Is there proof God can not exist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dunno about that. I'm sure there are some movements who do not worship God. For example, would one say that, say, Pandeism worships a God? This is still a God belief, is it not? I don't even know if Deists actively worship, nor have I any pantheists who "worship", either. Maybe it's just I've never met any, but there probably going to be some movements out there that do not believe in worshipping God, even if they believe it exists.

Hell, considering one may find "polypanendeism" out there, why not one that does not give worship to this Supreme Being?

I think that the various forms of deism and other attitudes toward god(s) that don't involve worship are responses to theism and other forms of belief that do include worship. IOW, even if a person doesn't worship any gods themselves, if we follow the chain of causality for his god-belief back far enough, we'll find someone doing some sort of worship.

It depends again; some people believe that absolutely everything is God, as in absolutely everything. One only has to look at the Japanese, who believe that everything has a soul, including pens and so on--to see it wouldn't be a stretch to say that they were God, not really, and the Ainu (for what little I know), iirc, they had spirits that worked their way into groups (something like, for example, individual dog spirit < king of dog spirit-god < king of animal spirits-god < supreme two spirits-gods (I forget the last one)". I may have forgotten something, it was a while ago I learnt this, but you get the idea.

Okay... so maybe I'm not safe in saying that everyone would agree that a toaster oven isn't God.

When does something, for example, change from a spirit to a deity? This ties into the God/gods thing to some extent, I think.

...but even then, there are people who believe that gods are facets of the Supreme One.

But a facet of a thing is not the thing itself. A pantheist probably wouldn't say that a toaster oven is the Supreme One in its entirety, would he?

 

[Breathe]

<<snip for space>>

Just wanted to say, I agree with your post. Nothing I can really add, but it is a post I liked. Frubals due.

I think that the various forms of deism and other attitudes toward god(s) that don't involve worship are responses to theism and other forms of belief that do include worship. IOW, even if a person doesn't worship any gods themselves, if we follow the chain of causality for his god-belief back far enough, we'll find someone doing some sort of worship.

But that's only to be expected. One can even find non-theistic worship though. One only has to look at Jainism for an example.

Okay... so maybe I'm not safe in saying that everyone would agree that a toaster oven isn't God.

LOL! Shows how complex it is, doesn't it?

But a facet of a thing is not the thing itself. A pantheist probably wouldn't say that a toaster oven is the Supreme One in its entirety, would he?

Some Advaitins would, lol. Everything is God in its entirety. I don't quite get how it works though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's only to be expected.

But it does mean that some idea of worship is built into every god-concept somewhere in there, even if the worship itself is later rejected.

One can even find non-theistic worship though. One only has to look at Jainism for an example.

And that's fine. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying that gods are the only things that are worshipped; I'm only trying to establish that if a thing isn't worshipped, then it's not a god.

 

[Breathe]

I'm only trying to establish that if a thing isn't worshipped, then it's not a god.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Frank Merton]

I think this works as a definition, courtesy freedictionary.com:

Ardent devotion or adoration

That's the problem with dictionary definitions -- they have to try to capture all the ways a word is used, and in the process generally lose the central concept. We can say someone "worships" the state, or their wife, or a certain celebrity, or science (as I have said just recently), or money, etc. These uses are figurative, and do not imply that the person thinks these things are divine.

In the case of religious worship, I might be inclined to throw something in there about the object of worship being considered sacred, but I'm willing to give some wiggle-room in that regard.

Ah, yes. Wiggle-room is unavoidable; it seems to me it is impossible to really pin down what is going on. (Of course I think the pleasure we get when engaging in worship is a side-effect of submission/dominance instincts we see in many animals, including apes, so we don't really understand "why" we do it -- it is largely instinctual).

That depends - are you ardently devoted to Buddha (either that particular statue or Buddha in general)?

Of course not; in my case and probably in the case of a sizable minority of others who do it, it's a social act. I'm a little surprised you didn't see that, although of course I didn't give you many clues.

Edit: out of curiosity, how do you think your attitude toward Buddha is relevant? I'm not saying that every object of worship is a god; I'm saying that every god is an object of worship. These two statements aren't equivalent.

Of course it is relevant. We are trying to define "God," and, as you already showed, worship seems to be integral to the concept. What I described are acts we generally call "worship."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the problem with dictionary definitions -- they have to try to capture all the ways a word is used, and in the process generally lose the central concept. We can say someone "worships" the state, or their wife, or a certain celebrity, or science (as I have said just recently), or money, etc. These uses are figurative, and do not imply that the person thinks these things are divine.

I didn't say that it did.

Ah, yes. Wiggle-room is unavoidable; it seems to me it is impossible to really pin down what is going on.

If you need certainty, then for the purposes of this discussion, leave it out.

Of course not; in my case and probably in the case of a sizable minority of others who do it, it's a social act. I'm a little surprised you didn't see that, although of course I didn't give you many clues.

I did get that. I was making a point.

Of course it is relevant. We are trying to define "God," and, as you already showed, worship seems to be integral to the concept. What I described are acts we generally call "worship."

It doesn't matter. Again: I'm not saying that all things that are worshipped are gods; I'm saying that all things that are gods are objects of worship.

Illustrative analogy:

A: "All cars have wheels. If a thing doesn't have wheels, it's not a car."
B: "But what about this bicycle? It has wheels. It's not a car."
A: "Doesn't matter. Even if bicycles have wheels, we can still say that because this house doesn't have wheels, we can be sure it isn't a car."

Would a Venn diagram help?

 

[outhouse]

despite all the arguements at hand

one can prove a pretty solid case against the god myth created 3000 years ago

there is more evidence against then there ever will be for a mythical deity, by the way there is 0 evidence for such a reality.

in my opinion

 

[Twilight Hue]

As has been said a million times over, the existence of God is not a scientific matter. We cannot observe or conduct experiments on God. What was going on before was a discussion of whether or not God is a logical possibility.

As to your God's reported silence, while I agree with you that there is no scientific evidence that clearly points to God, or even to a "creator" (which might not be God), I would suggest that it seems perverse of a God who wants us to believe in Him to make Himself so hard to find. Of course this is rationalized by believers with the assertion that God decides who to give faith to and if He hasn't picked you, too bad.

In that case I don't see how existence or non-existence of God could even be hypothetically approached using methods of logic. Such as it stands, this remains unfalsifiable. In that respect, I would say any logical possibility is therefore effectively muted as being a platform of approach either way.

 

[Frank Merton]

In that case I don't see how existence or non-existence of God could even be hypothetically approached using methods of logic. Such as it stands, this remains unfalsifiable. In that respect, I would say any logical possibility is therefore effectively muted as being a platform of approach either way.

My approach to "God" as being something transcendent; omnipotent; omniscient; what have you, is that these things lead to self-referential logical contradictions. Therefore, the only way one can say such a God exists is by abandoning logic. That I conclude that such a God does not exist is why I self-identify as an atheist.

Another possible "god" is something along Abrahamic or Homeric lines. These deities are not something I spend much energy thinking about. Taken even somewhat literally, they are patently absurd. I generally decline to discuss these things with "true believers."

(I hasten to say that the faiths that have evolved from these beliefs are often nevertheless things to be respected).

There are of course all sorts of other proposed deities, such as the universe, mind in the universe, the Tao, and so on. These things tend to lack a certain "person-hood," so that if they exist I would not call them gods but forces of nature.

A god is something one must obey and respect. As such powerful people are "gods." This, of course, is a secondary meaning of the word that we can pretty much ignore.

 

[wolpe]

There simply is no way to prove that God doesn't exist.

 

[Breathe]

There simply is no way to prove that God doesn't exist.

Or does exist.
Or even what God is.
Or even which God.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

 

[wolpe]

Isn't it possible that God doesn't want humans to prove that He exists?

Thanks!

 

[outhouse]

There simply is no way to prove that God doesn't exist.

I could easily build a court case and try gods existance and win that he was created by ancient hebrews who compiled previous pagan myths.

Ancient hebrews were a compilation of semetic speaking people from many places who all brought their own storys with them from egypt and sumerian cultures as well as their own local cultures. These myths were compiled ONLY after hundreds and hundreds of years of oral tradition.

Normally oral tradition is accurate enough to hold its own, but only when it is used in the same culture. With ancient hebrews combining many different cultures history to form their own history, oral tradition is not only not accurate one can clearly see the creation of history through this tradition.

creation of deitys was nothing new during that time. It was standard SOP. If you did not create a god you had problems as I dont think there was ever a ancient culture that did not had a god myth or spirit to base beliefs on what they did not know

 

[Breathe]

Isn't it possible that God doesn't want humans to prove that He exists?

Why would God not want to be found?

More likely, it would be that It (God) was something beyond the measurable--not playing a divine game of hide-and-seek then and "pick which door (religion and God concept) I'm behind", surely. Yes/no?

 

[PolyHedral]

Why would God not want to be found?

For any of uncountable reasons. Remember, He is Ineffable.

 

[Copernicus]

There simply is no way to prove that God doesn't exist.

But it is true in the same sense that there is not way to prove that flying pigs do not exist. One can still make a good case against believing in their existence.

 

[Koldo]

But it is true in the same sense that there is not way to prove that flying pigs do not exist. One can still make a good case against believing in their existence.

 

[wolpe]

Why would God not want to be found?

More likely, it would be that It (God) was something beyond the measurable--not playing a divine game of hide-and-seek then and "pick which door (religion and God concept) I'm behind", surely. Yes/no?

I think people of today would be too afraid if they absolutely knew God existed. They would be thinking of all the things they had done that were immoral and how they would be judged and punished.

 

[outhouse]

I think people of today would be too afraid if they absolutely knew God existed. They would be thinking of all the things they had done that were immoral and how they would be judged and punished.

maybe they would if a all powerfull myth really existed. Right now I have not seen anything that would indicate its not anything more then ancient imagination based on previous pagan religions

 

[wolpe]

The oral tradition didn't come before the Torah - it went along with the Torah. It explains what is said in the Torah.