Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God

[Jeremiah]

I don't think you'll find anyone who says people must necessarily only believe in something that is real. But I bet you'd find a lot of people who think it's the best practice in life to only believe in things that are real.

"But I bet you'd find a lot of people who think it's the best practice in life to only believe in things that are real."

I suppose that might be something they say, but it is clear they don't really feel that way. People believe in a whole slew of stuff that is not real; ghost, afterlife, physic powers, gods, demons, angles, luck, karma, etc, etc, etc. People defiantly love to indulge belief in the non-real.

 

[Magic Man]

By this statement, it is clear your exception are are misplaced.

This sentence doesn't make sense as written.

Yes, it does makes perfect sense. And I don't really care if you get, I am certainly not gonna clarify myself for you.

No, I get it, which is why I realize that it doesn't make sense. There is nothing else to the brain other than the mind. I already understand you're caught up in these explanations for things that sound cool, but it just doesn't make sense.

I think you need to learn how to read. You might want to start by slowing down.

OK, well, get back to me when you're ready for a real, adult conversation then.

 

[Magic Man]

I did not fail, it had the desired effect. You just proved that belief in God is logical.

Sorry, but this is just another fail. We're not talking about belief in God, but an actual God. The title of the thread is Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God, not Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove the Belief in God.

 

[Magic Man]

I suppose that might be something they say, but it is clear they don't really feel that way.

Ah, I'm glad you feel comfortable speaking for an entire group of people with your generalization. I say that and it's clear that I actually feel that way. There are many others like me. Every person would tell you that believing in only real things is the best practice, and I guarantee they at least almost all feel that way.

People believe in a whole slew of stuff that is not real; ghost, afterlife, physic powers, gods, demons, angles, luck, karma, etc, etc, etc. People defiantly love to indulge belief in the non-real.

Ah, but then do they believe in stuff that they know is not real, or do they believe in stuff that they believe to be real? I'm going with the latter. In that case, they will still tell you it's best to only believe in things that are real, and they reinforce that, because those things like ghosts and gods are things they consider to be real.

 

[Jeremiah]

This sentence doesn't make sense as written.



No, I get it, which is why I realize that it doesn't make sense. There is nothing else to the brain other than the mind. I already understand you're caught up in these explanations for things that sound cool, but it just doesn't make sense.



OK, well, get back to me when you're ready for a real, adult conversation then.

Sorry, but this is just another fail. We're not talking about belief in God, but an actual God. The title of the thread is Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God, not Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove the Belief in God.

Ah, I'm glad you feel comfortable speaking for an entire group of people with your generalization. I say that and it's clear that I actually feel that way. There are many others like me. Every person would tell you that believing in only real things is the best practice, and I guarantee they at least almost all feel that way.



Ah, but then do they believe in stuff that they know is not real, or do they believe in stuff that they believe to be real? I'm going with the latter. In that case, they will still tell you it's best to only believe in things that are real, and they reinforce that, because those things like ghosts and gods are things they consider to be real.

Thanks for the conversation, Mball1297, but I am ending it. Btw, thanks for saying I sound cool.

 

[Druswid]

Nothing you can do or say can factually disprove God, because the fact of the matter is that anything powerful enough to be a god or the God, would logically have to defy any way that humans have to try and define the divine. You cannot put God in a box; the only thing the people can do is try to come to personal definitions that may or may not be way off the mark. I mean, we're talking an interdimensional, interspatial, interstitial being that supposedly set all that is into being, or started off the initial chain reaction, at any rate. Now consider human beings... and think, for a second, that truthfully, compared to the rest of the universe out there, we're smaller than the smallest microscopic organism. To that point, no human machinations can disprove God or a god. It's all just postulation.

 

[ChristineES]

The idea of God does defy logic: Think about it. If one believes in God, that person will probably believe that God created the entire universe. In order to create the universe, that being would have to be greater than the what He/She created (Or at least that being would have to be greater than the greatest thing in the Universe). Or maybe the person will believe that God was only the catalyst that created the universe.

 

[Tathagata]

Nothing you can do or say can factually disprove God, because the fact of the matter is that anything powerful enough to be a god or the God, would logically have to defy any way that humans have to try and define the divine. You cannot put God in a box; the only thing the people can do is try to come to personal definitions that may or may not be way off the mark. I mean, we're talking an interdimensional, interspatial, interstitial being that supposedly set all that is into being, or started off the initial chain reaction, at any rate. Now consider human beings... and think, for a second, that truthfully, compared to the rest of the universe out there, we're smaller than the smallest microscopic organism. To that point, no human machinations can disprove God or a god. It's all just postulation.

Nothing you can do or say can factually disprove the Divine Unicorn, creator of all. This being is beyond logic and you can't put Divine Unicorn into a box. It is beyond human comprehension and this being transcends time-space, interspacial, and interdimensional.

The point is, you are making an unfalsifiable claim and a meaningless proposition. How come Theists can believe in this incomprehensible God but Atheists can't disbelieve?


.

 

[ChristineES]

Nothing you can do or say can factually disprove the Divine Unicorn, creator of all. This being is beyond logic and you can't put Divine Unicorn into a box. It is beyond human comprehension and this being transcends time-space, inter-spacial, and inter-dimensional.

The point is, you are making an unfalsifiable claim and a meaningless proposition. How come Theists can believe in this incomprehensible God but Atheists can't disbelieve?


.

No one is forcing you to believe in any God. No one could force you to believe in any God.
How can you say that theists are saying something false just because you don't believe it to be true? Do you think we are all a bunch of liars just because we believe in a God you don't believe in? If that is not what you are saying, then I think you should explain yourself.

 

[Bird123]

As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.

I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.

If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.

Now, on to the arguments:

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).


Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki


.

With man's very limited knowledge on time, space and quantum physics, I can understand how you come to your conclusions. One can assume God does not exist until the time when you discover God. People assume God can not be found but have they looked or do they really want to find God?? God isn't the picture of what religion teaches. When you discover more, you will understand God more. Just where does one find God?? Like all knowledge in this world, it isn't just given. It must be discovered. It's all a test of intelligence.

 

[Tathagata]

With man's very limited knowledge on time, space and quantum physics, I can understand how you come to your conclusions. One can assume God does not exist until the time when you discover God. People assume God can not be found but have they looked or do they really want to find God?? God isn't the picture of what religion teaches. When you discover more, you will understand God more. Just where does one find God?? Like all knowledge in this world, it isn't just given. It must be discovered. It's all a test of intelligence.

Oh ok. So with my limited human knowledge I came to wrong conclusions about God, but with your limited human knowledge you have the correct conclusion and view of God?

Sorry, but youre engaging in special pleading, a logical fallacy.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

That argument doesn't attempt to disprove God.

In a way thats correct and in another way it is false.
The argument claims that nonexistence and irrelevant existence should be considered equal. And then it tries to proove that Gods existence is at least irrelevant and then therefore equal to his nonexistence.

Also, the argument doesn't work because many believers to this day say that God has a real impact and people have religious experiences all the time. So saying that God doesn't affect our world and should therefore be irrelevant, won't convince any Theists because they see God as having a real impact.
.

Sorry bit that is a fallacious argument.
Just because one, some, many people claim something doesnt automatically make it so. According to that logic i could say "i made my claims with my argument and nothing you say will work on me".

There are always people that think something is like A or B. Thats precisely the reason why i stated it should be measurable. And by that of course i do not mean someone just stating that he believes or thinks so.

 

[Tathagata]

In a way thats correct and in another way it is false.
The argument claims that nonexistence and irrelevant existence should be considered equal. And then it tries to proove that Gods existence is at least irrelevant and then therefore equal to his nonexistence.

Irrelevance should not be equated with non-existence though. A fruit-fly is irrelevant, but it can still exist.

Sorry bit that is a fallacious argument.
Just because one, some, many people claim something doesnt automatically make it so.

It's not a fallacious argument, you just happened to misuse the ad populum fallacy. My statement was not an ad populum because I didn't say that "many people claim God exists, therefore he does."

My assertion is that, contrary to your argument, there is a measurable difference that the belief in God makes. People act in ways as if God interacts with them and believe that their religious experiences are experiences of God. So God (the concept of God) seems to be very relevant to a majority of the population. Your argument would work if perhaps people who believed in God, didn't claim that they experienced him as well.


.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Irrelevance should not be equated with non-existence though. A fruit-fly is irrelevant, but it can still exist.

Perhaps we simply do not share the same definition of "relevance".
Relevance for me means (similarly to the wikipedia definition) the connection of something to something else is. In other words if (and / or how much) impact it has.
A fruit fly IS relevant. It IS connected to this world, its existence DOES make a difference. It might appear to be small, but it exists nontheless.
I would differ between "relevance" and "importance".
You might think a fuit fly is not important. Or it doesnt deserve your interest or its impact is nill concerning the things that are of interest to you.

It's not a fallacious argument, you just happened to misuse the ad populum fallacy. My statement was not an ad populum because I didn't say that "many people claim God exists, therefore he does."

My assertion is that, contrary to your argument, there is a measurable difference that the belief in God makes. People act in ways as if God interacts with them and believe that their religious experiences are experiences of God. So God (the concept of God) seems to be very relevant to a majority of the population. Your argument would work if perhaps people who believed in God, didn't claim that they experienced him as well.
.

Again you mainly speak about people asserting the importance of something and claiming experiences and interactions on a purely subjective and individual level.
I would simply restate my first postulation. There should be a "measurable" difference. And measurable in my view is not measuring the amount of people that state something or their view on the "importance" of their own belief. Measurement in my view would be for example the measurement of the supposed acts that the supposed God of a particular religion would do.

 

[Magic Man]

Thanks for the conversation, Mball1297, but I am ending it.

Oh, well, thanks for letting me know you're ending the conversation. A word of advice, though. You could just say "Thanks for the conversation, mball1297", and leave it at that.

Btw, thanks for saying I sound cool.

Actually, I didn't. I said I know you think certain things sound cool.

 

[Magic Man]

The idea of God does defy logic: Think about it.

Oh, I won't argue there, but that's the big problem. If someone wants to believe something is real, that thing shouldn't defy logic; it should be in accord with it.

If one believes in God, that person will probably believe that God created the entire universe. In order to create the universe, that being would have to be greater than the what He/She created (Or at least that being would have to be greater than the greatest thing in the Universe). Or maybe the person will believe that God was only the catalyst that created the universe.

Yes, that's all true, but none of that defies logic. All of that is logical.

 

[Druswid]

Tathagata, addressing your point about the Divine Unicorn; I never said it wasn't alright for atheists to not believe in God, just as it's perfectly alright for Christians or those of any other religion to believe in whatever divinity they've chosen. It's simply that there's so much of the universe that is unexplained and unexplored, we can't possibly know it all, so to simply say that there isn't anything at all strikes me as not only incurious, but also, as you put it, unfalsifiable. Atheists have no evidence that there isn't anything else out there, because they, just like the religious folk, only have experience on Earth to go by. My point was that if there is a God or multiple gods, He or they would have to be outside the understanding of humans in order to create the universe, because something that could create the universe would have to be greater than the universe.

 

[Jeremiah]

Actually, I didn't. I said I know you think certain things sound cool.

No, you did not. :no:

Come on, don't be shy, it is OK if you think I am cool. :flirt:

I already understand you're caught up in these explanations for things that sound cool,

 

[Magic Man]

No, you did not. :no:

Come on, don't be shy, it is OK if you think I am cool. :flirt:

Ah, I see. You just misunderstood what I said. Sorry, to make it perfectly clear (even though it already should have been), what that says is "I already understand you're caught up in these explanations that you think sound cool". Obviously, I don't think they sound cool, which is why the whole time I've been saying that you think they do. I think they sound like rubbish.

And by the way, I'm now ending our conversation.

 

[Jeremiah]

Ah, I see. You just misunderstood what I said. Sorry, to make it perfectly clear (even though it already should have been), what that says is "I already understand you're caught up in these explanations that you think sound cool". Obviously, I don't think they sound cool, which is why the whole time I've been saying that you think they do. I think they sound like rubbish.

And by the way, I'm now ending our conversation.

"I'm now ending our conversation."

OK then, Mball1279, thanks for chatting with me.