In the interests of balance: Prove there is no God.

[SidneyCarton]

Please provide conclusive, empirical evidence, preferably peer-reviewed, from one of the hard sciences, that there is no God. You may choose which deity to disprove (Yahweh/Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, etc...) No logic games or sophistry please, just hard evidence.

[Oregone]

1. Before you can prove there is no God, define "God"

What does "God" mean? What does the statement "Prove there is no God" really mean?


Think about it. You are asking someone for a proof about some widget, without defining first what that widget is. It isn't that the task is impossible, but rather, non-sensical


Im imagining something in my head. Prove to me it doesn't exist

[SidneyCarton]

11. The same problem confronts those who attempt to prove God's existence.

We cannot even collectively define what God is, but we spend hours raging about its existence or non-existence.

[Oregone]

17. If you cannot define God by any measure, then consider its existence irrelevant to your own

And carry on about your own way.

[damntexdem]

39. It's fine for you to consider its existence irrelevant.

Not everyone does, however. Many consider what they can't measure to still be relevant. As an agnostic, I'm not sure of the relevance.

[SleeplessInAlabama]

101. So, in the interest of curiosity,

Do you know of something else that one can not measure or directly observe that people consider to be relevant?

[saltpoint]

108. People who insist there's a God are the same people who used to insist

there were many gods.

Which is it, and once they get their story straight, we can talk a little turkey.

The goal posts keep moving.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. I have the t-shirt:

[SidneyCarton]

4. Nice.

[damntexdem]

40. Best answer so far.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. How do you prove a negative?

[SidneyCarton]

5. You don't. n/t

[damntexdem]

41. Can you prove that negative?

;-)

[SidneyCarton]

44. Nope.

;)

[BlooInBloo]

6. Carnivorous haunted pineapple upside down cakes exist! No they don't!

Despite the formal similarity, one side nevertheless is much less reasonable than the other.

Moral: There's a lot more than formal syntactic similarity involved with the (need for) justification of claims. Unless you're religious of course, in which case claims don't need to be justified at all.

[SidneyCarton]

8. True.

Yet as neither side can be proved the argument is ultimately pointless. We may as well debate about the possibility of intelligent life residing in the Andromeda Galaxy, I can say there is, you can say that there isn't, and until a saucer pops the hatch on the capital mall, or we get Radio Andromeda on SETI, its just expending hot air.

[BlooInBloo]

10. It's funny watching you disagree with yourself.

[SidneyCarton]

13. Glad to know I'm entertaining.

[damntexdem]

46. But we don't want you to debate that, earthling!

Watch out, or we'll come zap you!

[Taitertots]

74. There is a fundamental difference

One can't be proved because you can't prove a negative

The other can't be proved because it is untrue.

[wtbymark]

7. prove that there's no flying spaghetti monster?

In the interests of logic, how do you suppose I do that?

On edit: after reading the illogical 5 proofs of god from St. Thomas Aquinas, I don't think you guys have 'proven' your side yet

[SidneyCarton]

9. Did I ask for logic?

Read the post, I asked for empirical data. Do you have it?

[wtbymark]

12. umm, where is the empiricle data on the existance of god?

not subjective 'faith'

[SidneyCarton]

16. There isn't any.

But Theism is irrational by nature. If the only rational position to take is Atheism, then there must be empirical data to back up the claim of the non-existence of God. Otherwise the only logical position to take is that of Agnosticism, because there is no proof either way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. False logical equivalency.

If something 'is' there is proof. Otherewise there is no 'is'.

Therefore, those who claim there IS a god should be able to show proof.

As you have already pointed out, you cannot prove a negative - an 'isn't'. There is no empirical proof possible for the non-existence of anything.

Empirical proof, for a positive claim, is easy. Show it to me.

There is no equivalency for that with empirical proof for a negative claim.

ON EDIT: Yes, you DID ask for logic. By asking for empirical evidence you were asking for logic.

[SidneyCarton]

55. There is no navegable Northwest Passage.

(At least not at present.)

There is no Geocentric Solar System.

There is no Aether.

There is no "Black Bile"

There is no "Great Austral Continent"

Science and empirical investigation has disproved plenty.

As to proving that something is, it depends on your kind of "Proof," there is no empirical proof of God. I would not waste your time with anecdotes, supernatural phenomena, or metaphysical arguments, because you would not consider it conclusive.

[Oregone]

14. No one has empirical evidence that ANY creation of the imagination doesn't exist

Therefore, do they all exist?

What is your point? Any creature you dream up can never be proven to not exist with evidence. But, well, what does that prove? That any asshole can dream something up? That gets you no where.

[SidneyCarton]

18. Exactly, there is no point.

The whole argument is useless, so the real question is why do we persist in it?

[Oregone]

22. I don't know

I merely cast stones at the arguments themselves, rather than jump into them. I give two shits whether there is a God overseeing this shithole or its just an accidental shithole. It doesn't impact my shitty life either way.

[SidneyCarton]

24. Well either way, it would seem we're still in a shithole...

so, at least there's consistency.

[rd_kent]

104. Because people who think there IS a god, want to force that imaginary guy on the rest of us.

Thats why this stupid argument goes on.

[damntexdem]

47. Infidel! Of course there's the FSM.

Otherwise, how could you have been touched by his noodley appendage?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. burden of positive proof is on you

And your post is self defeating: "No logic games or sophistry please".

[SidneyCarton]

21. Ah, the last resort of the person with no evidence to the contrary.

The burden of proof is on you.

Unfortunately my friend, I cannot prove the existence of a God, and you cannot disprove it, so where does that leave us, we can get along and worry about something else, or play logic games for the rest of the day, which would you prefer? I admit that I actually find sophistry rather boring.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. It leaves you believing in something that you have

no evidence of. It leaves me refusing to believe in things for which there is no evidence. I prefer my position to yours.

[SidneyCarton]

30. Fair enough.

You are entitled to an opinion, but the truth remains that there is no proof either way.

[rd_kent]

105. No, the truth is, that there IS NO PROOF!

If someone is accused of a crime, but no evidence of the crime exists, do you still think that person committed the crime?

There either IS or there IS NOT proof, not both.

[Goblinmonger]

19. When did I make that claim? n/t

[SidneyCarton]

25. Did you make that claim?

If not then the question must not apply.

[Goblinmonger]

62. My point is that you are creating a strawman.

I know, I know, you don't want logic seeping its way in here but that's the risk you run with a bunch of godless heathens. I know very few atheists that take that stance.

[SidneyCarton]

65. There's one in another thread in this very forum.

This thread is a response to his. Were it a response to you it would be a strawman, for you it's an opportunity to be offended.

[Goblinmonger]

69. Are you referring to the "Prove there is a God" thread

because this isn't an equal response. Asking those that make a positive claim to prove their claim is not stating that the claim is absolutely false.

If it's in response to a different thread, then this doesn't apply.

[SidneyCarton]

70. It's not the question, but the tone in which it is asked.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the poster in question has no interest in an answer of any form.

This thread is an attempt to show the truly farcical nature of the argument in general. I would be unable to give any evidence that that OP would find authoritative to prove the existence of God. Conversely, no one will be able to give me evidence that I would find conclusive and authoritative to prove the non-existence of God. Hence any argument on this subject swiftly breaks down into sophistry, philosophical games, intellectual one-up-manship, or base and crude insults. It's futility at its finest.

[Goblinmonger]

73. But it doesn't break down at the point of burden of proof.

Atheists don't have a belief in god. We are the null hypothesis. You don't have to prove the null hypothesis; it just is. Once someone comes in and says, "Hey, watching Captain Planet will help children learn environmental information" (the subject of my master's thesis, fyi), THAT person has the burden to prove that Captain Planet actually does that (which it only does for those that live in environmentally conscious homes, btw). Those that say there is a god have the burden of proof. We wouldn't accept the argument on a master's thesis of "Hey, prove that Captain Planet doesn't teach the information and until you do, it does." Likewise, those that wish to claim there is a god have the burden of proof. And, no, if someone says there is a god and the other person says "I don't think so" that does not switch the burden of proof to the second.

And if it is futility at its finest, why are you starting a new thread to continue the futility unless you somewhat enjoy it. I would imagine if you really believed that, you would just ignore the issue all together.

[SidneyCarton]

78. Convenient that the null hypothesis is supposedly self-evident, isn't it.

It means you can question everyone else with impunity, while no one can impeach your position due to the pre-existent setting of the argument. Cute, really.

[Goblinmonger]

83. I don't think it means what you think it means

Have you taken a stats class? Because what you are stating isn't what a null hypothesis is. And if you have taken a stats class, please explain what the null hypothesis should be in regards to the existence of a god?

[SidneyCarton]

87. I apologize, I misread your post.

Having never taken a stats class, I was unclear as to the nature of the null hypothesis as you mentioned it, I regret my ignorance in this matter.

[Goblinmonger]

90. Fair enough.

I talk about it below.

[Xipe Totec]

20. George Bush was President for 8 years

Q.E.D.

[SidneyCarton]

27. Touche.

But does that mean that there is no God, or that he went on an extended vacation?

[Xipe Totec]

38. There is no benevolent God?

She's supposed to be all seeing, so she should keep an eye out on bidness, even while on vacation (I do).

The problem is most people assume that a benevolent God exists.

I believe in God the watchmaker, not God the janitorial custodian.

[mike_c]

23. that is not possible....

You call it "logic games"-- I call it truth. One cannot prove a negative assertion.

What one CAN do is agree that the evidence to date is consistent with a negative assertion. And we can also deal in probabilities, which might be the best way to make the point, i.e. deities have not unambiguously manifested themselves in the whole of my previous experience, so I assign a vanishingly low probability to their doing so in the immediate future.

[Oregone]

26. But there are a few guys at the county ward who claim that...

deities have actually manifested themselves in their experiences. So, you know, who is to trust these days, eh? :)

[Odin2005]

96. I have had "mystical" experiences, too, I just don't feel compelled to label them "God"

People label such experiences "god" because they are culturally conditioned to. IMO the label demeans such experiences and cuts off truly understanding them and getting meaning from them. Us humans have a habit of imposing notions of human social reality on physical reality, the basis of primitive animistic belief which then evolved into Theism.

[SidneyCarton]

31. Then list the evidence. n/t

[mitchum]

29. Did the three bears REALLY like porridge?

[SidneyCarton]

32. Actually I think it was all a cunning ruse to lure unsuspecting children into their home.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

33. As the first reply said, you have to define it.

There can be no real debate until the parameters for the debate are established. There are dozens of definitions of "God," some but not all supernatural. Oh...sorry...these are logic games aren't they?

[SidneyCarton]

35. I said the responder could pick.

That implied that they could set their own parameters. In frankness this shouldn't be so difficult, set up a straw god, and knock him over with empirical evidence.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

45. Sidney, God sent me here from a planet far away...

Now prove to me that it didn't happen? You don't have to, because the burden's on me. All empirical evidence argues against it. Same with the supernatural. All that I've observed in my life obeys the same natural protocol of laws and properties, and all that we've found beyond the Earth also follows them. I've seen nothing yet that suspends those laws. Therefore, from my own experience, I can say that there is no supernatural..."God" or otherwise. Whether you recognize this as proof is irrelevant, to me anyway. It's only my experience that matters in the final analysis, isn't it?

[SidneyCarton]

51. Obviously I cannot.

Anymore than you can prove I'm not a 40-year-old stripper from Omaha, (though that might be a bit awkward) But you make my point, our position on God and the Supernatural is largely based on our own observations and subjectivity, thus making extended argument over the subject, (and not your proofs) irrelevant. I will not convince you of the existence of a supernatural, and you will not convince me of it's nonexistence. If anything this is a protest thread to another one in this forum demanding proof to the contrary. There is no proof that that poster would find as conclusive, and I'm relatively sure that the same is true for me. So the whole thing is essentially an exercise in futility that does little more than allow the OP (and this is as true in my case as it is in the other thread) to exalt themselves. We will come to no more conclusion here than in the other thread, and will all leave equally aggrieved, or smugly satisfied. It's like seeing a Star Wars prequel, only with better writing.

[Birthmark]

34. That's easy.

"God" as a term is meaningless. If there were a god, there would be general agreement on his properties. There are something like 30,000 different versions of god in Christianity alone. That is clear proof that there is no single entity that can be called "God" with any degree of confidence.

However, the moment "God" is defined well enough to be analyzed, it can always (IME) be shown to be either a logical impossibility due to internal conflicts, or so ephemeral as to become indistinguishable from Nature and therefore gets slit up a treat by Occam's Razor.

Try it with any god you care to define.

[SidneyCarton]

36. Humorously enough William of Occam, who defined the very razor you have used

Himself argued that logic was a lousy way to define God.

So, pick a definition of God and do it.

[Birthmark]

42. I'm not defining God using logic.

I'm eliminating him using logic and the best available evidence.

He's your God. Give me your definition and a list of his properties. If I have any questions, I'll ask you.

But I'm not going to disprove some definition of god only to have claims that I've created a straw-god or even an "okay, but what about *this* god?" One god to a person is my motto. :)

[damntexdem]

37. That is not a job for science. Science provides natural explanations of the natural world.

If God is "supernatural," science can do nothing. On the other hand, if science CAN prove or disprove something called 'god,' then said god is natural. Sorry for the logic, but it's necessary to explain why there can be no hard evidence unless it's about something to which hard evidence can apply.

So if you want 'proof' one way or another, turn to philosophy. Of course, there you should be prepared for loads of sophistry.

[SidneyCarton]

43. You make my point most eloquently.

There is no hard evidence, so any proof either way breaks down into the sophistry of philosophy, which can be argued either way until Ragnarok, Christ comes, the Maya calendar runs out, or the Sun goes nova.

[Odin2005]

97. The concept of the "supernatural" is incoherent and meaningless.

It's a trash-can label for people making nonsensical explanations for things that we don't understand based on cultural and philosophical prejudices and for quacks and New Age "faith healers" out to prey on the gullible. If something exists it is part of a unified Reality. It's basically invoking the "God-of-the-Gaps" Argument without directly invoking God.

[Sinistrous]

48. self delete

[Hav]

49. .

I don't really understand how their could be, by the definition of the word, empirical evidence for the non-existence of something that so far is only a matter of faith, something that is going on in the minds of people.

By the way, I never understood why some people who believe in God would try to use science to prove the existence of God or to prove that the world was created 6000 years ago, for example. Is it about validation? For me as an agnostic, it's about believing in God or not.
But I agree with you regarding one thing: I too don't see the point in arguing about the existence of a God between people who believe and those who don't. After all, in the end, it's a matter of faith and not about hard facts.

[SidneyCarton]

56. Precisely my point. n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

52. The church says the earth is flat.

"The Church says the Earth is Flat; but I have seen the Shadow on the Moon, and it is Round;
And I have More Faith in a Shadow on the Moon than in the Church."


----Ferdinand Magellan

(This was on a great T shirt from Northern Sun)

[SidneyCarton]

57. Does this prove the nonexistence of God, or the inherent fallibility of the Catholic Church?

[laconicsax]

53. I don't need to.

I never claimed that no gods exist, I just don't believe that any of them do exist. It's entirely possible that any or all of the gods that people have believed in exist, I just don't think that they do.

[SidneyCarton]

59. More power to you.

I have no empirical proof that a God exists, and it is entirely possible that there is no God. I think one does, you don't. Believe it or not, I'm ok with that.

[trotsky]

54. *Yawn*

Prove there are no unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, or wood sprites. The parallels are striking. Lots of people have claimed to have seen them, interacted with them, etc. Tons of stories have been written about them. When you understand why you don't have to go around disproving unicorns, you'll understand why it isn't up to the atheist to disprove your god.

[SidneyCarton]

60. Trotsky do you have proof, or snark?

[ironbark]

61. That Snark could still be a Boojum

"In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away—
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."

Lewis Carroll
The Hunting of the Snark
Fit the Eighth
THE VANISHING

;-)

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/snark/fit8.html

[trotsky]

64. It's a totally serious point.

Prove there are no unicorns.

Go.

[SidneyCarton]

67. I have no interest in proving or disproving the existence of Unicorns.

I doubt you do either, but since you demand it, the only empirical evidence that can be given for the lack of Unicorns existence is a lack, a lack of both living specimens and the presence of Unicorns within the fossil record. However, as new species are constantly added, particularly through the fossil record, I will leave open the possibility that someday a one-horned equine creature may indeed be found.

[trotsky]

102. Well, you came pretty close to getting the point.

For the record, just to make it obvious, atheists view your god just like you view unicorns.

[Odin2005]

98. It's not snark, it's a serious argument called "Bertrand Russell's Cosmic Teapot".

[Uben]

58. God defined=

A god is an extraterrestrial being who has at one time or another visited our world. That's about as close as I can come to the definition of "god". Obviously there is no omnipotent god or there would not be opposing forces, but that is not to say that god/gods do not, or have not existed.

[ZombieHorde]

63. Another thread asked which sort of evidence atheists would accept for proof of god's existence.

I will ask you what sort of proof will you accept for proof of god's non-existence.

We had to offer specific examples, which I provided.

[SidneyCarton]

66. Read the OP.

For the sake of clarity, I will accept evidence from the hard sciences, which is empirical and preferably from peer-reviewed journals.

[ZombieHorde]

75. The thread I was referring to is as below...

In leiu of God coming down, knocking on your door and handing you a business card, what kind of evidence would you accept?

Even if God came down, would you dismiss it as a hallucination?

If he didn’t fit the image you had seen of God, would you not believe it?

What if he had absolutely no “human” qualities at all?

Would you have to see these things firsthand, or can you hear about them from other witnesses?

Further, would God have to do this each generation, or would one time be enough?

Seriously, I want to know.

Please, no generic "scientific proof" answers, I'm looking for specifics. Secondly, if there's nothing that could convince you, please man up and admit that. Don't continue the "no evidence" charade if there's nothing that could convince you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x214370

The bold was added by me.

[SidneyCarton]

79. This was not the thread I had in mind to answer.

[ZombieHorde]

80. Can you think of something specific which would qualify as acceptable evidence?

Will you offer a hypothetical example of evidence you would accept?

[SidneyCarton]

82. Thats the problem ZH, I can't think of anything, so I'm willing to entertain arguments.

You got anything? Surely Dr. Dawkins, with his immense scientific knowledge and skill, can empirically prove that there is no God. Or perhaps Dr. PZ Meyers? Surely these extremely learned men have something concrete to offer, empirical data, beyond their opinions and the sophistry to back it up.

[ZombieHorde]

94. We may not be able to prove/disprove god, but we can prove/disprove certain religious claims.

These claims can offer a decent idea about the validity of the religion.

For example, the Christian Holy Bible clearly states that followers of Jesus Christ are immune to poison, offers an approximate age of planet Earth from the time line within, claims the Earth has four corners, claims there was once a great world wide flood, etc. These things can be tested fairly well. The Holy Bible can also be searched for prophecies which should have come to pass by now to see if they did indeed come true.

This could most likely be done for many religious texts.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. Why is the burden of proof on those who lack this belief?

Doesn't the burden of proof lie on the one making the remarkable claim?

Turn about is fair play:
"Please provide conclusive, empirical evidence, preferably peer-reviewed, from one of the hard sciences, that there absolutely is God. You may choose which deity to prove (Yahweh/Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, etc...) No logic games or sophistry please, just hard evidence."

You make these posts as if atheists haven't spent any time researching the information for ourselves, and if we just thought about it the right way, maybe we'd come around. In my experience, atheists as a group are more knowledgeable about many religions than the adherents themselves, and that's because we have spent a lot of time studying it.

[SidneyCarton]

71. Frankly I don't think any Atheist would come around just by thinking about it.

My point is that the argument in general is pointless. Instead of even attempting to provide empirical evidence, you immediately fall back on the tiresome argument that the burden of proof lies with me. I freely admit that I cannot provide empirical evidence of God's existence, and that any evidence that I might provide would be considered anecdotal, mythological, or essentially non-authoritative to an Atheist. Conversely, it is impossible to prove, in a manner that I would find conclusive and authoritatively that God does not exist. This thread was created to answer the thread demanding proof of existence. Do you have proof, or just arguments about my need to provide proof?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

72. I don't have proof, I have a lack of evidence - without evidence, I don't/won't believe in god

And yes, I require evidence for something before I place my trust in it. If I 1) can't prove to myself that god does not exist; and 2) don't even know what evidence it would require for me to gain a belief, then it's impossible for me to come to any conclusions. If the evidence is there, then I want to see it - and I want the evidence to meet strict criteria that makes it verifiable.

You ask if I "...have proof, or just arguments about my need to provide proof?" You know as well as I do that things don't work that way. If I claim that a tiny green man lives on Venus and controls our minds through a long distance invisible space ray, it's not on you to prove that the little green man doesn't exist, no matter how much I may believe. The burden would be on me to show proof of this little green man, and testable evidence of his existence. Even if 2 billion people believed in the little green man, that wouldn't make him any more real, it's simply an Appeal to the Majority Fallacy.

[SidneyCarton]

81. Look I've already told you, I have no proof that you would find authoritative.

You want to play logic games, fine. That really is the only way to discuss that, because in the end neither of us have anything but our opinions and our own sophistry and arguments to bolster our opinions. We engage, work ourselves into a lather, and leave no wiser nor objectively more correct than we entered. All we do is score a few points in the ongoing intellectual pissing contest. The whole point of this thread is that the argument is futile, thank you for proving the point.

[sakabatou]

76. Can you prove that invisible butterflies don't come out of my nose?

No? Same for God.

[SidneyCarton]

84. I suppose we could super-glue your nostrils shut and wait to see if a backup of butterflies...

causes your face to explode. Sounds kinda dangerous, certainly unethical, and likely immoral, not to mention unpleasant in general for you. But if you really want to try...

[Goblinmonger]

91. OK, that's the funniest thing I have read from you on this thread. n/t

[sakabatou]

93. Oh and these butterflies can pass through anything

Kinda like gamma rays.

[pokerfan]

77. Fail

Burden of proof is on the godshouter.

Prove that there isn't a golden teapot orbiting the sun.

[SidneyCarton]

85. Prove that it isn't really made of platinum.

You call fail, I call bullshit. If yours is the reasonable position, you will have evidence to back it up, otherwise it's equivalent to mine, opinion backed up by argument and sophistry, with a bit of snark and insult added in when there is nothing left to say.

Once again, the point is moot, neither of us have enough data to debunk the other, so the argument is futile.

[Goblinmonger]

89. OK, here's where you are embarking on a statistical bent

that shows you don't understand null hypothesis.

The data is used to show a level of significance that the thing being test actually is beyond chance. That being tested is the presence of something, not the non-presence of something. The atheist doesn't believe in a god. There is nothing there to be proven. It is the lack of something. The theist believes there is a god. That is an affirmative stance that needs to be tested against a null hypothesis (the lack of presence of said god). The null hypothesis does not need to be proven. You don't even have to believe the null hypothesis. But to say that the thing being tested is equivalent to the null hypothesis is just crazy.

Edited to add: We don't need to have this discussion if you don't wish. I won't push it. I'm not going to beat you up for not having a stats class--I thought your response above was snark coming from a position of knowing the subject matter. My misinterpretation there.

[SidneyCarton]

92. Thank you for the clarification, good to know.

[pokerfan]

99. And still, no proof....

I can not prove God doesn't exist so exist He must! I can not prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist so exist He must!

The point is moot. All opinions are equal.

[rd_kent]

110. No, all opinions are not equal

You were correct the first time, in that the one making the claim has the burden of responsibility. If the subject were dropped, then there would be no argument, but the "godshouters" (I like that one, can I borrow it?) are the ones making the claim and therefore the responsibility to prove it.

[Goblinmonger]

86. Here, let me save the time

"I never said there was a golden teapot orbiting the sun." Blah, blah, blah, never prove it either way, yadda yadda yadda, just goes to insults, etc etc etc.

Though you generally have more tact than I so maybe it will go better for you :hi:

[SidneyCarton]

88. You're doing pretty well, do you want to take over for me?

[Odin2005]

95. Prove there isn't invisible pink magical unicorns on the far side of the Moon.

[Strong Atheist]

100. Same evidence as for tens of thousands of other gods, goddesses, demons, devils,

other critters invented by humans: they are made up...

[piratefish08]

103. Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Whatever proof you are able to produce is also my answer to your question.

[and-justice-for-all]

106. Ok, first you have to give me something to work with...

no empirical evidence, no argument. There is no empirical evidence to support the claim of an invisible man in the sky, therefore we can logically conclude it does not exist.

However, in all fairness, if you are able to proved some empirical evidence for us to examine and test, we could be swayed. Until then, it is a NO on the invisible wish granter.

[saltpoint]

107. Take Bigfoot. Can it be proved that Bigfoot does not exist? Or can it be

proved that Bigfoot does exist, for that matter?

If you go out into the wilderness and bring back a Bigfoot, folks will sit up and take notice, I promise.

And as long as you're out there, why not bring in a cageful of elves, dwarves, land spirits, and leprechauns? Go for the big headline.

If you see the original Hansel and his quiet but very intuitively right-on sister Gretel, invite them as well. They can go on Oprah and discuss familial neglect and cruelty.

Those talking trees from Tolkien -- could we get a video clip of that, too, please?

And beneath one of those trees is a hollowed-out passageway to the Lost Boys' hideout. Map that sucker out and we'll get it on one of those on-line aerial map thingies.

Seriously. If you want people to believe in elves, bring us one. What the hell, I'll tune in to Larry King's interview with the first actual elf brought in from the deep woods. Absent that find, I'm forced to settle for the Keebler elves, for example, and I'm not bellyaching about the Keebler elves, mind you -- they are fabulous cooks, no question -- but I've always doubted that they were actual elves. More like, "Hey, I'm not really a real elf, but I play on in food ads" kind of elf.

I'm not out there in every wilderness to determine, temporally and clinically, that there are no elves. From my vantage point it doesn't SEEM like there are any elves. On the other hand, as the catchphrase goes, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

I can believe that there are elves if I choose to, or believe that there is no such thing as elves equally. I can go hunt for elves in the deepest woods there is and my not find a one. Not one single little elf.

But elves might be there just the same.

Or not.

[dcsmart]

109. There.....i proved it...N/T....what a waste of time with these questions

[joey5150]

111. joyce, bart & dan

continue to fu the care of fl seniors on a massive scale. any god worth worshping woulda struckem with bolts of something.... anything... wood-meat-steal-cat pee- long ago.
it hasnt happened. therefore no god.

[Strong Atheist]

112. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[joey5150]

113. TY

pikd up sam harris's letters to a xtian nation this evening.

[LostInAnomie]

114. There's no object, physical/chemical process, or physical law that requires a God.

[RagAss]

115. You're an illusion. An ego made up of thoughts. One of these thoughts of yours is "God".