Is there proof God can not exist?

[waitasec]

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?

well you assert yourself as a christian...
christians believe in a book called the bible as the word of god..
and christians also believe in a hebrew idea of something called a messiah which was an idea conjured up by ignorant superstitious sheep herding bronze age people...
so no i'm not making a remarkably large and completely unfounded assumption...you are a christian, right?

so lets get back on target shall we?
do you think a book written by ignorant superstitious sheep herding bronze age people is going to shed light somehow on that limited understanding?

 

[PolyHedral]

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.

But without evidence, it is unreasonable to assume that anything bar the physical exists in the first place.

Incidentally, Occam's Razor holds in pretty much any context, "physical" or not.

 

[orcel]

But without evidence, it is unreasonable to assume that anything bar the physical exists in the first place.

No, that assumes too much. You are making the most basic logical error here. IE you assume more then you can prove. If you cannot disprove little green elves exist, you cannot just state that they do not. Instead you need to look at the evidence and make a decision based on the probibility that they do not and choose to believe or disbelieve the probibility. But its still a choice based on Faith.

You can choose to through faith to assume nothing beyond the physical world exists, but that is a faith decision.

Incidentally, Occam's Razor holds in pretty much any context, "physical" or not.

Again, no. Occam's razor applies to the confines of this universe, this physical world and its inhabiants. Applying it to processes or motives or beings that may or may not exist beyond this universe and our understandings is foolhearted.

 

[crystalonyx]

. If you cannot disprove little green elves exist, you cannot just state that they do not. .

Science does not work this way. The onus is on the positive assertion, i.e. to prove that little green elves exist, not on the negative belief that they don't. See Bertrand Russell's "Celestial Teapot" argument.

 

[waitasec]

Science does not work this way. The onus is on the positive assertion, i.e. to prove that little green elves exist, not on the negative belief that they don't. See Bertrand Russell's "Celestial Teapot" argument.

it's a rather simple concept to understand.

if i were meet you and i clearly have brown eyes, then if i were to say i have blue eyes...cleary something is awry

 

[orcel]

Science does not work this way. The onus is on the positive assertion, i.e. to prove that little green elves exist, not on the negative belief that they don't. See Bertrand Russell's "Celestial Teapot" argument.

True but that's not what we're discussing. Basically we're loooking at the difference between athism and the weak agnostic position. One can say I see no evidence of God and choose to disbelieve and be justified in that decision (even if i disagree with it). its entirly another decision to state that because i see no evidence God does not exist.

 

[Quiddity]

Plenty of proof, just no evidence in the scientific sense.

 

[PolyHedral]

No, that assumes too much. You are making the most basic logical error here. IE you assume more then you can prove. If you cannot disprove little green elves exist, you cannot just state that they do not.

I can however, say they probably do not. However, if the little green elves are known to do something, or to cause something which is not happening, I can say they definitely do not exist via a proof by contrapositive.

Instead you need to look at the evidence and make a decision based on the probibility that they do not and choose to believe or disbelieve the probibility. But its still a choice based on Faith.

Such decisions can be objectively decided, given a set of weightings The "correctness" of such decisions can also be verified objectively.

Again, no. Occam's razor applies to the confines of this universe, ...

Occam's razor applies to any and all logically consistent systems, physical or not.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I can however, say they probably do not. However, if the little green elves are known to do something, or to cause something which is not happening, I can say they definitely do not exist via a proof by contrapositive.

Even though what you said makes no sense I think I get the drift. You did not prove their non-existence only that they didn't do something.

 

[crystalonyx]

True but that's not what we're discussing. Basically we're loooking at the difference between athism and the weak agnostic position. One can say I see no evidence of God and choose to disbelieve and be justified in that decision (even if i disagree with it). its entirly another decision to state that because i see no evidence God does not exist.

No difference at all, the onus is still on the god-believers to prove their case, not on atheists to prove the negative.

 

[PolyHedral]

Even though what you said makes no sense I think I get the drift. You did not prove their non-existence only that they didn't do something.

If that something is an integral part of who they are, I've disproven their existence.

 

[cottage]

No, that assumes too much. You are making the most basic logical error here. IE you assume more then you can prove. If you cannot disprove little green elves exist, you cannot just state that they do not. Instead you need to look at the evidence and make a decision based on the probibility that they do not and choose to believe or disbelieve the probibility. But its still a choice based on Faith.

You can choose to through faith to assume nothing beyond the physical world exists, but that is a faith decision.

To assume a thing doesn't factually exist is not saying that the thing is logically impossible. To arrive at a conclusion based on a lack of factual evidence or logical necessity is the state of affairs where a things non-existence is rendered more probable than improbable. There is no faith (or 'Faith') or dogmatism involved, however; for if the thing subsequently appears then the matter is settled.

Again, no. Occam's razor applies to the confines of this universe, this physical world and its inhabiants. Applying it to processes or motives or beings that may or may not exist beyond this universe and our understandings is foolhearted.

That's not true. It applies to any proposition or hypothesis. Occam is supposed to have said: 'Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.' But anyway, this is what Bertrand Russell said: It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer. In other words if something can be interpreted without assuming a hypothetical entity then there is no ground for assuming it.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm referring to the God that is in dispute..(?) The God that everyone keeps debating about and assuring is just a fantasy. The one that some say created the universe or answers prayers or judges human kind or provides and afterlife. Something along those lines.
You know the one popular around here when someone says there is no evidence.
I am fishing around because I don't believe you can say it is not possible. That's all. no biggie

Everyone on this site seems to have a slightly different version of a god. The fact that absolutely nobody can provide a sound, reliable discription of this god speaks volumes.

 

[Noa]

No, there is no proof god cannot exist. Same answer as all of the other proof-related threads. I need to make a boilerplate comment and just paste it in all of these.

If your question has 'proof,' 'disproof,' and 'god' in it -- the answer is going to be 'no.'

 

[Milton Platt]

I can however, say they probably do not. However, if the little green elves are known to do something, or to cause something which is not happening, I can say they definitely do not exist via a proof by contrapositive.


Such decisions can be objectively decided, given a set of weightings The "correctness" of such decisions can also be verified objectively.


Occam's razor applies to any and all logically consistent systems, physical or not.

Very true. And one cannot postulate about things " outside the known universe until one first demonstrates that there is an outside and then demonstrates something can exist there whether a god or anything else.
Where is " outside"?