网友讨论：没有实质性的证据表明上帝存在
正文翻译
Many cultures around the World claim that a God, creator of all things exists. But none of them can prove that it exists or come to a definitive conclusion. If you want to prove that it exists, you need to show proof, this can be done for example with the Scientific Method for example.
And yes, just because there is no evidence of its existence, it doesn't necessarily means that it don't exist right? After all, atoms can't be seen, heard or degusted, and people didn't believed they existed back then. But that's the point, if something exists, it can most of the times be perceived through at least one human sense. No one can perceive atoms by default, BUT WE ALL CAN see them through microscopes, anyone can see atoms through them, you may not call them atoms, but you will be able to see them anyway. On the other hand, not everyone can perceive God, so this most likely indicates that it don't exist at all. Each culture explain God in a way, but the science from here, spain, japan, china, bangladesh, india, australia and every single country will explain things in the same way. Everyone, including me, don't know how the universe came to be, but that doesn't mean it was because of a God, there is the Big Bang Theory(not the tv series, the actual theory) for example, but that's exactly why we keep searching. We didn't knew everything back then, and we still don't everything, but that's the point of keeping studying. And I am not saying that everything far from our reach is inexistent. Many things in the universe got away from our reach forever, but that doesn't make them any less real. What I am saying is that we shouldn't affirm that every single thing out of our reach is completely valid. Oumuamua is away from our reach, but we know it existed for sure. God may exist in some place of the universe, why not? But theists have yet to prove this too, by the same way gravity, atoms and galaxies were proved.
许多文化都声称存在一位创造万物的神，但没有人能够证明其存在或得出最终结论。如果要证明它的存在，就需要展示证据，例如可以运用科学方法进行证明。即使没有其存在的证据，并不一定意味着它不存在，毕竟原子也不能被看到、听到或尝到，人们过去也不相信它们的存在。但这就是重点，如果某物存在，大多数时候都可以通过至少一种人类感官来感知。并不是每个人都能够感知神的存在，因此这很可能表明神根本不存在。每个文化的解释神的方式可能不同，但来自西班牙、日本、中国、孟加拉国、印度、澳大利亚和每个国家的科学都会以相同的方式解释事物。包括我在内的每个人都不知道宇宙是如何形成的，但这并不意味着它是因为神的存在，例如就有“大爆炸理论”（不是电视剧，是实际理论）等。我们以前并不了解所有事情，现在仍然不了解所有事情，但这正是继续研究的目的所在。我不是说远离我们的一切都不存在。宇宙中的许多事物永远超出了我们的触及范围，但这并不会使它们变得不真实。我的观点是，我们不应该确定每个超出我们触及范围的东西都完全有效。奥陌陌就超出了我们的触及范围，但我们确信它存在过。神可能存在于宇宙的某个地方，为什么不呢？但有神论者必须通过引用引力、原子和星系等的证据来证明这一点。
Many cultures around the World claim that a God, creator of all things exists. But none of them can prove that it exists or come to a definitive conclusion. If you want to prove that it exists, you need to show proof, this can be done for example with the Scientific Method for example.
And yes, just because there is no evidence of its existence, it doesn't necessarily means that it don't exist right? After all, atoms can't be seen, heard or degusted, and people didn't believed they existed back then. But that's the point, if something exists, it can most of the times be perceived through at least one human sense. No one can perceive atoms by default, BUT WE ALL CAN see them through microscopes, anyone can see atoms through them, you may not call them atoms, but you will be able to see them anyway. On the other hand, not everyone can perceive God, so this most likely indicates that it don't exist at all. Each culture explain God in a way, but the science from here, spain, japan, china, bangladesh, india, australia and every single country will explain things in the same way. Everyone, including me, don't know how the universe came to be, but that doesn't mean it was because of a God, there is the Big Bang Theory(not the tv series, the actual theory) for example, but that's exactly why we keep searching. We didn't knew everything back then, and we still don't everything, but that's the point of keeping studying. And I am not saying that everything far from our reach is inexistent. Many things in the universe got away from our reach forever, but that doesn't make them any less real. What I am saying is that we shouldn't affirm that every single thing out of our reach is completely valid. Oumuamua is away from our reach, but we know it existed for sure. God may exist in some place of the universe, why not? But theists have yet to prove this too, by the same way gravity, atoms and galaxies were proved.
许多文化都声称存在一位创造万物的神，但没有人能够证明其存在或得出最终结论。如果要证明它的存在，就需要展示证据，例如可以运用科学方法进行证明。即使没有其存在的证据，并不一定意味着它不存在，毕竟原子也不能被看到、听到或尝到，人们过去也不相信它们的存在。但这就是重点，如果某物存在，大多数时候都可以通过至少一种人类感官来感知。并不是每个人都能够感知神的存在，因此这很可能表明神根本不存在。每个文化的解释神的方式可能不同，但来自西班牙、日本、中国、孟加拉国、印度、澳大利亚和每个国家的科学都会以相同的方式解释事物。包括我在内的每个人都不知道宇宙是如何形成的，但这并不意味着它是因为神的存在，例如就有“大爆炸理论”（不是电视剧，是实际理论）等。我们以前并不了解所有事情，现在仍然不了解所有事情，但这正是继续研究的目的所在。我不是说远离我们的一切都不存在。宇宙中的许多事物永远超出了我们的触及范围，但这并不会使它们变得不真实。我的观点是，我们不应该确定每个超出我们触及范围的东西都完全有效。奥陌陌就超出了我们的触及范围，但我们确信它存在过。神可能存在于宇宙的某个地方，为什么不呢？但有神论者必须通过引用引力、原子和星系等的证据来证明这一点。
If someone tries to validate God through the Bible and/or another ancient book or scxture, this will not work too, as the Bible is The Appeal to Authority Fallacy, you can't validate something only by the source alone. Again, I will mention the Scientific Method for this.
Some will say that they don't believe in a God, but rather a energy, or that God is the act of creation itself. If God is a energy from where the universe originated from, then it's name is energy, not God. If God is "the act of creation itself" then it's name is something like "the origin of everything", aka big bang, or whatever you call it, not God. And if so, then God becomes an empty word. Why call all these things "God"? Why we don't just call them by their correct names?
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed. He existed like Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Stalin, and everyone. But even so, Jesus is not conclusive proof, neither his so called miracles. Why he is not conclusive proof? Because miracles don't mean God exists. What if Jesus was a mutant with healing powers for example??(Altough I don't believe in this of course) What if no miracle ever happened and you were fooled? Just because many people spread a lie, that doesn't make it any more real.
So that's it. These were my arguments for why I believe God don't exist, and that there is no conclusive proof that it does. If you want to change my mind, prove it. And yes I know I didn't point every single argument theists tend to use. Feel free to discuss and prove that there is evidence for God in the comment section below.
如果有人试图通过圣经或其他古老的书籍或经文来确认神的存在，这也行不通，因为这样做只是权威性的诉求谬误，不能单纯用来源来验证某事物的存在。再次强调，可以运用科学方法进行验证。
有些人会说，他们不相信神，而相信能量，或者认为神是创造本身的行动。如果神是宇宙起源的能量，那么它的名字就是能量，而不是神。如果神是“创造本身的行动”，那么它的名字就是类似于“万物之源”的东西，即大爆炸或其他你赋予的名称，而不是神。如果是这样的话，那么神就成为一个空洞的词语。为什么要把所有这些东西称之为“神”？为什么我们不直接称其正确的名称？
Some will say that they don't believe in a God, but rather a energy, or that God is the act of creation itself. If God is a energy from where the universe originated from, then it's name is energy, not God. If God is "the act of creation itself" then it's name is something like "the origin of everything", aka big bang, or whatever you call it, not God. And if so, then God becomes an empty word. Why call all these things "God"? Why we don't just call them by their correct names?
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed. He existed like Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Stalin, and everyone. But even so, Jesus is not conclusive proof, neither his so called miracles. Why he is not conclusive proof? Because miracles don't mean God exists. What if Jesus was a mutant with healing powers for example??(Altough I don't believe in this of course) What if no miracle ever happened and you were fooled? Just because many people spread a lie, that doesn't make it any more real.
So that's it. These were my arguments for why I believe God don't exist, and that there is no conclusive proof that it does. If you want to change my mind, prove it. And yes I know I didn't point every single argument theists tend to use. Feel free to discuss and prove that there is evidence for God in the comment section below.
如果有人试图通过圣经或其他古老的书籍或经文来确认神的存在，这也行不通，因为这样做只是权威性的诉求谬误，不能单纯用来源来验证某事物的存在。再次强调，可以运用科学方法进行验证。
有些人会说，他们不相信神，而相信能量，或者认为神是创造本身的行动。如果神是宇宙起源的能量，那么它的名字就是能量，而不是神。如果神是“创造本身的行动”，那么它的名字就是类似于“万物之源”的东西，即大爆炸或其他你赋予的名称，而不是神。如果是这样的话，那么神就成为一个空洞的词语。为什么要把所有这些东西称之为“神”？为什么我们不直接称其正确的名称？
Edit:
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed.
I will correct this statement by saying that "I" never saw an atheist doing this. My mistake. Many atheists incorrectly assume that Jesus never exist, but this is not true. But the rest of the argument still applies.
Edit 2: From this point onwards, I will not reply to things such as "God always existed", "I call the beginning of the universe God". If God always existed, then how do you know is not the same from everything else? With this rule the universe might as well always have existed, which means there was no God to create it in the first place. "I call the origin of everything God" - Ok, call it "The origin", not "God" then. Also, I am not here to define what God is. So don't come and say things like "What if God is not a being, but a energy/conciousness/existence itself/etc?". That's isn't the point of this debate.
没有无神论者曾经说过耶稣不存在。他和达芬奇、莎士比亚、斯大林以及所有其他人一样存在。但即便如此，耶稣和所谓的奇迹也并不是确凿证据。为什么它不是确凿证据？因为奇迹并不意味着神的存在。例如，如果耶稣是拥有治愈能力的变异体，那该怎么办呢？（尽管我当然不相信这个）如果从未发生过奇迹，而你被欺骗了呢？只因为很多人传播了谎言，并不会使它变得更真实。
以上是我为何相信神不存在的论点以及目前没有确凿证据的原因。如果要改变我的想法，请提供证据。是的，我知道我没有列出有神论者倾向使用的每一个论点。请随便讨论并在下面的评论部分中证明神的存在的证据
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed.
I will correct this statement by saying that "I" never saw an atheist doing this. My mistake. Many atheists incorrectly assume that Jesus never exist, but this is not true. But the rest of the argument still applies.
Edit 2: From this point onwards, I will not reply to things such as "God always existed", "I call the beginning of the universe God". If God always existed, then how do you know is not the same from everything else? With this rule the universe might as well always have existed, which means there was no God to create it in the first place. "I call the origin of everything God" - Ok, call it "The origin", not "God" then. Also, I am not here to define what God is. So don't come and say things like "What if God is not a being, but a energy/conciousness/existence itself/etc?". That's isn't the point of this debate.
没有无神论者曾经说过耶稣不存在。他和达芬奇、莎士比亚、斯大林以及所有其他人一样存在。但即便如此，耶稣和所谓的奇迹也并不是确凿证据。为什么它不是确凿证据？因为奇迹并不意味着神的存在。例如，如果耶稣是拥有治愈能力的变异体，那该怎么办呢？（尽管我当然不相信这个）如果从未发生过奇迹，而你被欺骗了呢？只因为很多人传播了谎言，并不会使它变得更真实。
以上是我为何相信神不存在的论点以及目前没有确凿证据的原因。如果要改变我的想法，请提供证据。是的，我知道我没有列出有神论者倾向使用的每一个论点。请随便讨论并在下面的评论部分中证明神的存在的证据
评论翻译
ScabberDabber25
“We don’t know how the universe came to be but that doesn’t mean it was because of God”
The problem with this statement is that your are admiring that your claim lacks evidence to back it up and you are just crossing your fingers that one day someone else will find evidence to back up your claim
That’s not how science works you can’t just say oh I’m right and I’ll find out why later. You look at what appears to be the most likely solution (why in my opinion is that there was a supernatural) and if new evidence presents itself proving your idea then you can claim it
Now I would like to clarify that I don’t believe in any specific organized religion such as Christianity or Buddhism or Islam etc. All I believe is that there was or still is some supernatural thing that kickstarted the sequence of actions causing other actions that we know as the universe but I don’t know what that thing is. It could be Zeus it could be Jesus it could even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster and if we do come up with an explanation that makes sense I’ll change my mind but for now supernatural creationism seems to be the only logical answer
“我们不知道宇宙是如何诞生的，但这并不意味着是因为上帝造成的”
这个声明的问题在于，你承认你的主张缺乏支持证据，只是寄希望于将来有人会找到支持你的主张的证据。
科学不是这样运作的，你不能仅凭一己之见认为自己是正确的，并期待将来有新的证据来支持你的主张。你需要看看什么是最可能的解决方案（在我看来，超自然是最可能的），如果新的证据出现证明了你的想法，那么你才能宣称自己是正确的。
现在，我想澄清一下，我不信仰任何特定的有组织宗教，如基督教、佛教或伊斯兰教等。我相信有一些超自然的事物，启动了一系列行动，引起了其他我们所知道的宇宙的行动，但我不知道那个物体是什么。它可能是宙斯，可能是耶稣，甚至可能是飞行意大利面怪物，如果我们找到了一个合理的解释，我会改变我的想法，但现在超自然创造主义似乎是唯一合理的答案。
“We don’t know how the universe came to be but that doesn’t mean it was because of God”
The problem with this statement is that your are admiring that your claim lacks evidence to back it up and you are just crossing your fingers that one day someone else will find evidence to back up your claim
That’s not how science works you can’t just say oh I’m right and I’ll find out why later. You look at what appears to be the most likely solution (why in my opinion is that there was a supernatural) and if new evidence presents itself proving your idea then you can claim it
Now I would like to clarify that I don’t believe in any specific organized religion such as Christianity or Buddhism or Islam etc. All I believe is that there was or still is some supernatural thing that kickstarted the sequence of actions causing other actions that we know as the universe but I don’t know what that thing is. It could be Zeus it could be Jesus it could even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster and if we do come up with an explanation that makes sense I’ll change my mind but for now supernatural creationism seems to be the only logical answer
“我们不知道宇宙是如何诞生的，但这并不意味着是因为上帝造成的”
这个声明的问题在于，你承认你的主张缺乏支持证据，只是寄希望于将来有人会找到支持你的主张的证据。
科学不是这样运作的，你不能仅凭一己之见认为自己是正确的，并期待将来有新的证据来支持你的主张。你需要看看什么是最可能的解决方案（在我看来，超自然是最可能的），如果新的证据出现证明了你的想法，那么你才能宣称自己是正确的。
现在，我想澄清一下，我不信仰任何特定的有组织宗教，如基督教、佛教或伊斯兰教等。我相信有一些超自然的事物，启动了一系列行动，引起了其他我们所知道的宇宙的行动，但我不知道那个物体是什么。它可能是宙斯，可能是耶稣，甚至可能是飞行意大利面怪物，如果我们找到了一个合理的解释，我会改变我的想法，但现在超自然创造主义似乎是唯一合理的答案。
missmuffin__
All that is being claimed here is
1. We don't know how the universe came to be
Which is true. We don't.
2. but that doesn't mean it was because of God
Which is also true. We do not know enough to make the negative assertion.
Your comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science. We can empirically prove some things without necessarily proving everything that is.
All I believe is that there was or still is some supernatural thing...
For which you have no evidence and is not based on science or any desire to actually understand what is real.
这里所声称的只是：
1. 我们不知道宇宙是如何形成的。
这是真实的。我们确实不知道。
2. 但这并不意味着是因为上帝造成的。
这也是真实的。我们对此不了解足够的信息来做出否定性断言。
你的评论表明你完全不理解科学。我们可以通过实验证明某些事情，而不一定要证明所有事情。
我相信存在某种超自然的事物......
你没有证据，这也不是基于科学或任何真正理解现实的愿望。
All that is being claimed here is
1. We don't know how the universe came to be
Which is true. We don't.
2. but that doesn't mean it was because of God
Which is also true. We do not know enough to make the negative assertion.
Your comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science. We can empirically prove some things without necessarily proving everything that is.
All I believe is that there was or still is some supernatural thing...
For which you have no evidence and is not based on science or any desire to actually understand what is real.
这里所声称的只是：
1. 我们不知道宇宙是如何形成的。
这是真实的。我们确实不知道。
2. 但这并不意味着是因为上帝造成的。
这也是真实的。我们对此不了解足够的信息来做出否定性断言。
你的评论表明你完全不理解科学。我们可以通过实验证明某些事情，而不一定要证明所有事情。
我相信存在某种超自然的事物......
你没有证据，这也不是基于科学或任何真正理解现实的愿望。
ScabberDabber25
It’s possible that the answer is something other than a supernatural but unless scientists discover the answer it is most reasonable to assume a supernatural since to our knowledge it’s the only thing that makes sense
有可能答案不是超自然的，但在科学家发现答案之前，最合理的做法是假设它是超自然的，因为据我们所知，这是唯一有意义的解释。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It’s possible that the answer is something other than a supernatural but unless scientists discover the answer it is most reasonable to assume a supernatural since to our knowledge it’s the only thing that makes sense
有可能答案不是超自然的，但在科学家发现答案之前，最合理的做法是假设它是超自然的，因为据我们所知，这是唯一有意义的解释。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
missmuffin__
Argument from ignorance fallacy. You have no justification to believe in a supernatural creator.
这是无知论证的谬误。你没有理由相信有超自然的创造者。
Argument from ignorance fallacy. You have no justification to believe in a supernatural creator.
这是无知论证的谬误。你没有理由相信有超自然的创造者。
ScabberDabber25
My justification is that according to science Mass cannot be created not destroyed and obxts cannot go into motion unless something moves them
However that then brings up the question what caused the first motion and how does anything exist if it can’t come from nothing
So there’s something that can break the laws of nature
The rebuttal I keep getting to this argument is “well maybe one day we’ll discover something that proves your argument wrong.” And my reply to that is “okay I’ll change my mind when you discover something that proves me wrong” but that thing is yet to be discovered
It’s also possible that we discover something that throws the whole theory of Evolution out the window but currently evolution appears to be the most probable theory so we go off of that I don’t see why the theory of supernaturalism can’t be applied with this same logic
And just to clear up any confusion I am not an evolution denier I do believe in uation and when I talk about creationism I mean the creation of the universe itself not necessarily life and earth
我的理由是，根据科学的规律，质量不能被创造或破坏，而物体也不能自行运动，必须有外部力推动。然而，这就引出了一个问题，是什么导致了第一次运动，如果事物不能从虚无中产生，那么事物是如何存在的呢？因此，有某些能够打破自然规律的东西存在。对于这个观点，我经常得到的反驳是“也许有一天我们会发现证明你错误的东西”，而我的回答是“好的，当你发现证明我错误的东西时我会改变我的想法”，但那个东西目前尚未被发现。也有可能我们会发现某些东西完全推翻了进化论，但目前进化论似乎是最可靠的理论，我们就基于这个理论进行研究。我认为可以用同样的逻辑来应用超自然主义的理论，以消除任何困惑。另外，为了澄清任何混淆，我并不是否认进化论，我相信进化论，当我谈到创造论时，我指的是宇宙本身的创造，而不是生命和地球的创造。
My justification is that according to science Mass cannot be created not destroyed and obxts cannot go into motion unless something moves them
However that then brings up the question what caused the first motion and how does anything exist if it can’t come from nothing
So there’s something that can break the laws of nature
The rebuttal I keep getting to this argument is “well maybe one day we’ll discover something that proves your argument wrong.” And my reply to that is “okay I’ll change my mind when you discover something that proves me wrong” but that thing is yet to be discovered
It’s also possible that we discover something that throws the whole theory of Evolution out the window but currently evolution appears to be the most probable theory so we go off of that I don’t see why the theory of supernaturalism can’t be applied with this same logic
And just to clear up any confusion I am not an evolution denier I do believe in uation and when I talk about creationism I mean the creation of the universe itself not necessarily life and earth
我的理由是，根据科学的规律，质量不能被创造或破坏，而物体也不能自行运动，必须有外部力推动。然而，这就引出了一个问题，是什么导致了第一次运动，如果事物不能从虚无中产生，那么事物是如何存在的呢？因此，有某些能够打破自然规律的东西存在。对于这个观点，我经常得到的反驳是“也许有一天我们会发现证明你错误的东西”，而我的回答是“好的，当你发现证明我错误的东西时我会改变我的想法”，但那个东西目前尚未被发现。也有可能我们会发现某些东西完全推翻了进化论，但目前进化论似乎是最可靠的理论，我们就基于这个理论进行研究。我认为可以用同样的逻辑来应用超自然主义的理论，以消除任何困惑。另外，为了澄清任何混淆，我并不是否认进化论，我相信进化论，当我谈到创造论时，我指的是宇宙本身的创造，而不是生命和地球的创造。
JuniperJinn
I never met Jesus. But if I was an atheist I would?
我从未见过耶稣。但如果我是一个无神论者，我会见到耶稣吗？
I never met Jesus. But if I was an atheist I would?
我从未见过耶稣。但如果我是一个无神论者，我会见到耶稣吗？
Fishpate
The existence of Jesus don't prove anything. This is an argument by same level of "If I was an atheist, would I've met Hitler?"
Therefore, I never said that Jesus never existed.
耶稣的存在并不能证明什么。这是与“如果我是无神论者，我会遇到希特勒吗？”同样级别的论点。因此，我从未说过耶稣不存在。
The existence of Jesus don't prove anything. This is an argument by same level of "If I was an atheist, would I've met Hitler?"
Therefore, I never said that Jesus never existed.
耶稣的存在并不能证明什么。这是与“如果我是无神论者，我会遇到希特勒吗？”同样级别的论点。因此，我从未说过耶稣不存在。
JuniperJinn
I am trying to follow your logic, but I am lost.
You seem to believe that Jesus was as is written in the bible, but you do not believe that the existence of Jesus is a proof?
What is wrong with people who do not believe Jesus was an actual person? The only proof is written in the bible by Mark, Luke, Mathew and John. One or two text besides by Flavius Josephus that contentiously mentions the christ and a very small snippet about James the brother of Jesus who was “wrongfully condemned by a high priest”.
If a person required physical and uncontentious historical text’s of Jesus, they would not find it, and may choose to decide that Jesus did not exist as a man. If that person was also an atheist, why would that make them wrong?
Your debate topic is that there is no evidence for the abrahamic christian deity. Evidence needs to be defined. What would make evidence, and is it a list?
我尝试理解你的逻辑，但我有点迷失。
你似乎相信圣经中所写的耶稣，但你不认为耶稣存在就是一个证据？
那些不相信耶稣是一个真实的人有什么问题？唯一的证据在圣经中由马可、路加、马太和约翰写成。除此之外，只有弗拉维奥·约瑟夫所写的一两个篇章中，较模糊地提到基督教，并简要提到了“被一个大祭司错误地定罪”的耶稣兄弟雅各。
如果一个人需要物理和无争议的历史文本来证明耶稣的存在，他们可能找不到，因此可能会得出耶稣并非真实存在的结论。如果这个人也是无神论者，那为什么会使他们错了呢？
你的辩论主题是：没有证据证明亚伯拉罕式基督教神的存在。证据需要被定义。什么东西可以成为证据，它是否需要一份清单？
I am trying to follow your logic, but I am lost.
You seem to believe that Jesus was as is written in the bible, but you do not believe that the existence of Jesus is a proof?
What is wrong with people who do not believe Jesus was an actual person? The only proof is written in the bible by Mark, Luke, Mathew and John. One or two text besides by Flavius Josephus that contentiously mentions the christ and a very small snippet about James the brother of Jesus who was “wrongfully condemned by a high priest”.
If a person required physical and uncontentious historical text’s of Jesus, they would not find it, and may choose to decide that Jesus did not exist as a man. If that person was also an atheist, why would that make them wrong?
Your debate topic is that there is no evidence for the abrahamic christian deity. Evidence needs to be defined. What would make evidence, and is it a list?
我尝试理解你的逻辑，但我有点迷失。
你似乎相信圣经中所写的耶稣，但你不认为耶稣存在就是一个证据？
那些不相信耶稣是一个真实的人有什么问题？唯一的证据在圣经中由马可、路加、马太和约翰写成。除此之外，只有弗拉维奥·约瑟夫所写的一两个篇章中，较模糊地提到基督教，并简要提到了“被一个大祭司错误地定罪”的耶稣兄弟雅各。
如果一个人需要物理和无争议的历史文本来证明耶稣的存在，他们可能找不到，因此可能会得出耶稣并非真实存在的结论。如果这个人也是无神论者，那为什么会使他们错了呢？
你的辩论主题是：没有证据证明亚伯拉罕式基督教神的存在。证据需要被定义。什么东西可以成为证据，它是否需要一份清单？
hammiesink
You're on the right track with atoms, but go a little smaller: no one can see a lot of fundamental particles directly, even with a microscope, but we can know they exist just by the effects they cause, for example in particle accelerators. They can't see the Higgs boson and other particles directly, but see the effects they leave and can determine that a particle of a certain mass, spin, etc caused those effects, and this is as good (to particle physicists) as seeing them directly.
Similar with the God of classical theism. It cannot be seen or experienced directly, but its existence is inferred from the effects it causes, which is something we can see.
Namely, the effects are: conditional things. Most things around you only exist conditional on other things: palm trees only exist if there is oxygen, carbon, sunlight, water. Water only exists on the condition that there are molecular bonds. Atoms only exist on condition of atomic bonds. And so on. So the world is FULL of conditional things. And conditional things are an effect: the result of something else. And ultimately, at bottom, where the buck stops, that "something else" must be something that is NOT conditional. Something that exists but does not need anything else to exist. And that non-conditional thing is what theists label "God."
你提到了原子这个概念，但要更小一点：即使使用显微镜，我们也无法直接观察到很多基本粒子，但我们可以通过它们的作用来知道它们的存在，例如在粒子加速器中。尽管无法直接看到希格斯玻色子和其他粒子，但可以看到它们留下的效应，并确定某个具有特定质量、自旋等属性的粒子导致了这些效应，对于粒子物理学家来说，这和直接观察它们是一样好的。
类似于古典神论中的上帝，它也不能被直接观察或体验，但我们可以从它所造成的影响中推断它的存在，这是我们可以看到的东西。
换句话说，这些影响就是存在条件的事物。周围的大部分事物都只在其他事物的条件下存在：棕榈树只有在有氧气、碳、阳光和水等条件下才能存在。水只有在分子键的条件下才存在。原子只有在原子键的条件下才存在。以此类推。因此，世界充满了存在条件的事物。而这些存在条件的事物是一种效应：另一种事物的结果。最终，在事物的底层，必须有一种“其他事物”是不需要条件即可存在的东西。那种不需要条件的事物就是神学家所称的“上帝”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
You're on the right track with atoms, but go a little smaller: no one can see a lot of fundamental particles directly, even with a microscope, but we can know they exist just by the effects they cause, for example in particle accelerators. They can't see the Higgs boson and other particles directly, but see the effects they leave and can determine that a particle of a certain mass, spin, etc caused those effects, and this is as good (to particle physicists) as seeing them directly.
Similar with the God of classical theism. It cannot be seen or experienced directly, but its existence is inferred from the effects it causes, which is something we can see.
Namely, the effects are: conditional things. Most things around you only exist conditional on other things: palm trees only exist if there is oxygen, carbon, sunlight, water. Water only exists on the condition that there are molecular bonds. Atoms only exist on condition of atomic bonds. And so on. So the world is FULL of conditional things. And conditional things are an effect: the result of something else. And ultimately, at bottom, where the buck stops, that "something else" must be something that is NOT conditional. Something that exists but does not need anything else to exist. And that non-conditional thing is what theists label "God."
你提到了原子这个概念，但要更小一点：即使使用显微镜，我们也无法直接观察到很多基本粒子，但我们可以通过它们的作用来知道它们的存在，例如在粒子加速器中。尽管无法直接看到希格斯玻色子和其他粒子，但可以看到它们留下的效应，并确定某个具有特定质量、自旋等属性的粒子导致了这些效应，对于粒子物理学家来说，这和直接观察它们是一样好的。
类似于古典神论中的上帝，它也不能被直接观察或体验，但我们可以从它所造成的影响中推断它的存在，这是我们可以看到的东西。
换句话说，这些影响就是存在条件的事物。周围的大部分事物都只在其他事物的条件下存在：棕榈树只有在有氧气、碳、阳光和水等条件下才能存在。水只有在分子键的条件下才存在。原子只有在原子键的条件下才存在。以此类推。因此，世界充满了存在条件的事物。而这些存在条件的事物是一种效应：另一种事物的结果。最终，在事物的底层，必须有一种“其他事物”是不需要条件即可存在的东西。那种不需要条件的事物就是神学家所称的“上帝”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Depresso_ExpressoAO
Essentially this just boils down to a reskin of the cosmological argument. But what you seem to misunderstand is that the cosmological argument is an inherently deist one; the theist still has all of his work ahead of him.
-
Let's grant your premise (a fairly debatable one, mind you) and assume that a god set the universe in motion. We immediately run into several problems. Firstly, and the most obvious one, this god doesn't need to be yours. Christianity, for instance, requires the god to be Yahweh. But what about a different faith? What about a pagan one? Suppose who created the universe was an evil spaghetti monster with godly powers, orchestrating the universe with his noodly appendages? Is there any way for you to disprove this? Is there any for you to prove that your god was the true one?
基本上，这只是宇宙因果论的一个重复，但您似乎误解了宇宙因果论是内在的神论论证。有神论者仍然需要做很多工作。
让我们先假设您的前提（这是一个相当有争议的前提），即存在一个神来开创宇宙。我们立刻遇到几个问题。首先，最显而易见的问题是，这个神不需要是您所信仰的神。例如，基督教要求这个神必须是耶和华。但其他信仰呢？比如异教信仰？假设创造宇宙的是一个拥有神性力量的邪恶意大利面条怪物，用他的面条手臂策划宇宙？您有任何方法来证明这个说法是错误的吗？您有任何方法来证明您所信仰的神是真正存在的吗？
Essentially this just boils down to a reskin of the cosmological argument. But what you seem to misunderstand is that the cosmological argument is an inherently deist one; the theist still has all of his work ahead of him.
-
Let's grant your premise (a fairly debatable one, mind you) and assume that a god set the universe in motion. We immediately run into several problems. Firstly, and the most obvious one, this god doesn't need to be yours. Christianity, for instance, requires the god to be Yahweh. But what about a different faith? What about a pagan one? Suppose who created the universe was an evil spaghetti monster with godly powers, orchestrating the universe with his noodly appendages? Is there any way for you to disprove this? Is there any for you to prove that your god was the true one?
基本上，这只是宇宙因果论的一个重复，但您似乎误解了宇宙因果论是内在的神论论证。有神论者仍然需要做很多工作。
让我们先假设您的前提（这是一个相当有争议的前提），即存在一个神来开创宇宙。我们立刻遇到几个问题。首先，最显而易见的问题是，这个神不需要是您所信仰的神。例如，基督教要求这个神必须是耶和华。但其他信仰呢？比如异教信仰？假设创造宇宙的是一个拥有神性力量的邪恶意大利面条怪物，用他的面条手臂策划宇宙？您有任何方法来证明这个说法是错误的吗？您有任何方法来证明您所信仰的神是真正存在的吗？
There is nothing in this argument that asserts the god must be *yours*. One of my favorite lines in The Portable Atheist was how it pointed out that being a theist is much like an atheist, in how you must disprove every other religion for yours to be true. The next step to being an atheist, therefore, is to disprove your own.
- So my problem with the cosmological argument boils down to this: it seeks to release the burden of proof on god by offering a necessity for it-- but fails to recognize that we already have a soloution: The Big Bang -- hence, it is still unsubstantiated. However, even if we grant this claim, the Theist still has work to do. They also must substantiate that god not only created the universe, but that they are also THEIR god. (And that this god cares about what the little humans do inside of it, but that's a point for another time.)
-
Alright, that's good enough. I'm interested to see what you think
这个论点中没有任何内容断言这个神必须是*您所信仰的*。我最喜欢的《无神论者文库》中的一句话指出，成为有神论者与成为无神论者非常相似，因为您必须为了自己所信仰的宗教而否定其他宗教。因此，成为无神论者的下一步是否定自己的信仰。
因此，我对宇宙因果论的问题在于：它试图通过提供必要性来减轻证明神存在的责任，但未能认识到我们已经有了解决方案：大爆炸。即使我们授予这个声明，有神论者仍然需要做很多工作。他们还必须证明神不仅创造了宇宙，而且这个神也是*他们*所信仰的神。(而且这个神也关心人类在宇宙中做什么，但这是另一个问题了。)
好的，这就足够了。我很想知道您的看法。
- So my problem with the cosmological argument boils down to this: it seeks to release the burden of proof on god by offering a necessity for it-- but fails to recognize that we already have a soloution: The Big Bang -- hence, it is still unsubstantiated. However, even if we grant this claim, the Theist still has work to do. They also must substantiate that god not only created the universe, but that they are also THEIR god. (And that this god cares about what the little humans do inside of it, but that's a point for another time.)
-
Alright, that's good enough. I'm interested to see what you think
这个论点中没有任何内容断言这个神必须是*您所信仰的*。我最喜欢的《无神论者文库》中的一句话指出，成为有神论者与成为无神论者非常相似，因为您必须为了自己所信仰的宗教而否定其他宗教。因此，成为无神论者的下一步是否定自己的信仰。
因此，我对宇宙因果论的问题在于：它试图通过提供必要性来减轻证明神存在的责任，但未能认识到我们已经有了解决方案：大爆炸。即使我们授予这个声明，有神论者仍然需要做很多工作。他们还必须证明神不仅创造了宇宙，而且这个神也是*他们*所信仰的神。(而且这个神也关心人类在宇宙中做什么，但这是另一个问题了。)
好的，这就足够了。我很想知道您的看法。
KenjaAndSnail
There once was a dirty little town isolated from everything else.
Every month, an envoy from the capital would come declaring news from the King. He would levy taxes. Collect tributes. Pick out men and women on behalf of the king. Overall, he was not a pleasant guy to see.
Harold and his family grew up in this town. He had never seen the King. And whoever he asked had also not seen the King nor met anyone who had seen the King. Even the city where the King resided was too far for them to afford traveling to. Only someone with the envoy’s resources and ability to amass wealth from their stockpile could afford such a trip.
Eventually, he began to grow suspicious of whether this King truly existed, or it was just some charlatan tactic the envoy used to steal from them. So one day, he asked the envoy if the King truly exists.
曾经有一个与世隔绝的肮脏小镇。
每个月，一名来自首都的使者会带来国王的消息。他会征税，收取贡品，并代表国王挑选男女。总的来说，他不是一个令人愉悦的人。
哈罗德和他的家人在这个城镇长大，但他从未见过国王。无论他问谁，都没有人见过国王或遇到过见过国王的人。即使国王所在的城市离他们太远了，他们也无法承担旅行费用，只有使者这样具备资源和能力积累财富的人才能承受这样的旅行。
最终，他开始怀疑这个国王是否真实存在，或者这只是使者盗窃他们的骗术。因此，有一天，他问使者国王是否真的存在。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
There once was a dirty little town isolated from everything else.
Every month, an envoy from the capital would come declaring news from the King. He would levy taxes. Collect tributes. Pick out men and women on behalf of the king. Overall, he was not a pleasant guy to see.
Harold and his family grew up in this town. He had never seen the King. And whoever he asked had also not seen the King nor met anyone who had seen the King. Even the city where the King resided was too far for them to afford traveling to. Only someone with the envoy’s resources and ability to amass wealth from their stockpile could afford such a trip.
Eventually, he began to grow suspicious of whether this King truly existed, or it was just some charlatan tactic the envoy used to steal from them. So one day, he asked the envoy if the King truly exists.
曾经有一个与世隔绝的肮脏小镇。
每个月，一名来自首都的使者会带来国王的消息。他会征税，收取贡品，并代表国王挑选男女。总的来说，他不是一个令人愉悦的人。
哈罗德和他的家人在这个城镇长大，但他从未见过国王。无论他问谁，都没有人见过国王或遇到过见过国王的人。即使国王所在的城市离他们太远了，他们也无法承担旅行费用，只有使者这样具备资源和能力积累财富的人才能承受这样的旅行。
最终，他开始怀疑这个国王是否真实存在，或者这只是使者盗窃他们的骗术。因此，有一天，他问使者国王是否真的存在。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The envoy was startled by the sudden question, but he nodded eagerly and assured him he had seen the King.
“Prove it!” Harold raises a sword to the envoy’s neck.
Befuddled, the envoy begins demonstrating it to the best of his abilities.
“I have his letter right here, signed and everything.”
“You could have written that yourself.”
“Ah! But what about his royal seal. Here it is!”
“What’s that supposed to mean? We’ve never seen his royal seal. You could just be making stuff up.”
Exasperated, he complains, “Be reasonable.”
使者突然被这个问题吓到了，但他急切地点头并向他保证自己见过国王。
“证明一下！”哈罗德用剑指着使者的脖子。
使者感到困惑，开始尽力证明。
“我有他的信，上面签了字。”
“你可以自己写这个。”
“啊！但他的皇家印章呢？在这里！”
“那又有什么意义呢？我们从未见过他的皇家印章。你可能只是在编造东西。”
使者咬牙切齿地抱怨：“要有点理智好吧。”
“Prove it!” Harold raises a sword to the envoy’s neck.
Befuddled, the envoy begins demonstrating it to the best of his abilities.
“I have his letter right here, signed and everything.”
“You could have written that yourself.”
“Ah! But what about his royal seal. Here it is!”
“What’s that supposed to mean? We’ve never seen his royal seal. You could just be making stuff up.”
Exasperated, he complains, “Be reasonable.”
使者突然被这个问题吓到了，但他急切地点头并向他保证自己见过国王。
“证明一下！”哈罗德用剑指着使者的脖子。
使者感到困惑，开始尽力证明。
“我有他的信，上面签了字。”
“你可以自己写这个。”
“啊！但他的皇家印章呢？在这里！”
“那又有什么意义呢？我们从未见过他的皇家印章。你可能只是在编造东西。”
使者咬牙切齿地抱怨：“要有点理智好吧。”
“Is the King even real?”
Gasping, he looks around at the mob that Harold has riled up, “Well, of course he’s real. Who do you think is protecting your town from invaders?”
Harold scoffs. “We’ve never seen no invader.”
The envoy’s eye twitched. “So, because you’ve been at peace, you don’t believe the King exists?”
“Bring the King to us! We want to see him!”
Both of his eyes twitched at the demand.
“I can’t do that! What kind of King answers a summon to his own people? You’d better listen to me or else you’ll be in trouble.”
“Enough!”
Harold kills the envoy, causing the town to celebrate for a month due to ridding themselves of the awful envoy.
Then, the town vanished from the face of the Earth.
“国王真的存在吗？”
啊！因为你们没有遇到侵略者，所以你们不相信国王存在？”
“将国王带到我们面前！我们想见他！”
使者对这个要求感到震惊。
“我做不到！一个国王怎么可能应召自己的人民？你最好听我的，否则你会有麻烦的。”
“够了！”
哈罗德杀了使者，让城镇庆祝了一个月，因为他们摆脱了可怕的使者。
然后，这个城镇就从地球上消失了。
Gasping, he looks around at the mob that Harold has riled up, “Well, of course he’s real. Who do you think is protecting your town from invaders?”
Harold scoffs. “We’ve never seen no invader.”
The envoy’s eye twitched. “So, because you’ve been at peace, you don’t believe the King exists?”
“Bring the King to us! We want to see him!”
Both of his eyes twitched at the demand.
“I can’t do that! What kind of King answers a summon to his own people? You’d better listen to me or else you’ll be in trouble.”
“Enough!”
Harold kills the envoy, causing the town to celebrate for a month due to ridding themselves of the awful envoy.
Then, the town vanished from the face of the Earth.
“国王真的存在吗？”
啊！因为你们没有遇到侵略者，所以你们不相信国王存在？”
“将国王带到我们面前！我们想见他！”
使者对这个要求感到震惊。
“我做不到！一个国王怎么可能应召自己的人民？你最好听我的，否则你会有麻烦的。”
“够了！”
哈罗德杀了使者，让城镇庆祝了一个月，因为他们摆脱了可怕的使者。
然后，这个城镇就从地球上消失了。
milamber84906
This seems to be a simple category error. You're asking for scientific evidence of a metaphysical being. that's like using a metal detector to try to find plastic and when it doesn't, concluding that plastic doesn't exist. It's not the right tool for the job.
这似乎是一个简单的范畴错误。你要求在科学上证明一个形而上学的存在，就像使用金属探测器来寻找塑料，当它找不到时，就得出结论说塑料不存在一样。这并不是适合这项工作的正确工具。
This seems to be a simple category error. You're asking for scientific evidence of a metaphysical being. that's like using a metal detector to try to find plastic and when it doesn't, concluding that plastic doesn't exist. It's not the right tool for the job.
这似乎是一个简单的范畴错误。你要求在科学上证明一个形而上学的存在，就像使用金属探测器来寻找塑料，当它找不到时，就得出结论说塑料不存在一样。这并不是适合这项工作的正确工具。
On top of that, you seem to be leaning towards some sort of empiricism. The problem is that the claims of empiricism can't be verified empirically. So it's self defeating. If that isn't your argument, then just ignore that, but it seems to me that you're implying that if we can't verify scientifically, then we can't know it.
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed.
此外，你似乎倾向于某种经验主义。问题在于经验主义的论断本身不能以经验方式进行验证。因此这是自相矛盾的。如果这不是你的论点，那就不要理会，但我觉得你是在暗示，如果我们无法通过科学验证，那么我们就不能知道它的存在。
而且没有无神论者说过耶稣不存在。
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed.
此外，你似乎倾向于某种经验主义。问题在于经验主义的论断本身不能以经验方式进行验证。因此这是自相矛盾的。如果这不是你的论点，那就不要理会，但我觉得你是在暗示，如果我们无法通过科学验证，那么我们就不能知道它的存在。
而且没有无神论者说过耶稣不存在。
Just on this point, you know this is incorrect, right? I'm not saying Jesus existing proves God or something, but there are many atheists that do argue that Jesus never existed. Look of Jesus Mythicism.
就这一点而言，你应该知道这是不正确的，对吧？我并不是说耶稣的存在证明了上帝或其他什么，但有很多无神论者确实认为耶稣从未存在过。你可以查一下耶稣神话论。
就这一点而言，你应该知道这是不正确的，对吧？我并不是说耶稣的存在证明了上帝或其他什么，但有很多无神论者确实认为耶稣从未存在过。你可以查一下耶稣神话论。
milamber84906
This seems to be a simple category error. You're asking for scientific evidence of a metaphysical being. that's like using a metal detector to try to find plastic and when it doesn't, concluding that plastic doesn't exist. It's not the right tool for the job.
On top of that, you seem to be leaning towards some sort of empiricism. The problem is that the claims of empiricism can't be verified empirically. So it's self defeating. If that isn't your argument, then just ignore that, but it seems to me that you're implying that if we can't verify scientifically, then we can't know it.
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed.
Just on this point, you know this is incorrect, right? I'm not saying Jesus existing proves God or something, but there are many atheists that do argue that Jesus never existed. Look of Jesus Mythicism.
这似乎是一个简单的类别错误。你要求提供一个形而上学的存在的科学证据。那就像用金属探测器去寻找塑料，当它找不到时得出结论：塑料不存在。这并不是解决问题的正确方法。
另外，你似乎倾向于某种经验主义的观点。问题在于，经验主义的论述不能通过实证验证。所以这是自我否定的。如果这不是你的论点，那就忽略它吧，但是在我看来，你暗示了如果我们无法科学验证，那么我们就不能知道它的存在。
还有，没有无神论者声称耶稣不存在。关于这一点，你知道这是不正确的，对吗？我并不是说耶稣的存在证明上帝或其他什么，但有许多无神论者确实认为耶稣从未存在过。你可以了解一下“耶稣神话”的相关内容。
This seems to be a simple category error. You're asking for scientific evidence of a metaphysical being. that's like using a metal detector to try to find plastic and when it doesn't, concluding that plastic doesn't exist. It's not the right tool for the job.
On top of that, you seem to be leaning towards some sort of empiricism. The problem is that the claims of empiricism can't be verified empirically. So it's self defeating. If that isn't your argument, then just ignore that, but it seems to me that you're implying that if we can't verify scientifically, then we can't know it.
And no atheist ever said Jesus didn't existed.
Just on this point, you know this is incorrect, right? I'm not saying Jesus existing proves God or something, but there are many atheists that do argue that Jesus never existed. Look of Jesus Mythicism.
这似乎是一个简单的类别错误。你要求提供一个形而上学的存在的科学证据。那就像用金属探测器去寻找塑料，当它找不到时得出结论：塑料不存在。这并不是解决问题的正确方法。
另外，你似乎倾向于某种经验主义的观点。问题在于，经验主义的论述不能通过实证验证。所以这是自我否定的。如果这不是你的论点，那就忽略它吧，但是在我看来，你暗示了如果我们无法科学验证，那么我们就不能知道它的存在。
还有，没有无神论者声称耶稣不存在。关于这一点，你知道这是不正确的，对吗？我并不是说耶稣的存在证明上帝或其他什么，但有许多无神论者确实认为耶稣从未存在过。你可以了解一下“耶稣神话”的相关内容。
很赞 0
收藏