Prove that God doesn't exist.

[TruthAboveAll]

So what you are saying, is that all us Atheists should believe in God, solely for our future gratification? What your suggesting, is that a rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition for which he has no evidence?

I was one of those abused children who grew up being forced to go to church. My mother was a woman with incredible faith. After going through a period of years of "knowing better", being enlightened, subscribing to scientific evidence and rejecting the "fables" of the Bible, I eventually came to a place that I wanted to know. I needed to know.

It is more a matter of wanting to know the truth, setting your preconceived notions and logic aside, and seeking God. I realized that I was more than flesh and bones, that there was something unique about me. There was something that set me apart from every other human being, while at the same time giving me a great store of shared life and heritage.

But what was it? If it was true that God didn't exist, that he was a fabrication of man, what was to be found to remotely explain a purpose for my life, for our lives?

I don't know what others are suggesting. I, like you, consider myself to be a rational person. And whether a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or Secularist - at some point it becomes a "belief system", as evidence is only as valid as the perception of those receiving it. And any "evidence" you have has to be reconciled with your essence as a sentient being.

I do not have evidence that will satisfy you that there is a good. You, however, do not have evidence that will convince me that there is not.

I'm including this quote, as I don't think that it is a matter of "willing" yourself to believe.

If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence. –George MacDonald

Do you understand, I would have to lie to myself every day, about everything I see in the world, to even pretend that there was a God.

I suspect no one ever acquires his religious beliefs in this way (Pascal certainly didn't). But even if some people do, who could be so foolish as to think that such beliefs are likely to be true?

Again, it's a matter of perception. What you perceive as a lie, and contrary to the world you see is exactly the opposite to me. The world I see around me convinces me that there can be no other truth, but than that God is real. Even though I cannot prove it to you, you can provide no proof that he isn't real. I can find no foolishness in embracing these beliefs to be true. It is the grand gamble that Pascal identified.

I can't resist this quote from the Little General, since I'm in such austere company:

You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[r0beph]

I simply can't prove or disprove. I don't particularly see a God as you see him, but something exists. Be God a name for the laws which glue us together, an intelligence in a manner that is so far removed from our own that seeing it as an intelligence is impossible, perhaps there really is a hidden realm with a cloud kingdom and 12 gods sitting in thrones controlling the mass thought and movements of societies. Who can truly say? Not I. Is christianity the truth? Is Islam? Is Anything? Are we actually here as we see ourselves or is this 3 dimensional space and laws that govern it simply the manner in which our minds perceive something that is nothing like what we believe? Who knows. All I know is that the laws of physics as we understand them seem pretty good. Does this prove or disprove that a God created the universe? I think it does neither. There is no way to prove any religious idea, and religious story; there is inversely no method of disproving them. The problem with many religious ideals is that it is an interpretation of something written long ago under unknown circumstance. The allegorical methods used then are all but lost to us today, interpretation is bound to be a bit shy of the mark. Evolution? Intelligent design? If the laws of the universe are considered a pseudointellect then how is Evolution not a design that follows an intelligence? To argue anything that requires faith is due to fail, on both sides of the debate. Be your way, I'll be mine. What I believe is as valid as your beliefs. That being said, I really don't like the poll missing the "I have no manner of deciding," choice.

I must stop for a moment and point out that there are many flavors of all religion, there are also many flavors of nonreligion. Atheists come in as many forms as there are sects of christianity. You have those who simply never even consider the why of we are here. You have those who have searched and found nothing. And you have most notably the loud and often obnoxious Atheists who feel the need to chip away at the faith of others with as little fact arming them as those trying to push their faith upon people. You can't do it. Simply cannot deny with absolute certainty something that has no empirical form. This type of atheist, the angry atheist, has some deep rooted illwill towards religion en mass. I'm not sure each persons particular reasoning, but it moves nothing forward and typically is a pointless shelling. If you debate or argue with anger, is not being objective.

What I can however argue is peoples application of interpretations. Often these conflict readily with logic, humanity, and often even morality as I see it. This is all open for fire.

 

[ArmChair General]

I was one of those abused children who grew up being forced to go to church. My mother was a woman with incredible faith. After going through a period of years of "knowing better", being enlightened, subscribing to scientific evidence and rejecting the "fables" of the Bible, I eventually came to a place that I wanted to know. I needed to know.

It is more a matter of wanting to know the truth, setting your preconceived notions and logic aside, and seeking God. I realized that I was more than flesh and bones, that there was something unique about me. There was something that set me apart from every other human being, while at the same time giving me a great store of shared life and heritage.

But what was it? If it was true that God didn't exist, that he was a fabrication of man, what was to be found to remotely explain a purpose for my life, for our lives?

I don't know what others are suggesting. I, like you, consider myself to be a rational person. And whether a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or Secularist - at some point it becomes a "belief system", as evidence is only as valid as the perception of those receiving it. And any "evidence" you have has to be reconciled with your essence as a sentient being.

I do not have evidence that will satisfy you that there is a good. You, however, do not have evidence that will convince me that there is not.

I'm including this quote, as I don't think that it is a matter of "willing" yourself to believe.

If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence. –George MacDonald

By the way, this is Fonz talking, for some reason my account was banned, so I occasionally use Arm-Chair's, who I live with.

Of course, you are right to insist that there is more to life than being reasonable, which is to say there is much more to life than merely understanding the world and getting one's beliefs about it to cohere. But we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about. Anyone who thinks he knows for sure that Jesus was born of virgin or that the Qur'an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe is lying. Either he is lying to himself, or to everyone else. In neither case should such false certainties be celebrated.

Again, it's a matter of perception. What you perceive as a lie, and contrary to the world you see is exactly the opposite to me. The world I see around me convinces me that there can be no other truth, but than that God is real. Even though I cannot prove it to you, you can provide no proof that he isn't real. I can find no foolishness in embracing these beliefs to be true. It is the grand gamble that Pascal identified.

Let me close by asking you a simple question: What would constitute "proof" for you that your current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., what would get you to fundamentally doubt the validity of faith in general and of your religion in particular?) I suspect the answer to this question will say a lot about why you believe what you believe.

I can't resist this quote from the Little General, since I'm in such austere company:

You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon was a great general, no doubt, but a philosopher he wasn't. Heres another of his gems, that I always find amusing:

"What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck; I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
--Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[invest07]

The existence of God and Science

At the core of the God debate there are 3 possible beliefs:

1. There is no God.
2. There is a God.
3. Don't know.

Science can't positively demonstrate that there is a God and also can't demonstrate positively there is no God. Both #1 and #2 above are undemonstrable by science. Therefore neither position is "scientific".

The only belief system about God that is scientific is the agnostic position. Stephen Hawking professes to be an agnostic. He he says he can't prove or disprove the existence of God therefore he doesn't know.

You either believe in God or you don't or you don't know one way or the other. A belief is a personal choice and this choice can't be defended, either way, by science.

Many people of science do not believe in God because the existence can't be proven. Incorrectly, they say this position is "scientific" and belief in God is "unscientific". Because neither position can be defended by science, neither position is "scientific".

Ain't no science in a belief, just your own brain and life experiences.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

By the way, this is Fonz talking, for some reason my account was banned, so I occasionally use Arm-Chair's, who I live with.

Thanks for clarifying that Fonz. Sorry I'd missed this response earlier. Sometimes I want to "ponder" things a bit and it slips by, but this one I had simply missed. Your post was very thoughtful so even though late, I thought it deserved a response.

Of course, you are right to insist that there is more to life than being reasonable, which is to say there is much more to life than merely understanding the world and getting one's beliefs about it to cohere. But we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about. Anyone who thinks he knows for sure that Jesus was born of virgin or that The Koran is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe is lying. Either he is lying to himself, or to everyone else. In neither case should such false certainties be celebrated.

Yes, I agree on the ethical/spiritual statement. But clearly not certain about? Lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily eliminate certainty. For example, my mother loved me deeply. I knew this with certainty, but there is no quantifiable scientific evidence with which to prove that. It could be judged to be so based on her actions, but prove it? No.

And can I know for sure that Jesus was born of virgin? (About the Qur'an, I have assumed that is the belief in the Muslim faith, but am lacking in my knowledge.) Addressing the Jesus factor: No, I cannot be certain in a certifiable manner. Any more than I can take any single incident of history that has passed down the years, centuries, millenia, to us occurred in the manner and at the time we understand that it happened. We place a level of trust in those that recorded events, that they are relaying the events in a level of accuracy that we find acceptable.

The Bible is comprised of the writings of 40 or so writers, over a 1600 year span. Is it 100% accurate? I do not believe so. There are areas that are conceptual, literal, legalistic, poetic, prophetic and historic. Keeping that in mind, I have accepted that The Bible has a basic consistency and continuity. Because of that it does not mean that I am in any way lying to myself and everyone else. It means that I have simply accepted these things as truth, they are for me to celebrate. False truths? Not to be celebrated? Since they are false to you, by all means, don't celebrate them.

Let me close by asking you a simple question: What would constitute "proof" for you that your current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., what would get you to fundamentally doubt the validity of faith in general and of your religion in particular?) I suspect the answer to this question will say a lot about why you believe what you believe.

I'm sure that you will feel that it's more or less a "talking point" answer. I guess the only "proof" that can convince me my belief is incorrect will come way too late to do anything about it: when I'm dead. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, I won't know it anyway. Unless Hinduism, etc is correct and reincarnation is a reality. But if that is the case, I still may not know if for certain, or all of us would have memories of earlier lives.

I cannot conceive anything that can convince me my belief in God and the validity of my faith is in error.

Napoleon was a great general, no doubt, but a philosopher he wasn't. Heres another of his gems, that I always find amusing:

"What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck; I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
--Napoleon Bonaparte

[/QUOTE]

Alas, no. Bonaparte was not a philosopher. Yet philosophic wisdom can come from many who are not known as such. Sometimes greater wisdom actually can come from such individuals. Perhaps insight or discernment might be accurate as well. The quote you cited was actually a remark he made to Robert Fulton (yep! of steamship fame!) around 1803, when development had spread to Europe. I'm sure to him it did seem exactly that, a bonfire under the deck, seeming nonsense in the wood ships of the day. Lacking the scientific capability of grasping the concept, and making a somewhat uninformed statement is not unexpected. There were tons of skeptics about nearly every phase of the unimaginable progresses during the industrial revolution. But it in no way disqualifies Napoleon from being capable of being correct, wise or insightful.

You chose a quote to support your position, I choose one to support mine.

 

[numinus]

At the core of the God debate there are 3 possible beliefs:

1. There is no God.
2. There is a God.
3. Don't know.

Science can't positively demonstrate that there is a God and also can't demonstrate positively there is no God. Both #1 and #2 above are undemonstrable by science. Therefore neither position is "scientific".

The only belief system about God that is scientific is the agnostic position. Stephen Hawking professes to be an agnostic. He he says he can't prove or disprove the existence of God therefore he doesn't know.

You either believe in God or you don't or you don't know one way or the other. A belief is a personal choice and this choice can't be defended, either way, by science.

Many people of science do not believe in God because the existence can't be proven. Incorrectly, they say this position is "scientific" and belief in God is "unscientific". Because neither position can be defended by science, neither position is "scientific".

Ain't no science in a belief, just your own brain and life experiences.

And yet theoretical physics proposes what is patently 'undemonstrable'.

Science saying something 'unscientific'?!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And yet theoretical physics proposes what is patently 'undemonstrable'.

Science saying something 'unscientific'?!

That's why it's called "theoretical" and it "proposes" things, rather than stating them as fact.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

GOD is BULL****,, Just like evangelists are. All Churches ask you is for your money instead for your love.GOD is Bull**** just like Pro Wrestling is.

I love your thoughtful, subtle, carefully nuanced posts that shed light into the darkest corners of the mysteries facing mankind.

 

[top gun]

God is like beauty... it's in the eye of the beholder.

However... religion on the other hand is a proven sham, in many cases a self proven sham. As if that were not enough of a problem even after that people pick and choose what to believe out of that compounding to the "sham" factor.

Anyone know of anyone who does any of this on religious grounds...

We would not allow women into a church for 33 days after giving birth to a male child and 66 days after giving birth to a female child. (Leviticus 12:4-5)

We would not eat pork, lobster, shrimp, clams or crab meat. (Leviticus 11:7,12)

We would execute people for having affairs. (Leviticus 20:10)

Add that to the crazy train of the clergy in child sex abuse scandals and even if one could somehow extrapolate out why, that of all things, God would allow this to be perpetrated by his chosen representatives... you still couldn't trust the church because you'd never know if the representative was good or bad!

Religion is soooooo obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown that has been perverted so many times over history just to benefit certain power brokers it's not even arguable.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

God is like beauty... it's in the eye of the beholder.

However... religion on the other hand is a proven sham, in many cases a self proven sham. As if that were not enough of a problem even after that people pick and choose what to believe out of that compounding to the "sham" factor.

You are confusing religion with a religious organization or belief system. Religion in it's clearest defined form is any specific system of belief about diety (or lack thereof) and will often involve rituals. Also, a code of ethics and/or a philosophy of life also full under the definition of religion. So Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Wicca, and other world belief systems are under the "Religion" definition.

Anyone know of anyone who does any of this on religious grounds...

We would not allow women into a church for 33 days after giving birth to a male child and 66 days after giving birth to a female child. (Leviticus 12:4-5)

We would not eat pork, lobster, shrimp, clams or crab meat. (Leviticus 11:7,12)

We would execute people for having affairs. (Leviticus 20:10)

These verses you paraphrase are part of the Law given to the Israelite. Much of the Old Testament was in turn adopted by Islam. Many of these laws are still in use and enforced by some Muslim sects today.

Add that to the crazy train of the clergy in child sex abuse scandals and even if one could somehow extrapolate out why, that of all things, God would allow this to be perpetrated by his chosen representatives... you still couldn't trust the church because you'd never know if the representative was good or bad!

One thing that God has given us, ALL of us, is free will. That includes your right to reject him, and the sicko so-called "chosen representatives" to pervert all that God is about. Your gross generalization about "the church" is unwarranted. The body of believers on earth are still human beings. Unfortunately there are some that become a perverse mockery of what God intends for us.

Religion is soooooo obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown that has been perverted so many times over history just to benefit certain power brokers it's not even arguable.

Your conclusion that it is so "obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown" is exactly what I would expect from someone who has a preconceived and entrenched attitude about faith. I take it you are speaking of Christianity? Yes, it has been perverted and misused many times over history. But it has also done unimaginable good by those who practice their faith in the sense of, and with the goal for, showing their fellow man the love and face of God. At least in some small, possibly imperfect human way.

 

[top gun]

TruthAboveAll;17338]You are confusing religion with a religious organization or belief system. Religion in it's clearest defined form is any specific system of belief about diety (or lack thereof) and will often involve rituals. Also, a code of ethics and/or a philosophy of life also full under the definition of religion. So Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Wicca, and other world belief systems are under the "Religion" definition.

I don't think I disagree however I also don't think that I am confusing anything. My statement is relatively straight forward. All the religions of man formed into its various groups are no more than voodoo... and I don't believe in voodoo.

These verses you paraphrase are part of the Law given to the Israelite. Much of the Old Testament was in turn adopted by Islam. Many of these laws are still in use and enforced by some Muslim sects today.

I see scripture selection as nothing more than fraud & trickery. If you are a Christian you must take both Old and New Testamate as Gospel truth... which it obviously is not.

One thing that God has given us, ALL of us, is free will. That includes your right to reject him, and the sicko so-called "chosen representatives" to pervert all that God is about. Your gross generalization about "the church" is unwarranted. The body of believers on earth are still human beings. Unfortunately there are some that become a perverse mockery of what God intends for us.

I am sorry that I disagree with you... but I do. The free will of man is a convienient and of course unprovable out in religious sects but in reality the calling of God would not go out to the "sickos" as you call them. And regardless look at all the cases of church child abuse and think that number could probably be times a thousand in unreported cases.

And my point still remains. If you can't tell if the church is a pedophile and God will not step in to protect the innocent being victimized in his name... then there is no way to trust religion at all.

Your conclusion that it is so "obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown" is exactly what I would expect from someone who has a preconceived and entrenched attitude about faith. I take it you are speaking of Christianity? Yes, it has been perverted and misused many times over history. But it has also done unimaginable good by those who practice their faith in the sense of, and with the goal for, showing their fellow man the love and face of God. At least in some small, possibly imperfect human way.

But that's the thing. My attitude about faith is not something preconceived and entrenched at all. I was never abused at church. I was raised as a Lutheran Christian. Went to church, went to Sunday School as a child. Didn't dislike church at all. I come from a family that is moderately church going.

There is just too much evidence to ignore here to not come to my conclusion. I won't get into all the science of things and I've already discussed some of the many contradictions... don't even get me going about the time line of the Bible and the dinosaurs .

All religion is man made stuff pure and simple. And yes some of that stuff has helped many... but it's still man made stuff.

I do leave the door open to God along with evolution because I can see where both could coexist. But organized religion... all smoke and mirrors.

 

[9sublime]

What I fail to understand about religion is how people can say it has any credibility.

Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, and well after his death his mates wrote a book about how great he was, and combined it with an even older book. This book has then been translated through hundrerds of languages, edited and changed and added to by every Tom, Dick and Harry and people still believe it is the unquestionable truth.

Somewhere along the line, at least once, something is going to have gone wrong. Personally, I think that at every stage of this chain of lies something went wrong, and that you aren't even following the man made rubbish that Christianity was in the first place.

 

[top gun]

What I fail to understand about religion is how people can say it has any credibility.

Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, and well after his death his mates wrote a book about how great he was, and combined it with an even older book. This book has then been translated through hundrerds of languages, edited and changed and added to by every Tom, Dick and Harry and people still believe it is the unquestionable truth.

Somewhere along the line, at least once, something is going to have gone wrong. Personally, I think that at every stage of this chain of lies something went wrong, and that you aren't even following the man made rubbish that Christianity was in the first place.

Very astute observations.

My guess is that back in much more primitive times before any understanding of basic science as the different tribes of the world looked to obtain control and power various ideas developed. Religion acted as uniting factor with a distinct set of rules. And let's face it there is no higher trump card to be able to use against your enemies than to be able to say... God is on our side.

The problem is that all people did not agree and several different views developed. Then the battle for "who's real... who's the best" began and it's been going on ever since.

It's sad in a way. If everyone had not added all the man made trappings of religion people could have probably always believed in a God that started everything in motion and that was it.

Instead we've had wars and killing in the name of religion ever since and that still continues to this day.

 

[numinus]

That's why it's called "theoretical" and it "proposes" things, rather than stating them as fact.

Physics involves inquiry in phenomena that has the basic and measurable quantities of mass/energy, space, and time.

If a phenomenon has NO measurable mass/energy, space (linear dimension) and time, then it has no business saying anything about such a phenomenon, no?

But some branches of theoretical physics (cosmology, quantum mechanics, particle physics) is doing just that.

And since all these things are merely propositions, and not fact, then there really isn't any reason to suppose that they are any better than the inquiries of philosophy and theology, is there?

 

[numinus]

What I fail to understand about religion is how people can say it has any credibility.

Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, and well after his death his mates wrote a book about how great he was, and combined it with an even older book. This book has then been translated through hundrerds of languages, edited and changed and added to by every Tom, Dick and Harry and people still believe it is the unquestionable truth.

Somewhere along the line, at least once, something is going to have gone wrong. Personally, I think that at every stage of this chain of lies something went wrong, and that you aren't even following the man made rubbish that Christianity was in the first place.

And I take it that you 'understand' the paradoxes that scientific inquiries ultimately result in, eh?

Please illuminate us with your 'understanding'.