Is there proof God can not exist?

[Koldo]

No, there is nothing proving god does not exist.

But...that meens nothing. Disproof does not prove.

No, There is nothing proving big foot does not exist
Fairies
lockness monster
aliens
flying spaghettit monster

You question is pointless regardless of what answer you are looking for. People can give their opinions why they think god doesn't exist but in the end there isn't an actual evidence.

But in truth the burden of proof does not fall on a non-believers shoulders. It's not our job to provide any proof or any disproof. That is all on you. If you are posing an theory it's up to you to provide evidence.

Surely such would be the case if theists wanna convert non-believers... However, if they don't, they don't need to.

 

[Danmac]

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 not, that is why the atheist position is absurd. The only logical position for a non believer is, {I don't know} agnostic.

 

[Copernicus]

Of course not, that is why the atheist position is absurd. The only logical position for a non believer is, {I don't know} agnostic.

Danmac gives us the argument that most theists would like us to accept. Their dream is to sit back and shoot down all attempts of people to prove that God does not exist. If that cannot be done, then the theist wins. The argument that most atheists would like us to adopt is that God does not exist until his existence is proven. They can sit back and shoot down all attempts of people to prove that God necessarily exists. The reality is that neither side accepts the burden of proof.

My position, as a strong atheist, is that the only sensible question is whether God or gods are plausible beings. Plausibility does not rest on absolute proof. It rests on the weight of evidence. Theists are people who believe that gods are plausible beings. Atheists believe that they are implausible. My belief is that there are quite a few good reasons to believe that gods are implausible beings. God--the special case of the Abrahamic "perfect" god--may ultimately be impossible because of the way Christians, Muslims, and Jews pile on the putative "good" qualities that God is supposed to possess. However, there are plenty of theists, especially theists willing to debate the question, who are willing to accept any definition of God that allows them to justify their faith, no matter how much they must back off of the hyperbole.

 

[outhouse]

I like my, does god exist test.

#1 Now,, can you argue that man has not been creating man and women gods and spirits for the last 200,000 years???

#2 Can you show me a remote tribe who does not have made up spirits or gods in any part of the world???

#3 Can you show me any parallels in these remote tribes that would indicate that there god is also your god talking to them in the local language and thus the god figure is sharing the same information with all people????

#4 Can you show me that your hebrew god figure does not have any simularity's with previous pagan religions such as sumerians and egpytions???

#5 The ancient hebrews put more importance on male's then females, does this show in their early writings regarding the god figure being created as a male "father" ????

#6 Do you think all other gods and spirits are made up by the local people of that geographic region?

#7 Did people speak other languages around the world before the tower of babal?

#8 is the earth 6000 years old and created in one day???

#9 did man really walk around with dinosaurs ????

#10 did early man live to 900 years as it states noah and adam did????

 

[Frank Merton]

I don't think there is a God (capital "G" as opposed to perhaps very powerful beings possessing very advanced technology, which I think probably does exist "out there somewhere") because God, to get the capital letter, would have to be infinite -- omnipotent, omniscient, etc., -- and these infinities, as occurs with infinities in scientific calculation, lead to insurmountable logical contradictions.

Anything less is not "God" but "superman," and anything not less is logically contradictory.

 

[Breathe]

because God, to get the capital letter, would have to be infinite -- omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

Curious.
Why must God have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and so on?

 

[Frank Merton]

Curious.
Why must God have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and so on?

Otherwise He is a god of the pagan sort, a Zeus or a Thor; or perhaps a modern Superman or Batman -- someone with advanced powers or advanced technology, but nothing really astonishing to someone aware of the nature of technology. To be "Divine" would require bridging the gap that finite beings cannot bridge.

 

[Breathe]

Otherwise He is a god of the pagan sort, a Zeus or a Thor; <<snip>> To be "Divine" would require bridging the gap that finite beings cannot bridge.

I feel you are ascribing things to an Unknowable, incorporeal entity a bit too much, here. In effect, you are restricting the concept of God to a set of illogical impossibilities, and then pointing out that such qualities cannot exist, and therefore God cannot exist. Perhaps it is because of the word God being used within an Abrahamic context and coming with such a form of baggage.

Besides: what's wrong with a God of the Pagan sort?

or perhaps a modern Superman or Batman -- someone with advanced powers or advanced technology, but nothing really astonishing to someone aware of the nature of technology.

That wouldn't be a god of any kind though, to me.

 

[sandandfoam]

I like my, does god exist test.

#1 Now,, can you argue that man has not been creating man and women gods and spirits for the last 200,000 years???

#2 Can you show me a remote tribe who does not have made up spirits or gods in any part of the world???

#3 Can you show me any parallels in these remote tribes that would indicate that there god is also your god talking to them in the local language and thus the god figure is sharing the same information with all people????

#4 Can you show me that your hebrew god figure does not have any simularity's with previous pagan religions such as sumerians and egpytions???

#5 The ancient hebrews put more importance on male's then females, does this show in their early writings regarding the god figure being created as a male "father" ????

#6 Do you think all other gods and spirits are made up by the local people of that geographic region?

#7 Did people speak other languages around the world before the tower of babal?

#8 is the earth 6000 years old and created in one day???

#9 did man really walk around with dinosaurs ????

#10 did early man live to 900 years as it states noah and adam did????

I answered no to all your questions. I consider myself a theist.

I don't see your point.

 

[Breathe]

I don't see your point.

Basically, you don't fit into the pigeonhole concept of a Biblical literalist. Makes people sad. After all, all theists are identical in beliefs, aren't they?

 

[Frank Merton]

In effect, you are restricting the concept of God to a set of illogical impossibilities, and then pointing out that such qualities cannot exist, and therefore God cannot exist.

Yea, that is precisely what I am doing.

If you want to say that anyone or anything with extraordinary powers or technology is "God," then there are Gods aplenty around and calling something "God" has no real meaning.

 

[Breathe]

Yea, that is precisely what I am doing.

I disagree with that, then. What is the point? There are multiple conceptions on God, and you limit it to one very Abrahamic one by doing such a thing.

If you want to say that anyone or anything with extraordinary powers or technology is "God," then there are Gods aplenty around and calling something "God" has no real meaning.

I don't believe powers or technology make one "God", though, so I do not understand why you wrote this.

 

[lunakilo]

... and these infinities, as occurs with infinities in scientific calculation, lead to insurmountable logical contradictions.

So the universi isn't infinite then?

I see no logical problem with infinities.

 

[Frank Merton]

I disagree with that, then. What is the point? There are multiple conceptions on God, and you limit it to one very Abrahamic one by doing such a thing.


I don't believe powers or technology make one "God", though, so I do not understand why you wrote this.

My conception of God could not be further from the Abrahamic conception, except perhaps as developed by Thomas Aquinas. The God of the OT is given "infinity" as an attribute but clearly without the authors having any idea of the word's meaning (I suspect the Biblical use of the word is a translation problem anyway).

As you say, there are multiple conceptions of God, which to me makes the word meaningless. You end up always asking, how do you define "God." Now, what sort of definition ends up with something "worth writing home about" (worth worship, whatever "worship" means)?

As you agree, a Superman is not such a definition; yet I would suggest that every concept of "God" that you produce will fall into one of my two categories -- either an illogical infinite God or a finite but powerful superman.

 

[Breathe]

My conception of God could not be further from the Abrahamic conception,

As is my own.

except perhaps as developed by Thomas Aquinas. The God of the OT is given "infinity" as an attribute but clearly without the authors having any idea of the word's meaning (I suspect the Biblical use of the word is a translation problem anyway).

The OT has no meaning to me. Nor does the NT.

As you say, there are multiple conceptions of God, which to me makes the word meaningless. You end up always asking, how do you define "God." Now, what sort of definition ends up with something "worth writing home about" (worth worship, whatever "worship" means)?

What do you expect? There's a lot of different conceptions of God that all end up using the same three letter word to explain it. Would you rather people only use Ishvara, Bhagavan, Monad, etc, so you end up with hundreds of words describing deities? Somehow I doubt that would be very useful.

"How do you define God" is something I like to ask, personally.

As you agree, a Superman is not such a definition; yet I would suggest that every concept of "God" that you produce will fall into one of my two categories -- either an illogical infinite God or a finite but powerful superman.

That's a very ignorant way of looking at things. I'm not going to take you up on such a childish challenge, though. I don't know about you, but I don't like playing ******* contests or trying to see who has the bigger dick.

 

[Frank Merton]

So the universi isn't infinite then?

I see no logical problem with infinities.

The infinities you often get in scientific theory are things like "the force on the particle is infinite," or "the particle moves with infinite velocity." Such a result is a sure sign of a calculation error or of a flaw in the theory.

I fully expect that the universe (defined as "all that exists" rather than just what we can observe came out of the Big Bang) is infinite in some sense, but the space-time we inhabit is almost certainly not. This is a physics rather than a religion discussion, so I won't go further, and it may well be that in the end this particular question cannot be answered.

Remember this -- "infinity" is not a number. The number line goes on endlessly. There is no "infinity" on it. You cannot reach "infinity" by counting. So many errors occur when people start talking about infinity because they forget this one obvious thing.

 

[Frank Merton]

That's a very ignorant way of looking at things. I'm not going to take you up on such a childish challenge, though. I don't know about you, but I don't like playing ******* contests or trying to see who has the bigger dick.

My word! Did you read the message I posted? What on the planet could I have said that elicited that? You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder. Maybe you are more ignorant of the history of this debate than I thought.

 

[lunakilo]

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.

I think the closest you can get to a scientific argument against God's existence is that, according to the laws of physics the universe appears exactly as it should if there was no creator/God.
If no God is needed there would be no reason to believe God exists.

That is not a proof saying the existence of God is impossible, it is simply an argument saying that the existance of God is is improbable.

 

[Breathe]

You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder.

Quite the opposite, I couldn't have less of a chip on my shoulder. I'm just bored of the same old crappy debates on the forum. You know, the ones that crop up at least once every two months, so if there's any form of "Anything you can throw at me, I can disprove", I'm not interested.

Maybe you are more ignorant of the history of this debate than I thought.

What "history of this debate" do you mean in this sentence? Clarify, please. Your words are vague. Do you mean the history of the debate of the existence of God?

 

[Frank Merton]

Quite the opposite, I couldn't have less of a chip on my shoulder. I'm just bored of the same old crappy debates on the forum. You know, the ones that crop up at least once every two months, so if there's any form of "Anything you can throw at me, I can disprove", I'm not interested.

I was only trying to respond to your questions. That seems a bit of a shoulder chip.

What "history of this debate" do you mean in this sentence? Clarify, please. Your words are vague. Do you mean the history of the debate of the existence of God?

You seem to be oblivious to the point I make, so I begin to think maybe you are operating with blinders on, provided by your ideological perspective, and are not aware of the general nature of this debate through history. Who knows what the backgrounds of the participants may be.