Can you give me a solid proof

[KWED]

I have a belief in existens of God, i do only need personal faith in God, and have no need to prove to others my belief is right for them. It is you that ask for evidence in something you do not believe in.

I REPEAT this thread is to disprove existence of God, not prove Gods existence.

If you cant disprove God your attemt here is invalid

Which specific version of god do you believe in? Once I know that, I can have a go at your challenge. Until you reveal this, your challenge is meaningless.

 

[KWED]

Isn't faith in God a way of life to become a better human being on a personal level? The proof is in how people change to the better through their practice

So if we can find someone whose faith did not change them for the better, then that is proof against god - would you agree?

 

[KWED]

As i stated in earler answers, i have a personal belief in God, so a belief is not based on proof, it is a belief and will always be a belief.

You did not answer the OP by the way

I belief is not based on proof, why should disbelief be based on proof? Disbelief is not making any positive claim, but belief is.

 

[KWED]

Why is it stupid? Because you have no answer to it?

Because "Prove that something non-existent isn't there" is utterly meaningless.

As the saying goes... "Religion is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and claiming to have found it"

 

[KWED]

you can not disprove my pe4sonal belief in a God (its a belief)

Obviously your belief is a real thing inside your head. You actually do believe. However, that belief could be shown to be wrong if we know the specifics of it - which is probably why you keep avoiding telling us what, specifically, it is you actually believe.

 

[KWED]

Claim? Actually i only say my belief

Presumably you consider the god you believe in to actually exist. Therefore you are making a positive claim about its actual existence.

If you are merely saying that you like the idea of a god existing, then why are you asking for proof that your idea does not exist? That is just bonkers!

 

[KWED]

Your "proof" relies on the absence of data..
..that's not acceptable to any rational thinking person.

Absence of evidence can be evidence for absence. That is pretty basic stuff.
A gamma radiation meter that detects nothing is evidence of the absence of gamma radiation.

In the case of a specific god claim, 1400 years of no evidence of god, despite continuous attempts to find evidence of god, suggests that there is no such god there. It is by no means conclusive, but it certainly suggests a lack of said god.

As Einstein said (or did he?), doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Sometimes you have to just accept that s**t doesn't happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you give me a solid proof that God does not exist?

No. It's quite logically impossible to prove a thing does NOT exist. Especially so if the thing in question is so ill-defined as gods are.

I can't "prove" that there is no bigfoot or unicorns either.

Your proof must be possible to repeat multiple times, and evidence for God non existence must be so solid that it cant be disproven by believers in God.

What does evidence of non-existence look like?
A thing that doesn't exist, will not exist... and won't have evidence.

Existence is what requires evidence. Total absence of evidence FOR the existence of a thing, is what would be evidence for the non-existence of said thing.

I do not ask for woowoo answer, only serious evidence of non existence will be accepted as proof.
And you must be able to show your proof in more than one way.

You are essentially asking us to prove a negative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread is about proving God does not exist.

I believe that proof will not come here.

Replace "god" with any thing you can come up with that you don't believe exists.

There won't be any "proof" or "evidence" for the non-existence of that thing either.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
How do you prove a negative?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know i play dumb in this thread because you can not prove the non existence of God, just as I can not prove scientific that God exist.

The difference is, off course, that disbelievers don't have a burden of proof, while believers do.

That disbelievers can't "prove" X doesn't exist (as per the rules of logic............................ not because they have "faith"), does nothing to alter the credence or rationality of those that believe X does exist without evidence.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
Asking people to prove a negative is essentially fallacious. Intellectually dishonest, even.

To believe and have faith in God is not about proving to others that God exists or not. It is about a personal development spiritually as a person.
Then one have no need to prove anything to others.

That you aren't interested in defending your beliefs or to convince others of your beliefs, makes no difference to the burden of proof of claims.

Of course, if you don't care about being rationally justified in your beliefs, then that is your choice.
Personally, I do care. That's why I value evidence.

So yes a debate about proving or disprove of God will never lead anywhere.

At least, it won't with people who don't really care about being rationally justified in their beliefs and are content with just "holding them" for whatever reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But is faith in God objectiv?

Isn't faith in God a way of life to become a better human being on a personal level? The proof is in how people change to the better through their practice

What if they believe they change for the better, but actually are changing for the worse?
It happens a lot more then theists care to acknowledge.

So "better" or "worse" according to what standards? In contrast to what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is it stupid? Because you have no answer to it?

No. It's stupid because it is a failure to grasp how basic logic works and how the burden of proof works.
As people have already pointed out to you. But you dismissed it with but a handwave.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Claim? Actually i only say my belief

Pat8to, potato.

Claims and beliefs are essentially the same thing.

When you make a claim, you imply belief in said claim (because why would you make a you don't even believe yourself?)
On the other hand, when you express a beliefs, you're going to have to mention the claim being believed.

You can't express a belief without mentioning the claim being believed.
You can't make a claim without expressing belief in said claim.

The two go hand in hand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your "proof" relies on the absence of data..
..that's not acceptable to any rational thinking person.

That's not actually true.

If idea X predicts that we should observed A and B, and upon investigation A and B are nowhere to be found, then we can conclude that idea X is likely incorrect - since the predictions don't check out.
And we'ld draw that conclusion simply from the lack of data of A and B.

It sounds nice and intellectual to say "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", but that's not entirely accurate.

It heavily depends on which evidence is absent and what the actual idea is that we are trying to find evidence for. As well as what the evidence searched for actually is or is supposed to be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh the difference is, i have nothing to prove

Off course you do.
That you don't care to, doesn't change that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You will mostly get slight snide remarks. And maybe how many gods, which god, kind of responses. And some will ask YOU for evidence instead.

And rightfully so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No intention from my side. It was a question atheists can't answer i guess

Every atheist has answered by explaining how your question is invalid and a failure to understand how logic and burden of proof works.

You handwaving that away and simply repeating the fallacy, is your doing.
But don't complain that you didn't receive answers. You did. You just don't like them.

When you ask an invalid question, it is perfecly legit to point it out in response.
Invalid questions don't have answers. They don't require answers. They only require pointing out.


Like "what does purple taste like?"
When in response to that question instead of answers you get someone that points out how colors are lightwaves that have no taste, would you then also complain like you do here?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who cares, since they can't do it anyway.

Why do you think that is?

Do you think that they can't do it because god DOES exist?
Or do you think that they can't do it, because of how logic works instead?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

How can contradictory disprove that different Gods give different teaching? Maybe the different Gods are at different level of wisdom, and dont see truth exactly the same. So their teaching is different.

Not a proof

You may have missed what was being addressed to you.

In order to disprove something you first have to have a clear definition of what the something even is. Especially if you are looking for repeatability.

For example: Someone says that the god they want disproven lives in San Jose on Berkley Street Building 449, in apartment 89. If a person goes to San Jose and finds no Berkley Street, no building 449, and no apartment 89 then one can say that there is no god that lives at San Jose on Berkley Street Building 449, apartment 89. Maybe such a god exists but not in said location.

Further, what is the self given name or title of the god you want disproven? One way to disprove a "god" is to prove that the word god did not exist prior to its entry into the English language and that no-one prior to its entry into the English language called themselves by the "name" or "title" "god" because it didn't exist. So, in some way a person could disprove your god simply on the linquistics of the term "god."

Another way to disprove a god is if it gave certain guarantees for how reality will work. If reality never works the way that said god itself claimed then that is one way to disprove it.

So, you may need to be more specific about what the characteristics and qualities are of the god you want disproven. That way you may get an answer that is more in line with what you may be getting at with your OP.

 

[KWED]

Oh the difference is, i have nothing to prove

But you do. You claim that your version of god actually exists outside of your imagination.