Proofs that God does not exist

[Kilgore Trout]

Me: I didn't say that the universe needed to be created. I said that it exists and nothing that exists can exist unless it came from something else. The only exception to this rule is the axiomatic existence that is necessary for any existence.

Right - there's no reason to think our universe isn't this "axiomatic existence."

 

[Humanistheart]

Well, is proof necessary? I admit that there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of God. However, I do believe that there is enough for one to establish reasonable belief in God.

For it to be an axiom I think it is. And what evidence is there to establish a 'reasonable' belief in him.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

[/list]
Since when? Nothing that exists has ever not existed, as far as I can tell. Energy and matter can only change form, neither can be created nor destroyed. Basic law of science.



Much of the universe is chaotic; using this logic, that aspect of the universe doesn't exist. (I am referring to natural selection, the fact that no two fingerprints are identical, the unpredictability of earthquakes, etc.)

Basic law of science which is axiomatic in nature and only applies post Big Bang. There is no proof that it is impossible for the conditions of reality to be otherwise.


Much of the universe is probabilistic in nature, not chaotic. There is a very big difference between stochastic and random. If the who universe was based on entirely random "principles" then no order of any kind would ever be achieved.


It is arguments like this one which make inquiry into Bell's Theorem all the more interesting, and beg threads like the one I posted in which I posit just how limited "using logical proof of God's impossibility" really is.

There is a tea-kettle too small to see orbiting the sun. Prove it doesn't exist... But instead of a tea-kettle every rule of nature at a higher level is much akin to this imperceptible tea-kettle. We see the after-effects of rules, but are not privy to the rules themselves. We have to "reverse engineer" (so to speak) the rules based on their effects. This has lead to a kind of choke point at the quantum level because the complexity is so high and the degree of variability is so wide that we are unable to make statements with any kind of certainty. This does not mean that no principles exist (that is non-sense), but rather that we are not in a position to know them... just yet.

MTF

 

[ellenjanuary]

To be a prophet, one must first be insane; so...

Not long ago, we were monkeys with sticks; now we can spout quantum theory... I can be all scientific with the avoidance of extraneous variables... but how is it possible to disprove god of tomorrow, looking back?

 

[TheKnight]

Right - there's no reason to think our universe isn't this "axiomatic existence."

I suppose that's true.

For it to be an axiom I think it is. And what evidence is there to establish a 'reasonable' belief in him.

Well, the fact that the majority of people in history have believed in some form of deity suggests that there is some sort of higher power.

The fact that God promises (in the Tanakh) that the Jews will always exist (even though they go through circumstances that other cultures and peoples have vanished under) and the observation that they do still exist.


I think both of these together are more than enough to reasonably believe that God exists. It's not enough to know for sure, it's not enough to say that we're 100%, but it's enough to develop a level of confidence in His existence.

 

[logician]

I suppose that's true.



Well, the fact that the majority of people in history have believed in some form of deity suggests that there is some sort of higher power.

.

The "bandwagon" theory only proves one thing, that people are similiar, it doesn't prove any external idea or theory.

 

[freethinker44]

Well, the fact that the majority of people in history have believed in some form of deity suggests that there is some sort of higher power.

The majority of people in history also believed the earth was flat and everything in the solar system moved around us.

 

[Humanistheart]

I suppose that's true.



Well, the fact that the majority of people in history have believed in some form of deity suggests that there is some sort of higher power..

Other posters have already pointed out the flaw in this.

The fact that God promises (in the Tanakh) that the Jews will always exist (even though they go through circumstances that other cultures and peoples have vanished under) and the observation that they do still exist..

Where does it say this? Also, this is not evidence of a god.

I think both of these together are more than enough to reasonably believe that God exists. It's not enough to know for sure, it's not enough to say that we're 100%, but it's enough to develop a level of confidence in His existence.[/quote]

For you maybe, but not for the rest of us, certainly not enough to call it an axiom.

 

[Willamena]

The majority of people in history also believed the earth was flat and everything in the solar system moved around us.

Now you're just making it up.

 

[TheKnight]

The "bandwagon" theory only proves one thing, that people are similiar, it doesn't prove any external idea or theory.

The testimony of a human being is enough to convict a person in court. In my opinion, it is enough to establish reasonable belief (not proof of) in a deity. It is, perhaps, the most consistently and widely believed belief that mankind has ever experienced.

The majority of people in history also believed the earth was flat and everything in the solar system moved around us.

That's not correct. A certain amount of people did. But not 98% of our world. Not even close.

For you maybe, but not for the rest of us, certainly not enough to call it an axiom.

It's enough to establish reasonable belief. And considering how many decisions we make on a daily basis that are made with solely reasonable belief, that is all anyone should need.

After all, it's not like believing in a higher power is asking all that much from you. To fight so adamantly against the existence of something like that based on absolutely nothing, well that just seems foolish to me.

 

[dogsgod]

The testimony of a human being is enough to convict a person in court. In my opinion, it is enough to establish reasonable belief (not proof of) in a deity. It is, perhaps, the most consistently and widely believed belief that mankind has ever experienced.



That's not correct. A certain amount of people did. But not 98% of our world. Not even close.

It's enough to establish reasonable belief. And considering how many decisions we make on a daily basis that are made with solely reasonable belief, that is all anyone should need.

After all, it's not like believing in a higher power is asking all that much from you. To fight so adamantly against the existence of something like that based on absolutely nothing, well that just seems foolish to me.

My guess is 99.9% of people for most of civilization believed the world was flat. The tribesmen that wrote the following certainly believed the world was flat. Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Are you aware of how the church persecuted Galileo for suggesting the sun and the planets did not orbit about the earth?

 

[logician]

The testimony of a human being is enough to convict a person in court. In my opinion, it is enough to establish reasonable belief (not proof of) in a deity. It is, perhaps, the most consistently and widely believed belief that mankind has ever experienced.



That's not correct. A certain amount of people did. But not 98% of our world. Not even close.

It's enough to establish reasonable belief. And considering how many decisions we make on a daily basis that are made with solely reasonable belief, that is all anyone should need.

After all, it's not like believing in a higher power is asking all that much from you. To fight so adamantly against the existence of something like that based on absolutely nothing, well that just seems foolish to me.

The size or scale of the external belief has no bearing on the logic of the statement, again, the bandwagon theory only proves that people are similiar in their thought patterns.

 

[freethinker44]

The testimony of a human being is enough to convict a person in court. In my opinion, it is enough to establish reasonable belief (not proof of) in a deity. It is, perhaps, the most consistently and widely believed belief that mankind has ever experienced.

Actually the testimony of a human being is notoriously inaccurate. In law schools they even perform a stunt to show the students just how inaccurate it is by staging a mock robbery or something and then having all the students write a description of what happened and what the robber looked like. They don't differ just by small details, they get major details wrong too, some will swear he was wearing a hat and some say he wasn't and so on. Human testimony, even my own eyes and ears, will be the last thing that I will consider as grounds of evidence and will never be considered if it is the only evidence I have for something.

 

[freethinker44]

That's not correct. A certain amount of people did. But not 98% of our world. Not even close.

I said 98%? I don't remember saying 98%. But hey, you say I did and your testimony is reasonable proof so I guess I am stuck huh?

 

[Humanistheart]

Actually the testimony of a human being is notoriously inaccurate. In law schools they even perform a stunt to show the students just how inaccurate it is by staging a mock robbery or something and then having all the students write a description of what happened and what the robber looked like. They don't differ just by small details, they get major details wrong too, some will swear he was wearing a hat and some say he wasn't and so on. Human testimony, even my own eyes and ears, will be the last thing that I will consider as grounds of evidence and will never be considered if it is the only evidence I have for something.

Very true.

 

[Madhuri]

My guess is 99.9% of people for most of civilization believed the world was flat. The tribesmen that wrote the following certainly believed the world was flat. Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Are you aware of how the church persecuted Galileo for suggesting the sun and the planets did not orbit about the earth?

Who were the other .1%?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Who were the other .1%?

Those who were considered wrong.

 

[TheKnight]

My guess is 99.9% of people for most of civilization believed the world was flat. The tribesmen that wrote the following certainly believed the world was flat. Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Are you aware of how the church persecuted Galileo for suggesting the sun and the planets did not orbit about the earth?

Um....at what point in history was 99% of humanity believers in the Christian faith? When? Oh wait, never....

The size or scale of the external belief has no bearing on the logic of the statement, again, the bandwagon theory only proves that people are similiar in their thought patterns.

I agree. However, I think that the testimony of human beings (and such a large number) is more than enough to deduce that it is probable/reasonable to believe that a higher power to exists.

Actually the testimony of a human being is notoriously inaccurate. In law schools they even perform a stunt to show the students just how inaccurate it is by staging a mock robbery or something and then having all the students write a description of what happened and what the robber looked like. They don't differ just by small details, they get major details wrong too, some will swear he was wearing a hat and some say he wasn't and so on. Human testimony, even my own eyes and ears, will be the last thing that I will consider as grounds of evidence and will never be considered if it is the only evidence I have for something.

I agree. I don't consider it evidence. I consider it enough to establish reasonable belief in the veracity of the claim.

If 98% of the world believes something, then one must admit that the something believed in deserves at least some investigation. I think that investigating God's existence will lead one no where as there is no evidence for/against His existence. That leaves us with 98% saying He does and 2% saying He doesn't. If there's no proof either way, then the logical position would be to say that it's best not to decide. However, considering that religious belief isn't necessarily all that important in affecting everyday life permanently, it's not as necessary to take that position.

I said 98%? I don't remember saying 98%. But hey, you say I did and your testimony is reasonable proof so I guess I am stuck huh?

I didn't say you did. You said the majority and I said "Not 98%". That means I'm saying that your "majority" did not constitute (was smaller than) 98%. 2 out of 3 (I know that you didn't say 2 out of 3) is a majority. 98 out of 100 is a much larger majority.

 

[freethinker44]

If 98% of the world believes something, then one must admit that the something believed in deserves at least some investigation. I think that investigating God's existence will lead one no where as there is no evidence for/against His existence. That leaves us with 98% saying He does and 2% saying He doesn't. If there's no proof either way, then the logical position would be to say that it's best not to decide. However, considering that religious belief isn't necessarily all that important in affecting everyday life permanently, it's not as necessary to take that position.

I disagree, and there is a simple thought experiment to show why. Say that a concept is presented and two scribes copy two different versions of that concept. One of those concepts is true and the other is false. The scribe who copies the true concept, shows it to two people who swear silence and then quickly bury the scroll never to be found again. The scribe who copies the false concept doesn't show anyone but instead sends it off to be published and millions of people are taught a false concept as truth. So now only 3 people, the scribe and two he showed the scroll to, are the only people who know the truth and millions believe something that is wrong.

Any scholar of any ancient text will tell you that just because one scroll is more widely known or circulated doesn't mean it is the closest copy to the original. The example I gave is actually a true story because the king james version of the bible is full of errors that were added later by scribes copying a mistranslated or even purposely doctored manuscript of earlier versions of the bible.

 

[dogsgod]

Um....at what point in history was 99% of humanity believers in the Christian faith? When? Oh wait, never....

So what you're saying is that only Christians believed the world was flat.