Is there proof God can not exist?

[Dirty Penguin]

Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?

Nope. But keep in mind that to give validity to the god of the bible/quran for the sake of not being able to show that this god is an impossibility is to give the same credence to all gods that man has or does deem real/true. In the "evidence" department, IMO, they're all on equal footing.

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?

Nope because science does not concern itself with *claims* of the supernatural. Supernatural claims are probably best left in the area of philosophy and theology.

 

[Falvlun]

it doesnt mean there wrong.

Oh really? Huh. I guess all those physicists trying to find a unified theory are just wasting their time, since we already got it all right.

 

[KnightOwl]

logic, reason and reality do fine in most cases.

reality really does point to pure imagination and nothing more.

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????

parts of this list remind me of a famous quote

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

The point about every peoples creating a god goes to the point that while they have some similar qualities, they also have incompatible dissimilarities. The idea that everyone worships the same (existent) god is logically bankrupt for this reason. It would seem odd indeed if all but one view of god was correct. At any rate, I have no reason to believe that if there is a god, it has any resemblance to any man-made construct.

 

[KnightOwl]

It's not possible to demonstrate non-existence. There's (literally) no such thing.
It's not possible to demonstrate an impossibility. If you did, it couldn't be an impossibility.

Edit: I'd like reword that last line: It's not possible to demonstrate impossibility. That would be impossible.

Maybe another way of saying it would be, anything that is previously considered to be supernatural, but is shown to exist, exits the realm of the supernatural and enters the realm of the natural.

 

[Orbital]

it doesnt mean there wrong.

Quantum theories break down at larger scales, relativity breaks down at smaller scales. I can see what you are saying when you say they are not wrong since they serve the purpose of a theory (which is predicting), but neither of these are the answer since they do not explain everything as a whole.

 

[outhouse]

Quantum theories break down at larger scales, relativity breaks down at smaller scales. I can see what you are saying when you say they are not wrong since they serve the purpose of a theory (which is predicting), but neither of these are the answer since they do not explain everything as a whole.

correct missing information is not wrong information

 

[Tiberius]

It's not possible to demonstrate non-existence. There's (literally) no such thing.
It's not possible to demonstrate an impossibility. If you did, it couldn't be an impossibility.

Edit: I'd like reword that last line: It's not possible to demonstrate impossibility. That would be impossible.

Rubbish.

Or do you think that it is possible that an elephant is sitting on your head at this very moment?

If X MUST produce Y, and Y is absent, then we can conclude that there is no X.

 

[Falvlun]

correct missing information is not wrong information

When he writes "They break down", he means that literally. As in, these theories are incorrect-- give wrong predictions-- at certain levels.

There are many other instances too, besides, when science got it wrong:
Phlogiston: It was proposed as the stuff fire was made of; all combustible material was considered to have it.
Atoms: originally believed to be the smallest unit of matter. The even smaller components-- electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc-- were not discovered until much later. In addition, our understanding of how the electrons orbit the nucleus has gone through multiple revisions.
DNA: It was known to be around since 1869, but it was believed that proteins were the unit of heredity; DNA was considered to be much too simple. It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their double-helical model in 1953 that its role as heredity unit was accepted.
Medicine: Blood-letting, humors, original resistance to the idea of germ theory. Medicine is a mine field of science gone wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When he writes "They break down", he means that literally. As in, these theories are incorrect-- give wrong predictions-- at certain levels.

There are many other instances too, besides, when science got it wrong:

Atoms: originally believed to be the smallest unit of matter. The even smaller

Is it acceptable to say that in this particular instance Science got it wrong or is it more acceptable to conclude that given our understanding and technology of the day our (then) understanding that atoms were considered to be the smallest unit was incomplete?

 

[outhouse]

none of us said science is unfallible.

science grows.

 

[Falvlun]

Is it acceptable to say that in this particular instance Science got it wrong or is it more acceptable to conclude that given our understanding and technology of the day our (then) understanding that atoms were considered to be the smallest unit was incomplete?

If science said "atoms are the smallest unit of matter", then yes, that statement was wrong. For the purposes of this particular argument, it doesn't really matter why they were wrong, just that they were.

The whole point is to show a) science is also fallible. Outhouse was arguing that the previous proven fallibility of religions was reason not to believe them now. If good for the goose, then good for the gander.

b) Whatever science is saying now, while it does represent our current best understanding of the universe, should not be taken as ultimate truth. Because history has shown that we continually discover new things, develop new technologies, that can blow our previous current understanding out of the water.

 

[outhouse]

If good for the goose, then good for the gander.

wrong

some religions are based on 3000 year old text by unknown authors and they do not change and it does not grow or evolve or admit mistakes.

science however will admit mistakes, correct them and move on.

 

[Falvlun]

wrong

Then perhaps you should not make broad statements like "if something has been historically proven to be fallible, then we shouldn't believe it now either."

some religions are based on 3000 year old text by unknown authors and they do not change and it does not grow or evolve or admit mistakes.

This only shows that you haven't been paying attention. Religions evolve, are evolving, all the time.

science however will admit mistakes, correct them and move on.

Sounds like a trend. There is no reason to believe they will stop doing so. So how do you know that what they are currently saying is true and not just a mistake that will be corrected in 10 years, in a 100 years from now?

 

[charles brough]

Perhaps you ask the question about disproving "Him" because you want to believe he exists. However, as it was stated earlier, you cannot prove somethind does NOT exist so it might be wise of you to accept that. After all, you cannot prove Santa Claus does not exist, either, but just because you might want him to also exist is hardly motive enough to actually believe it!

 

[Where Is God]

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

I think that if God is how it says it is in the Bible.... then it has always existed; even before time or reality. If this is true, it would be impossible for time and reality to exist because there was an eternity(infinite amount of time) before its creation. However, there is no proof that a higher power created the science that lead to the worlds development today. Just my thoughts let me know what you think.

 

[outhouse]

Religions evolve, are evolving, all the time.

show me changes in scripture that have been changed to be more accurate with what we know.

show me that some religions are not still fighting the truth in science

maybe in your country, in mine its a daily battle to not follow primitive thinking

 

[Falvlun]

show me changes in scripture that have been changed to be more accurate with what we know.

show me that some religions are not still fighting the truth in science

maybe in your country, in mine its a daily battle to not follow primitive thinking

~The Protestant split from the Catholics-- religious speciation. Some concepts were rejected and others were included.
~The acceptance of evolution by the Catholic Church-- interpretation of Scriptures changes all the time, even if the words themselves stay the same.
~the Baha'i faith actively seeks to incoorporate current scientific understanding into their religious beliefs. In general, resistance to science varies from denomination to denomination and individual to individual. It's not an across-the-board fight against science.

Also, just because some religions are extremely rigid, it doesn't mean that all religions are.

Also, how many instances of biological evolution have you seen in your lifetime? Probably not many. Cultural evolution can be excruciatingly slow as well. Doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

[orcel]

Define "God."

If the God you have defined is logically contradictory in some way, it cannot exist.

But that assumes human logic is the standard to which everything must be compared. Is that not rather presumptive? I for one am not ready to assume that humanity is ready to be the standard for the universe and all that exists.

 

[PolyHedral]

There is only one logic. It will be shared by humanity, small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri, and even gods. Everything must succumb to logic, because everything must be consistent.

 

[Willamena]

Define "God."

If the God you have defined is logically contradictory in some way, it cannot exist.

The logical approach is to adjust the premises, rather than make conclusions that fall outside of them.