Is there proof God can not exist?

[orcel]

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.

Actually I am merely saying we have an incomplete understandg of God, for if God exists and is creator, then God must exist external from this universe and therefore not bound by it. Hence our understanding of God is limited. Limited by our binding to this universes. Limited by our own finite selves. However that limited understanding of God that we do have describes a perfect, infinite being that by that definition alone deserves our awe and worship.

Its nice to title an argument of which you disagree and dismiss it as if you nolonger need debate. But truth be told, you are partially correct. The grandness of God is such that nothing can stand in opposition to God, nothing can debate God. Its not a "get out of jail free" card, its an "automaticlly win" card. Of which there is no counterpoint only the choice to accept or not.

 

[outhouse]

Limited by our binding to this universes

Limited by ancient mans imagination.


If "all" ancient men created deities and there is a clear path of how hebrews compiled deities in scripture before becoming monotheistic to yahweh.

How can you begin to think god is anything more then a creation?

 

[bigbadgirl]

You cannot see God. You cannot feel God. You cannot hear God. God has never been filmed. God has never been photographed. God has no ability to change the course of human civilization. Gods voice has never been recorded. God has never stopped human suffering. God has never stopped wars. God is vastly different in all religions. There is no proof that God cannot exist, but there is lots of proof that God does not exist.

 

[waitasec]

Actually I am merely saying we have an incomplete understandg of God, for if God exists and is creator, then God must exist external from this universe and therefore not bound by it. Hence our understanding of God is limited. Limited by our binding to this universes. Limited by our own finite selves. However that limited understanding of God that we do have describes a perfect, infinite being that by that definition alone deserves our awe and worship.

Its nice to title an argument of which you disagree and dismiss it as if you nolonger need debate. But truth be told, you are partially correct. The grandness of God is such that nothing can stand in opposition to God, nothing can debate God. Its not a "get out of jail free" card, its an "automaticlly win" card. Of which there is no counterpoint only the choice to accept or not.

and so a book written by ignorant superstitious sheep herding bronze age people is going to shed light somehow on that limited understanding?
for real?

 

[orcel]

You cannot see God. You cannot feel God. You cannot hear God. God has never been filmed. God has never been photographed. God has no ability to change the course of human civilization. Gods voice has never been recorded. God has never stopped human suffering. God has never stopped wars. God is vastly different in all religions. There is no proof that God cannot exist, but there is lots of proof that God does not exist.

Lack of a photo is hardly proof that God does not exist.

 

[orcel]

and so a book written by ignorant superstitious sheep herding bronze age people is going to shed light somehow on that limited understanding?
for real?

hmmm *looking back across my posts* I do not see where I suggested trusting "book written by ignorant superstitious sheep herding bronze age people" as the sole means for understanding God.

You're making remarkabily large and completely unfounded assumptions here, and ya know what happens when ya assume, yes?

 

[Copernicus]

Actually I am merely saying we have an incomplete understandg of God, for if God exists and is creator, then God must exist external from this universe and therefore not bound by it. Hence our understanding of God is limited. Limited by our binding to this universes. Limited by our own finite selves. However that limited understanding of God that we do have describes a perfect, infinite being that by that definition alone deserves our awe and worship.

Our understanding of everything is limited. We are free to imagine all sorts of possibilities--things that could be true but that we know nothing about. We discover new things about reality every day. The interesting question here is how one distinguishes reality from fantasy. When you claim to be imagining the unimaginable, you really aren't imaging anything at all. You are making up an excuse to believe the unbelievable.

Its nice to title an argument of which you disagree and dismiss it as if you nolonger need debate. But truth be told, you are partially correct. The grandness of God is such that nothing can stand in opposition to God, nothing can debate God. Its not a "get out of jail free" card, its an "automaticlly win" card. Of which there is no counterpoint only the choice to accept or not.

Nothing is for free. Religious faith is extremely expensive in terms of the number of one's finite number of heartbeats devoted to it. It demands sacrifice and devotion. People engage in lengthy debates over how one can "keep the faith" and not lose hope. If God does not exist, then you are wasting valuable time. The ineffability defense is a last resort when you have run out of faith-maintenance juice. It is religion on life support.

Lack of a photo is hardly proof that God does not exist.

It is also hardly proof that the feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl does not exist. Just saying...

 

[bigbadgirl]

Lack of a photo? What about the rest of the post?

 

[orcel]

It is also hardly proof that the feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl does not exist. Just saying...

And that's my point exactly. You cannot argue that God doesn't exist merely because you have no proof that God does exist. That's very bad science and very flawed logic. And while I choose not to believe in Quetzalcoatl, that's my proigitive and my choice. Personally I've looked at the universe and various religions and believe Christianity has the best thoery to date to explain the observed world. If you can show me where or how Quetzalcoatl, Budah or a godless science only religion is a better fit,I'd consider it.

 

[orcel]

Lack of a photo? What about the rest of the post?

The rest of the post, with the exception of suffering is less sustainable then the photo argument. As for suffering its a difficult and understandable point. How can a loving God exist and let the suffering we wittiness exist. The answer I have is three fold. Though the first will sound like a cop-out but is actually a very important point.

1) Faith: I trust the a perfect and loving God has a perfect solution in place that we mere humans are not privy too. We do not know or understand all of God's motives.

2) Free Will: Pain and suffering is a result of sin and evil in the world. Evil is created when we utilize free will to stand up and choose action against good. Now I am not suggesting a direct relationship between one's sin and one's suffering. Rather we exist in an interconnected world where sin and evil affect everyone.

3) God's Greatness: If God exists, is the creator and is perfect then God is immencely greater then us failable humans. Before God we would have no rights. None. When we complain that a loving God allows pain we are making two mistakes
a) Explained by and old Suni Proverb (yes Islam): One day when a man was walking along he came upon a sick suffering begger. He cried out to God (Allah in the proverb) why do you not do something to eliveate this man's suffering. And God responded "I did, I created you."
b) In the New Testament Jesus once healed a man who was blind from birth and was immediatly questioned by the local religious leaders as to the blind man's condition. Who sinned, the blind man or his parents? Jesus replied that this man was born blind such that Jesus could heal him and demonstrate God's greatness.

You see sometimes God allows our suffering to give us and or others the oppertunity to find God. To call this unfair or unjust or unloving is to assume that you know better then God. That is something I'm not prepared to do.

 

[orcel]

...a last resort when you have run out of faith-maintenance juice. It is religion on life support.

Nosence its Faith in its purest form, its the foundation. Its not my last argument its my first. Everything afterwords if human logic, or human science or one min's ideas, and might be flawed.

 

[Copernicus]

And that's my point exactly. You cannot argue that God doesn't exist merely because you have no proof that God does exist. That's very bad science and very flawed logic. And while I choose not to believe in Quetzalcoatl, that's my proigitive and my choice. Personally I've looked at the universe and various religions and believe Christianity has the best thoery to date to explain the observed world. If you can show me where or how Quetzalcoatl, Budah or a godless science only religion is a better fit,I'd consider it.

If it is reasonable to reject belief in Quetzalcoatl, then it is certainly reasonable to reject belief in your God. They are both extremely implausible beings that have led people in the past to say some pretty strange and incorrect things about how the observed world works. Just for starters, the Christian God is defined as an all-powerful, all-merciful being, yet human suffering and evil exist. Worse yet, the suffering is not the same for all people. Hence, if God did exist, his sense of fairness would appear to be less than perfect. And that is just for starters. There are many other reasons to reject belief in gods. Although gods have been used to explain the way the world seemed to work in the past, we have now come to realize that those explanations were false or misleading.

Nosence its Faith in its purest form, its the foundation. Its not my last argument its my first. Everything afterwords if human logic, or human science or one min's ideas, and might be flawed.

I don't know what "nosence" is. Do you mean "no sense" or "nonsense"? If you think that there is some flaw in logic, please tell us what you think the flaw is. Does your belief in God require you to abandon logic? If so, you might want to reconsider.

 

[crystalonyx]

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.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I can no more prove that God does not exist than I can prove the universe was not created by a scientific experiment by scientists in the far future and creating the feedback loop that created them. I personally believe in neither as both assumptions are equally implausible IMHO.

 

[cablescavenger]

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?

Based on probability I can say that I am 99.99% certain that no Gods exist, and 100% certain that I do not know if it is impossible, given that in order to know if it is impossible I would have to possess perfect knowledge on everything.

Evidence for support of an incredible claim, supports the claim and makes it credible.

Inability to disprove with certainty an incredible claim does not support the claim.

If that were true, I could claim that Invisible lava eating monkeys live in the earths mantle, and you would have to, in the face of lack of evidence disproving it, accept it as truth. That is the religious argument thrown at scientists, which seeks to prove intelligent design. If you cannot prove it, then God did it.

People have faith in God(s), quite literally because there is no evidence.

God(s) are in the minds of the faithful, not in the reality.

 

[Willamena]

This assumes facts not in evidence.

More like, not in definition.

 

[orcel]

This assumes facts not in evidence.

hence Faith.

 

[orcel]

If you think that there is some flaw in logic, please tell us what you think the flaw is. Does your belief in God require you to abandon logic? If so, you might want to reconsider.

The flaw is the assumption that humanity must be able to prove something in order for it to exist.

And no my religion does NOT require me or anyone to reject logic or science, merely accept that somethings could exist that science and our logic can understand.

 

[PolyHedral]

And no my religion does NOT require me or anyone to reject logic or science, merely accept that somethings could exist that science and our logic can understand.

That constitutes a rejection of logic. Specifically, Occam's Razor.

 

[orcel]

That constitutes a rejection of logic. Specifically, Occam's Razor.

No not really. Ya see one must properly apply science and logic. Occam's Razor applies to the physical world. If anything exists beyond the physical world there is no reason to assume Occam's logic holds.