Is there proof God can not exist?

[outhouse]

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

the storys in the OT were told for hundreds of years before they were written down. After the first books were created the storys were stil told orally because not everyone had a book. They were very very rare plus finding someone who could read was very hard as well.

anything else???

by the way you dont make sense

the OT was written about storys that happened hundreds if not thousands of years before anything was written.

 

[Willamena]

Once you say, "God can do the logically impossible," you say "God does not exist." You also say, "the sky is green," and "the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe," because all statements, no matter how stupid or illogical, follow from a contradiction.

I've never understood that. How does that work?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Isn't it possible that the elephant following you around is just really good at hiding?

If God has hidden knowledge of himself from humanity, then it's safe for us to conclude that all theistic religions are just made up, isn't it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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, i.m.o. there's nothing which suggests that some sort of god-like alien intelligence per se cannot exist and could not have had anything to do with the universe. However, there are many basic laws and observations in science which discredit the God of religion, who interferes with the natural course of events, and who plans the universe with human concerns in mind.

Here are some observations / laws of science which discredit this idea:
(1) Laws of physics, such as conservation of energy.
(2) Observations from astronomy: our world is one of many, and it is not the center of the universe.
(3) Observations of natural phenomena: lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. are natural events, not Divine interferences.
(4) Observations from geology and biology: our species is one of many, and came about by a circuitous route involving a lot of chance events, not by any clear plan.

For example, the proposal that God caused Jesus to be born of a virgin, as believed by Christians and Muslims, is one which would violate the most basic facts of biology, and even the most basic laws of chemistry and physics.

The proposal that God created the universe with human beings explicitly in mind, as part of a Divine plan, is discredited i.m.o. by the observations of astronomy, geology, and biology (though I would not say disproved). Earth is far from the center of the universe. The enormous size and complexity of the many other worlds in the universe, and the relative unimportance and impermanence of our world, suggests the universe was not specially-created for Earth with its inhabitants at the center.

And the forces of nature behave towards human beings pretty much as you would expect if they were not interested at all in our welfare. We now know, due to scientific advancement, that natural disasters are the inevitable consequences of tectonic plates and so forth, and have absolutely nothing to do with punishing sinners or sparing the righteous.

There have also been many studies on the efficacy of prayer to heal people, and yet zero evidence that prayer has any effect at all.

Finally, we know from geological and biological observations that life on Earth took a very tortured and circuitous route which eventually lead to the emergence of our species largely by chance. Many other species (like the dinosaurs) emerged and then were wiped out, over and over again, due to such chance events as a comet impact. The formation of the Earth itself, in this particular star system in this particular galaxy, with this particular (chaotic and changing) climate, was caused by many chance events during the chaotic formation of our solar system. No doubt, there are so many solar systems in our galaxy alone that worlds like Earth are bound to form, somewhere. The point is, the idea that an intelligent mind created the Earth specially, or planned it specially, is totally discredited, the Earth was not planned or crafted any more than the shape of a particular asteroid or the timing of a particular volcanic eruption.

So i.m.o. there are many facts and laws of science which discredit (but do not disprove) the existence of a theistic God who cares about humans, interferes in the universe, planned the course of events, etc. However, I would say that if we are talking about a deistic God, i.e. an alien intelligence who set the laws of the universe in motion but who does not interfere, and who did not necessarily plan things with humans in mind .... then there's nothing, scientifically, which says such an alien intelligence is an impossibility.

 

[Quagmire]

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

In other words you're saying that the Hebrews were the first theists, ie., that there were no other concepts of God before they came up with theirs.

Where are you getting this idea from?

 

[Gloone]

But it couldn't, and then make a apple-not-apple anyway. Once you say, "God can do the logically impossible," you say "God does not exist." You also say, "the sky is green," and "the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe," because all statements, no matter how stupid or illogical, follow from a contradiction.

Are you trying to disprove the color spectrum of light when you say that? A green sky is logically impossible. I live in an arena where we get a lot of tropical storms after the hit the coast and the clouds are so thick and moving so fast, with 60-80mph wind gusts that when it lightning’s at night the clouds let off a radiant aqua green effect during the sun set hours and at night. Depending on the area, time of day, and whether the sky can be all sorts of different colors. Clouds Pictures, Cloud Photos -- National Geographic

 

[outhouse]

In other words you're saying that the Hebrews were the first theists, ie., that there were no other concepts of God before they came up with theirs.

Where are you getting this idea from?

No they took and compiled their god figure from previous pagan myths

did or did not the ancient hebrews worship more then 1 god??? in their earliest records

 

[PolyHedral]

I've never understood that. How does that work?

Via the principle of explosion. The idea is that once you've got both a preposition (P) and the opposite (~P) being true at the same time, you can logically derive any statement you want, including nonsensical ones. Hence, once God can do the logically impossible, you can say that God is a glass of tea, and be correct.

Are you trying to disprove the color spectrum of light when you say that? A green sky is logically impossible.

That's the point.

 

[Breathe]

I think people of today would be too afraid if they absolutely knew God existed.

So instead of letting people be a bit afraid to begin with, your idea is God lets people kill one another throughout history over their view of God...? :sarcastic

They would be thinking of all the things they had done that were immoral and how they would be judged and punished.

I don't believe God judges or punishes anything.

Nor do I believe in "moral" or "immoral". Only "helpful" and "harmful"--to oneself, and to others, and I don't think things are quite so black and white.

 

[Willamena]

Via the principle of explosion. The idea is that once you've got both a preposition (P) and the opposite (~P) being true at the same time, you can logically derive any statement you want, including nonsensical ones. Hence, once God can do the logically impossible, you can say that God is a glass of tea, and be correct.

Yes, but why? Why can any statement be inferred from a contradiction? And why would it? I still don't get it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because it's how logic (usually) works. Logic depends on manipulating prepositions, and the rules for doing that are such that you can produce anything you want from a contradiction. (There's an actual demonstration on that Wikipedia page, though it uses Wikipedia's usual overly-accurate writing.)

 

[Quagmire]

No they took and compiled their god figure from previous pagan myths

Then maybe you should say that instead of this:

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.

 

[outhouse]

Then maybe you should say that instead of this:

Fair enough

 

[McBell]

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

Then why would he demand worshipers and even go so far as to punish those who do not worship him?

 

[Willamena]

Because it's how logic (usually) works. Logic depends on manipulating prepositions, and the rules for doing that are such that you can produce anything you want from a contradiction. (There's an actual demonstration on that Wikipedia page, though it uses Wikipedia's usual overly-accurate writing.)

Do you mean propositions? Manipulating prepositions will just net you a change of context.

Yeah, the Wikipedia page didn't help. Thanks anyway.

 

[Im an Atheist]

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?

1) The Big Bang Theory (very complicated, what the latest Stephen Hawking's Universe) is pretty credible.

2) Scientists have proven life could of started on it's own accord, by creating an experiment, where primordial conditions (early earth), were replicated. Separate organelles were added, the environment was zapped with electricity,
And eventually, a cell formed from the separate organelles, forming a simple bacterial cell with basic cell functions.

 

[ellenjanuary]

No.

Here's some math for ya: in the beginning, x^2 = 9, solve for x...
Now, in any kind of physical universe of positive substance, x = 3
That's what happens with science. Observation, hypothesis, experiment... the goal of science is not "truth" so much as useful predictive modeling... every time you square a three, you get a nine; done.

But, in mathematics, the name of the game is logical consistency. If you have done basic algebra, you know, the square root of nine is +/- 3. Ever see a negative three? Yeah, you have... debt.
So perhaps, you're a careful investigator; you're beginning is plus or minus three. No god! Ha!

No.

Consider v^2 - 12 = 3... so... is it not true that x = v^2 - 12?!?!

It may seem simplistic, but it is a clear example of how some believer can stick some god in some universe, no matter how hard one tries to keep the god outta the works. That right there, is the nature of the problem; ain't god trying to prove his existence, it's some believer trying to validate his belief. For as long as there is scientific integrity, religious intellectual dishonesty will insist:

You can't prove god does not exist!

Rationally, I got all kinds of simple stuff which signifies, to me, the non-existence of god, but I also got the trump card for the existence of god - for when I'm all hating on the atheists and stuff...

God is in my head.

 

[diosangpastol]

man made religion. but religion doesnt necesarily made God.

man has not made God. but, in fact, if man had his way he would rather that God did not exist, he would rather eliminate God. In fact' if you really study history you'll find that man either philosophically or pragmatically, exists without God. He does the very best he can to eliminate God. He even comes up with theology that says God is dead. And even the people who can't cope philosophically with no God live as if there wasn't any.

For example, you go back to the garden and the first thing that happens in the garden that we know about, apart from walking and talking with God, was sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sinned. What is the very first thing they did immediately after they fell? Immediately Adam and Eve hid themselves from whom? From God.

They began to wish that God didn't exist and that has been a constant thing with men throughout history.

 

[gnostic]

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. I do view religion through agnostic eye. That the existence or non-existence of god (or gods) is unknowable.

However, I am also scientific-minded person. And being scientific minded, I'd have some levels of skepticism,especially when dealing with the supernatural, which include divine (or even infernal) beings. I required evidences that are physical, hence observable, measurable (or quantifiable), testable, and can be verified by independent evidences.

So I would also view that in order for me to believe in god's existence, I would require evidences to prove that god exist. Without evidences to support the existence of god, I would have to put god in the basket that he doesn't exist, until it is proven otherwise. So I don't take god out of the "non-existence basket" into the "existence basket", until there are evidences.

Despite what you say about atheists should be labelled as agnostic, an agnostic still can form an opinion with what is real and what is not real.

All people have some levels of skepticism, not just atheists or agnostics. Theists can be skeptical about other gods of other religions. The difference between you and me, is that my mind is required me to have proof or evidence, and you are satisfied with faith alone.

As to the OP, I would say the lack of evidences indicate the impossibility of god existing. And since we live in a real world, if you think the impossible can be possible, then you are the one who require to provide the evidences for the contrary.

 

[Frank Merton]

Despite what you say about atheists should be labelled as agnostic, an agnostic still can form an opinion with what is real and what is not real.

Ever since I found this board and started reading parts of it, I've seen no end of sterile debate over what constitutes an atheist, and whether or not all atheists are believers in non-belief or something of the sort or whether or not they really deep down are agnostics.

There is a distinction between empirical knowledge, where we only approach certainty as we observe more and more, and deductive knowledge, where we conclude something for logical reasons. That the sun will rise tomorrow is an empirical certainty; that when A = B and B = C then A = C is a logical certainty. Because of the self-referential logical contradictions that arise when one talks about an omnipotent being, I think it is perfectly acceptable for an atheist to assert that such a thing is impossible, with logical certainty, and there is no need to be an agnostic.

The only time empirical knowledge would enter the picture would be if it were asserted that some being less than omnipotent were God. That there is little such evidence -- or at least that what evidence exists is utterly unpersuasive -- is true enough, but to me beside the point. I don't think any such being would qualify as "God," but only as a god in the sense that an Egyptian Pharaoh was a god.