The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[cottage]

Romance, consciousness, and atheism: all proofs for the existence of God, supposedly!

All these weak and unconvincing arguments do not amount to a single compelling proof. By setting the bar of proof at such a low level the theist is simply stating the terms under which his argument is proved to his own satisfaction. And this raises questions. First of all did the believer come to his own faith through being convinced by such arguments? If he did then little more needs to be said. And if he didn’t then why should it ever be imagined that unbelievers will find them compelling?

Numerous lesser arguments do not amount to a single indubitable one: they simply invite and highlight the erroneous argumentation, which damages the case the advocate was hoping to make. We see that each argument is presented as 'another proof’ of God’s existence, which means previous ones were not on their own sufficient, which is to say they were not able to singularly stand as the Proof.

And yet the matter ought to be settled easily, for if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God then all others are at once made unnecessary and irrelevant. Is there one? If there is let us hear it.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

You just opened up a whole can of worms man. So many people are going to be bashin you soon. I have one question though. Do you have an ultimate proof of why god doesn't exist? I understand the burden of proof is on the believer, but I would like to hear your reasoning please.

Oh and just a note; I do not believe in god. I just want to hear someone elses reasoning.

 

[Humanistheart]

Romance, consciousness, and atheism: all proofs for the existence of God, supposedly!

All these weak and unconvincing arguments do not amount to a single compelling proof. By setting the bar of proof at such a low level the theist is simply stating the terms under which his argument is proved to his own satisfaction. And this raises questions. First of all did the believer come to his own faith through being convinced by such arguments? If he did then little more needs to be said. And if he didn’t then why should it ever be imagined that unbelievers will find them compelling?

Numerous lesser arguments do not amount to a single indubitable one: they simply invite and highlight the erroneous argumentation, which damages the case the advocate was hoping to make. We see that each argument is presented as 'another proof’ of God’s existence, which means previous ones were not on their own sufficient, which is to say they were not able to singularly stand as the Proof.

And yet the matter ought to be settled easily, for if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God then all others are at once made unnecessary and irrelevant. Is there one? If there is let us hear it.

There is no evidence for a god or gods, and there is compelling evidence against all theistic religions. You're right there should be no debate, but some people aren't capable of thinking for themselves so they believe what they're told. We all know there are no gods, that's the end of it.

 

[cottage]

You just opened up a whole can of worms man. So many people are going to be bashin you soon.I have one question though. Do you have an ultimate proof of why god doesn't exist? I understand the burden of proof is on the believer, but I would like to hear your reasoning please.

Oh and just a note; I do not believe in god. I just want to hear someone elses reasoning.

Well, first of all have a look at those threads that I've identified and then come to your own conclusions. Secondly, to demand proof of a thing's existence is nonsensical. Quite how it is supposed that one might find evidence for a thing's non-existence when the advocates are unable to prove the thing's existence to themselves serves only to demonstrate the absurdity. And let's say, for example, that someone says there is only Yahweh, the one true God. It is then incumbent upon them to prove the non-existence of all other gods. So the advocates shoot themselves in the foot. It's one absurdity upon the other.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Well, first of all have a look at those threads that I've identified and then come to your own conclusions. Secondly, to demand proof of a thing's existence is nonsensical. Quite how it is supposed that one might find evidence for a thing's non-existence when the advocates are unable to prove the thing's existence to themselves serves only to demonstrate the absurdity. And let's say, for example, that someone says there is only Yahweh, the one true God. It is then incumbent upon them to prove the non-existence of all other gods. So the advocates shoot themselves in the foot. It's one absurdity upon the other.

That wasn't really an answer to my question, but ok. Let me rephrase my question. What are your personal reasons for not believing in God?

 

[K.Venugopal]

Romance, consciousness, and atheism: all proofs for the existence of God, supposedly!

All these weak and unconvincing arguments do not amount to a single compelling proof. By setting the bar of proof at such a low level the theist is simply stating the terms under which his argument is proved to his own satisfaction. And this raises questions. First of all did the believer come to his own faith through being convinced by such arguments? If he did then little more needs to be said. And if he didn’t then why should it ever be imagined that unbelievers will find them compelling?

Numerous lesser arguments do not amount to a single indubitable one: they simply invite and highlight the erroneous argumentation, which damages the case the advocate was hoping to make. We see that each argument is presented as 'another proof’ of God’s existence, which means previous ones were not on their own sufficient, which is to say they were not able to singularly stand as the Proof.

And yet the matter ought to be settled easily, for if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God then all others are at once made unnecessary and irrelevant. Is there one? If there is let us hear it.

It woud be useful if you define 'God' so that we know what we are proving or disproving.

 

[dorsk188]

opcorn:I'm eager to see how people are going to respond to this.

First of all did the believer come to his own faith through being convinced by such arguments? If he did then little more needs to be said. And if he didn’t then why should it ever be imagined that unbelievers will find them compelling?

Apologetics is like Airport Security. It's not really effective, but it makes people on the plane feel safer.

This is why I'm such a fan of Matt Dillahunty's opening line to callers. "What do you believe and why?" It's a great way to begin a conversation.

 

[cottage]

That wasn't really an answer to my question, but ok. Let me rephrase my question. What are your personal reasons for not believing in God?

What I disbelieve are the poor arguments that I referred to, which was my reason for starting this thread. I do not hold to any dogma, and if it is demonstrated that God, a supernatural personal being, exists beyond all possible doubt, then I am obliged to acknowledge that truth.

 

[cottage]

It woud be useful if you define 'God' so that we know what we are proving or disproving.

Generally the mono-theistic variety, as described by the three main religions.

or

Any other 'God' for which attributes beyond the term 'creator' are claimed.

or

Any other supernatural, personal 'God' not covered by either of the above.

I think that about covers it.

 

[Adso]

There is no evidence for a god or gods

...I'm assuming you mean scientific evidence, but by this standard one could say there is no scientific evidence that God does not exist. This places the conclusions of the theist and the atheist on the same level of rationality. Without any scientific evidence, the matter is simply an emotional argument between the two. In the realm of scientific evidence, the only rational approach is that of, "I just don't know for sure."

{...} and there is compelling evidence against all theistic religions.

Against what exactly? It's origins? It's creeds? This seems like a rather messy statement...

You're right there should be no debate, but some people aren't capable of thinking for themselves so they believe what they're told.

Everyone, or just theists?

We all know there are no gods, that's the end of it.

Oh good, I'm glad somebody finally figured out all the answers. 'Bout time too.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

What I disbelieve are the poor arguments that I referred to, which was my reason for starting this thread. I do not hold to any dogma, and if it is demonstrated that God, a supernatural personal being, exists beyond all possible doubt, then I am obliged to acknowledge that truth.

The thing about a 'proof' is you are introducing an system: Logic. This system is, supposedly, very difficult to use in an arguement about God, as has been demonstrated ad nauseum even just on this forum. It seems to be very difficult trying to get fundementalists to recognise the occurance of basic processes like evolution that CAN be logically validated, so the chances of convincing them that God does not exist, a matter which seemingly has no affirmative proof, is going to be nearly impossible.

Somehow, after all the time that this subject has been debated, I find it very difficult to imagine that a proof is obtainable. Which gives me an idea for another thread... Hm...

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

Generally the mono-theistic variety, as described by the three main religions.

Which 3?

 

[dorsk188]

...I'm assuming you mean scientific evidence, but by this standard one could say there is no scientific evidence that God does not exist. This places the conclusions of the theist and the atheist on the same level of rationality.

There is also logical evidence. It's been my experience that, when religious people actually define their god, they often create logical contradictions.

And at the end of the day, Occam's Razor (not creating unnecessary variables) is the most logical position.

 

[MSizer]

You just opened up a whole can of worms man. So many people are going to be bashin you soon.I have one question though. Do you have an ultimate proof of why god doesn't exist? I understand the burden of proof is on the believer, but I would like to hear your reasoning please.

Oh and just a note; I do not believe in god. I just want to hear someone elses reasoning.

I can say that god is not %100 disprovable, but there seems to be no evidence to suggest that god exists, therefore it is not rational to believe that god exists, despite the unprovability.

 

[Willamena]

There is also logical evidence. . .

And at the end of the day, Occam's Razor (not creating unnecessary variables) is the most logical position.

But that isn't actually a logical position, just an aesthetic one.

 

[sandandfoam]

And at the end of the day, Occam's Razor (not creating unnecessary variables) is the most logical position.

I think Occam's razor the most human of tools. What is simpler in the eyes of man....
Parsimony says more about the observer than the observed.

 

[sandandfoam]

I can say that god is not %100 disprovable, but there seems to be no evidence to suggest that god exists, therefore it is not rational to believe that god exists, despite the unprovability.

I'm sure I've argued the toss with you about rationality before
Your view works for you. Great, that's no reason to apply it to another.
Rationality is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[MSizer]

one could say there is no scientific evidence that God does not exist. This places the conclusions of the theist and the atheist on the same level of rationality.

No it does not. If I told you I have a diamond in my basement the size of a tractor trailer, but that I couldn't let you into my house, would you believe me? If you can't get into my house, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but the fact that it is extremely improbable, and that I can provide no evidence for it, means that by far the most rational thing for you to conclude is that there is no such diamond in my basement. The fact that you can't disprove it doesn't make it rational to believe my claim. The fact that I can't prove and that I can produce no evidence means that it is rational for you to disbelieve me. God is a tractor trailer sized diamond in your neighbor's basement my friend.

 

[sandandfoam]

And yet the matter ought to be settled easily, for if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God then all others are at once made unnecessary and irrelevant. Is there one? If there is let us hear it.

The matter is settled easily.
The proof is yours to judge. Either way no one can objectively evaluate your judgment.

 

[dorsk188]

But that isn't actually a logical position, just an aesthetic one.

I see your point, but can you think of any situation when adding unnecessary variables is logical? Wouldn't that aesthetic ideal (of lack of clutter) be less likely to cause confusion, and thus be logical?

I think Occam's razor the most human of tools. What is simpler in the eyes of man....
Parsimony says more about the observer than the observed.

I'm with Einstein on this. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

If you want to think that fairies make the garden grow, then feel free. Just admit that it's not actually necessary and has no real effect on reality.