliefs aren't rooted in fact and thus cannot be uprooted by it. Most often they're turned when something doesn't go their way (a child dies, family falls apart, serious accident, fundamentalist religious upbringing, etc) and they no longer see it as God's Candyland of Fun and Joy. Much like the countless charities started by people who go through some sort of trauma. Joe SaveCancel falls off of a tractor and breaks his neck, so he starts the SaveCancel Foundation to assist with spinal cord research. They're just doing what comes naturally to them -- dealing with adversity by changing their way of thinking, and looking for a way out.

This is why we focus on the middle ground. We're kinda like politicians in that way.. a Democrat won't spend much time campaigning in Texas, as it's a waste of time, but California could go either way. Christians do the same thing -- they'll rarely show their faces amongst academics, but they're more than willing to go hovel-to-hut in a poverty stricken area of Africa, talking about the eternal rewards of Christianity. Streets of gold, and all that.

[Clementine]

Quote by: Feynman235 ........42

Only from a newbie!!
Too funny.

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: Sapien OP: I'd tell you to spend $60k on college, or $2 on a library card. Preferably the $2, more money for me. Spirited debates about science and theology are one thing, but asking for someone to convince you of something as simple as the existence of God is.. lazy. No, we cannot disprove God. Ever. You cannot prove a lack of something. The onus is on YOU (or anyone who insists a God does exist) to prove that it does. I no more need proof that God doesn't exist than I need proof that I'm not a woman. From what I've observed so far it's pretty obvious that I'm not, and until convinced otherwise.. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Whatever a theists explanation may be, atheists will always try and fight against it and not accept it.

I could give you the most educated speech about why God exists in the world, and people would still come up with some whacko fossil argument crap or whatever. I doubt any atheists ever want God to be "proven".

Can you say something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced that thing? I haven't experienced walking on the moon. That doesn't mean I should just go around saying "PEOPLE DIDN'T REALLY GO TO THE MOON! ITS ALL A LIE!". People say they've had supernatural events occur in their life. Because weren't there to see it, and because someone didn't have a camera to record it doesn't mean it never happend and that that person was a liar.

You atheists claim to be the most logical, and that science makes the most sense. Heres the thing: Why can't you disprove God? Whenever atheists are faced with this question, they go with the famous "Its your job to prove it.". Well, if scientists are so smart and intelligent to show me proof singularities existed 13.6 million years ago, they should be able to show me proof that a God wasn't there. Scientists are the ones claiming they can figure out everything, so whats the problem? Believers in Christ simply take the bible as answer; we're not the arrogant bunch of know-it-alls claiming to be highly intelligent over everyone else because of our research. Why is proving singularities existed so easy, but proving a God wasn't there a challenge atheists like to flee?

[Clementine]

Yes you can disprove god. The existence of god is disproved because there is no proof of it's existence. Is that simple enough for you?

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: Clementine Yes you can disprove god. The existence of god is disproved because there is no proof of it's existence. Is that simple enough for you?

Thats like me saying theres no proof you're a human because I haven't seen you before. You could be a robot, or a martian for all I know. Are you saying I should assume you're something other than a human just because I haven't seen proof that you're a human? Do you go around assuming people on Volconvo are of a different species because they haven't proven themselves to be human? If I told you I was a human, would you demand proof of me being a human? I doubt it.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: DoctorBarber Thats like me saying theres no proof you're a human because I haven't seen you before. You could be a robot, or a martian for all I know. Are you saying I should assume you're something other than a human just because I haven't seen proof that you're a human?

What a fascinating reversal of the invisible unicorn hypothesis.

Of course there's a chance our dear Clementine is a robot from the future sent to change the course of debate. Sort of an intellectual Terminator, only cute like the one in the third movie.

There's no proof Clementine is human versus there's no proof Clementine is not human. Hmm. Ultimately it is kind of silly.

I hold that in such a conundrum one should choose the best and simplest explanation. Believing Clementine is a robot is making the theory of Clementine needlessly complicated and it raises a lot of thorny questions about why someone would send such a robot. Likewise it is not immediately clear why someone should add God into a theory of origins that does not benefit from his addition.

[Sapien]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I could give you the most educated speech about why God exists in the world

Interesting, I've never heard one of these.

whacko fossil argument crap or whatever

And this is why.

I doubt any atheists ever want God to be "proven".

Incorrect, and you only show your ignorance here. Atheists fight against belief in god because they feel that belief in god is harmful. If it had no effect on public policy, foreign affairs, violence and war.. I'm sure most of us would be far less militant than we are. An atheist has no reason to fight the proof of God, if indeed a god does exist -- on the contrary, it would be in all of our best interests for someone such as yourself to PROVE one exists. Likewise, it would be in all of our best interests for someone like myself to PROVE one doesn't. Sadly, we can't. You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist, because something that doesn't exist leaves no trace of it's nonexistence. xD

Can you say something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced that thing? I haven't experienced walking on the moon. That doesn't mean I should just go around saying "PEOPLE DIDN'T REALLY GO TO THE MOON! ITS ALL A LIE!". People say they've had supernatural events occur in their life. Because weren't there to see it, and because someone didn't have a camera to record it doesn't mean it never happend and that that person was a liar.

There is a blatant difference between a group of scientists gathering data and recording footage from several men SENT to the moon, and a human being misinterpreting their emotions as divine intervention. Really, if you can't distinguish between the likes of Harrison Schmitt and Benny Hinn.. you're beyond help. Someone saying that their happiness is the work of a god is no different from someone saying that their current girlfriend is the love of their life.. until, 2 months later, they're screaming about how the lying whore cheated on them.

Reality is not changed by our wishes for it, and while it's comforting to think that our prayers were answered.. the truth is far more likely to be that the person in the hospital who has an entire church praying for him survived because he's in a hospital! For thousands of years people have witnessed "supernatural events" and blamed them on god, all the while it was simply nature, coincidence and happenstance.

You atheists claim to be the most logical, and that science makes the most sense. Heres the thing: Why can't you disprove God? Whenever atheists are faced with this question, they go with the famous "Its your job to prove it." ... they should be able to show me proof that a God wasn't there. Scientists are the ones claiming they can figure out everything, so whats the problem? ... Why is proving singularities existed so easy, but proving a God wasn't there a challenge atheists like to flee?

I'll say it again -- You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist, because something that doesn't exist leaves no trace of it's nonexistence. This standard is used for anything that requires proof! Explaining something like this to someone like you is like pulling teeth. Even if there WAS a trace of something that didn't exist, Christians would simply say that the REAL god was incorporeal. Or The Devil put the proof there to trick the arrogant, know-it-all, evidence-observing Atheists.

Believers in Christ simply take the bible as answer; we're not the arrogant bunch of know-it-alls claiming to be highly intelligent over everyone else because of our research.

I'm afraid you're only half right. While the average Christian is indeed uneducated, and holding onto beliefs which are unsupported by evidence and research.. I find that most are incredibly arrogant who think they know it all because the Bible tells them so. While an atheist may indeed value science, few (I don't say none, as you'd just find some obscure internet whackjob..) will dare give science the status of divinity. Science cannot "save" us, forgive us, or grant us eternal life. Well probably. I no more place my faith in the Bible than I do the Lord of the Rings. If in 2,000 years someone or something finds a dusty copy of The Return of the King Blu-Ray, I trust that they won't assume that the Christians were right and the rapture has already happened.

Thats like me saying theres no proof you're a human because I haven't seen you before. You could be a robot, or a martian for all I know. Are you saying I should assume you're something other than a human just because I haven't seen proof that you're a human? Do you go around assuming people on Volconvo are of a different species because they haven't proven themselves to be human? If I told you I was a human, would you demand proof of me being a human? I doubt it.

The sheer.. no, that's offensive. You argument is poorly thought out. I have no reason to think that a martian exists, much less that a martian is capable of forming sentences and paragraphs such as yours, even if they do reek of something not quite.. all there. Do you need proof that the sun is coming up in the morning? No. You assume that it will. As do we all. Rather than make me feel bad about how much I value evidence, you only make me feel better about my rebuke of your entire thought process. If I have somehow offended you I apologize, but I find that equivalent fervor is the best possible way to respond to such a blatant display of fundamentalism.

[IAmAwake]

I would simply just tell you the stone argument. An omnipotent being cannot exist.

Can God create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

[Compugasm]

If Feynman and Doctor barber could prove that I am a robot, I will believe in God.