Is there proof God can not exist?

[outhouse]

What it comes down to is, we have evidence man creates deities.

most people follow a deity only by the geographic location they were born

most people think magically their chosen deity is real while all others are man made creations and dont exist.


Even though i believe in no deities you are all like me, main difference is I believe in less deity then you.

 

[FreeTHinker4eva]

There is a lot of similar threads. I want to ask a slightly different question ( I think it is)
I am familiar with the idea that Deity is not necessary. I understand not having proof.
But,
Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?
Is there anything in science that makes it clear that God can not exist and could not have had anything to do with the universe?

No-science is the wrong toolbox as this is a spiritual question. If we can imagine it, conceptualize it, it is eternally possible somewhere sometime someway somehow...

"There is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio" -Shakespeare

 

[PolyHedral]

. If we can imagine it, conceptualize it, it is eternally possible somewhere sometime someway somehow...

...And? That just means we can imagine it. It has nothing to do with whether it can affect us.

 

[tarasan]

There is a lot of similar threads. I want to ask a slightly different question ( I think it is)
I am familiar with the idea that Deity is not necessary. I understand not having proof.
But,
Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?
Is there anything in science that makes it clear that God can not exist and could not have had anything to do with the universe?

of course its possible to demonstrate there cannot be a type of God. For example if you showed that a type of God was inherently self refuting you would show that God cannot exist.

 

[Daviso452]

There is a lot of similar threads. I want to ask a slightly different question ( I think it is)
I am familiar with the idea that Deity is not necessary. I understand not having proof.
But,
Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?
Is there anything in science that makes it clear that God can not exist and could not have had anything to do with the universe?

As a short answer, no.

However, what many people seem to not understand is that no one is saying that science proves god does not exist. What science does prove, however, is that God is not needed for the Universe to exist.

But then if you add logic, you see that because God is not needed for existence, and there is no proof a god even exists, then you are left with no reason to believe in God.

P.S. For those who say God is spiritual and outside our bounds of reasoning, one question: How do you know there is a spiritual world outside the bounds of our reasoning?

 

[FreeTHinker4eva]

...And? That just means we can imagine it. It has nothing to do with whether it can affect us.

If we have imagined it. it has affected us. What you behold in your mind becomes the movie of the life you define.

 

[Me Myself]

There are evidences that some concepts of god cannot be accurate to reality..

 

[Copernicus]

If we have imagined it. it has affected us. What you behold in your mind becomes the movie of the life you define.

It is true that imaginary objects affect us, but not in the same way that real objects do. You stand a much better chance of colliding with a truck than a unicorn.

 

[crystalonyx]

It's not possible to demonstrate non-existence. There's (literally) no such thing.
It's not possible to demonstrate an impossibility. If you did, it couldn't be an impossibility.

Edit: I'd like reword that last line: It's not possible to demonstrate impossibility. That would be impossible.

It's also not necessary, the onus of proof is on those who insist there is a god.

 

[orcel]

No but one can build a case against god and win in court of law that he doesnt exist.

Fact is man has created deities for as long as homo sapiens existed. One can easily prove that ancient semetic speaking people migrated to the holyland starting roughly in 1250BC and within a few hundred years were writing about there different gods they worshipped before they became monotheistic. One can easily trace how the hebrews worshipped different gods and why they changed to a yahwey based deity when they became monotheistic around the time period of second Isaiah roughly 606BC.

The creation story you speak of has its roots in mesopotamian history from previous pagan religions to those of ancient hebrews.

I'm not sure I can agree. Are you claiming that because somebody else may be wrong about the existence of his god, then I MUST be wrong about mine? There's that logical falicy again.

Just becasue the sun came up yesterday does not guarentee that it willl rise today. While it probibly will, it might not. In the same sence you cannot disprove the Christian God because we know that the ancient greek god's are rather unlikely.

 

[PolyHedral]

I'm not sure I can agree. Are you claiming that because somebody else may be wrong about the existence of his god, then I MUST be wrong about mine? There's that logical falicy again.

Not quite; He is (or should be, if he isn't) saying that you are very likely wrong about yours.

 

[orcel]

Not quite; He is (or should be, if he isn't) saying that you are very likely wrong about yours.

Agreed that should be his position as there is a difference between aguing that I'm very likely wrong and claiming proof that I am. I understand and agree that to the unbeliever my faith appears verly likely wrong.

 

[crystalonyx]

One can prove that a number of god concepts are not possible.

 

[orcel]

One can prove that a number of god concepts are not possible.

That is certiantly true if the characteristics of the god concept are physical and therefore testable through the scientific method.

 

[Copernicus]

That is certiantly true if the characteristics of the god concept are physical and therefore testable through the scientific method.

It goes beyond that. If one defines a god as having logically contradictory properties, then the contradiction disproves the existence of that god. For example, some philosophers have argued that omnipotence and omniscience are logically contradictory properties, because an omniscient being would not be able to do anything except what it knew it would do. Such arguments have nothing to do with testability, but with the definition of the being.

 

[orcel]

It goes beyond that. If one defines a god as having logically contradictory properties, then the contradiction disproves the existence of that god. For example, some philosophers have argued that omnipotence and omniscience are logically contradictory properties, because an omniscient being would not be able to do anything except what it knew it would do. Such arguments have nothing to do with testability, but with the definition of the being.

This of course assumes that we have enough information declare without a doubt two things as contradictory. That is possible with scientific facts, far less possible when describing that which extends beyond science. How can we truly understand an infinate god well enough to declare that god as valid or not?

 

[Copernicus]

This of course assumes that we have enough information declare without a doubt two things as contradictory. That is possible with scientific facts, far less possible when describing that which extends beyond science. How can we truly understand an infinate god well enough to declare that god as valid or not?

We have our own descriptions of the god to work with. If you have no idea what you are talking about, then what is the point in saying anything at all about it or going to church and worshiping it?

 

[orcel]

We have our own descriptions of the god to work with. If you have no idea what you are talking about, then what is the point in saying anything at all about it or going to church and worshiping it?

What we know about God is a limited, incomplete picture but that does not negate the validy of worshipping God. Even the limited bits of God we are privy to, are immencely aweing.

 

[PolyHedral]

Even the limited bits of God we are privy to, are immencely aweing.

Honestly, tell me something, since the concept is a very relavent one at this point:

Is he a wonderful whiz if ever a wiz there was, and one because of all the wonderful things he does?

 

[Copernicus]

What we know about God is a limited, incomplete picture but that does not negate the validy of worshipping God. Even the limited bits of God we are privy to, are immencely aweing.

That's sort of like saying "What you don't know can't hurt you." If it only weren't for all of those people who died not knowing what would kill them.

The reality is that gods are defined by people and explained by people. People end up claiming to have communed with gods, who deigned to favor them, and not everybody else, with their revelations. You are engaging in what I call the "ineffability defense". Whenever the believer encounters an argument against belief that cannot be overcome, the solution is to declare the object of belief "beyond understanding" and dismiss the argument. The ineffability defense never comes up when the believer is expounding at length on the comprehensible aspects of the alleged god. The ineffability defense is the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. It can be played whenever the player is in danger of losing.