You can’t proof God does not exist

[Krok]

One of the really puzzling things to me is why theists think that arguments they use like “you can’t proof that God exists” and “You can’t proof God does not exist” works in their favour.

Logically this argument works against theists. My logic around this argument is like this:
I can give you a few examples of things you can’t proof to either exist or not exist. These things are objects like fairies, Russell’s Tea Pot, Zeus, Thor, etc. There’s no scientific method to test for them, although some people claim they exist. These are things that a very large percentage of people can dismiss with confidence as not existing, due to the fact that there’s absolutely no objective evidence for their existence and the very low plausibility of them existing. They all have one thing in common; you can’t proof their existence or non-existence.

Things you can test to confirm their existence are things like Australia, the Golden Gate Bridge, Canary Warf, etc. You can test for these things. You can either proof them to exist, or at least you can find very good objective evidence for their existence. If you can test for something and get positive results, the chances are excellent that they do exist.

The logical conclusion is that the existence of things you can't test for, and have no evidence for it, is implausible. They logical deduction is that these things only exist in the minds of believers and nowhere else.

What we call rational grounds for our beliefs are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts. –Huxley

Wasn’t he referring to the Christian apologetics?
Please discuss.

 

[PolyHedral]

Actually, there's a more important aspect to the argument to consider. It is true that you can't prove that God exists if and only if your conception of God doesn't make any prediction about the world. If you are making predictions, then those predictions can be incorrect. If the predictions are incorrect, then that God, as conceived, doesn't exist.

And a God that doesn't make predictions is just extraneous.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, there's a more important aspect to the argument to consider. It is true that you can't prove that God exists if and only if your conception of God doesn't make any prediction about the world. If you are making predictions, then those predictions can be incorrect. If the predictions are incorrect, then that God, as conceived, doesn't exist.

And a God that doesn't make predictions is just extraneous.

That's not logical. Your argument leaps from the possibility of predictions being incorrect to the actuality of it, but, in fact, as long as incorrect predictions are being actualized, the possibility of incorrect predictions still remains.

 

[Krok]

Actually, there's a more important aspect to the argument to consider. It is true that you can't prove that God exists if and only if your conception of God doesn't make any prediction about the world. If you are making predictions, then those predictions can be incorrect. If the predictions are incorrect, then that God, as conceived, doesn't exist.
And a God that doesn't make predictions is just extraneous.

That's true. That's also why it is so important for people to tell us which god they believe in, what variety of the religion and what you can expect the particular god to be doing or to be predicting. This can be tested. I also agree, if this is not done, the particular god is just extraneous and has no value at all. Might as well not exist.

 

[Krok]

That's not logical.

I disagree.

Your argument leaps from the possibility of predictions being incorrect to the actuality of it,.....

This has nothing to do with the possibility of predictions being incorrect. It has to do with predictions being incorrect when actualized.

.... but, in fact, as long as incorrect predictions are being actualized, the possibility of incorrect predictions still remains.

Incorrect predictions remain incorrect. The possibility of a prediction being incorrect and not being actualized always remains, but what’s the use of a prediction never being actualized? Might as well not exist.

 

[ChristineES]

We have to remember that being a theist doesn't mean "proving God" to ourselves or to anyone else. It is about faith. As to what faith is, there are a whole lot debates about that.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I disagree. This has nothing to do with the possibility of predictions being incorrect. It has to do with predictions being incorrect when actualized. Incorrect predictions remain incorrect. The possibility of a prediction being incorrect and not being actualized always remains, but what’s the use of a prediction never being actualized? Might as well not exist.

You're missing the part where God isn't really making the predictions. We are. And the truth is, we usually make bad predictions.

 

[PolyHedral]

The hypothesis "God exists and..." should involve a prediction about the world. If it doesn't, it's extraneous.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

The hypothesis "God exists and..." should involve a prediction about the world. If it doesn't, it's extraneous.

Of course. That's why I just say God exists. Then God can be God. Anything after that is me being me, or someone else being themselves.

 

[ellenjanuary]

It has been estimated that the rate of proton decay must be longer than the known age of the universe; but the question of proton decay is still being investigated.

God is.

A three letter word that stands for eternal, that which is beyond decay; present tense of the verb "to be" in all his anthropomorphic glory. So there! If one can show that protons decay; god remains the only thing eternal. If you can show that protons don't decay, how can you be certain that the proton is not the proof of god that you so desperately do not want to find? Oh, because you so desperately do not want to find it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Proving god's existence, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Sufficient explanation exists for the creation of, and belief in, such concepts.

 

[PolyHedral]

God is.

Grammar error: Missing subject.

 

[Krok]

We have to remember that being a theist doesn't mean "proving God" to ourselves or to anyone else. It is about faith.

The thread is about the bad argument "You can't prove that god does not exist". It is not about faith, it is about a very specific argument used all the time by theists.

As to what faith is, there are a whole lot debates about that.

Yes I know. Nobody will ever convince me that blind faith is a good thing!

 

[Krok]

You're missing the part where God isn't really making the predictions. We are. And the truth is, we usually make bad predictions.

Yes, it's because we don't claim to be omniscient. I, for one, don't claim to be inspired by any kind of ghost.

 

[Krok]

Of course. That's why I just say God exists. Then God can be God. Anything after that is me being me, or someone else being themselves.

Then you should inform your theist buddies that using the argument "you can't prove that god does not exist" is a very bad argument and works against them.

 

[Krok]

It has been estimated that the rate of proton decay must be longer than the known age of the universe; but the question of proton decay is still being investigated.

Where was this estimasted? Do protons decay?

God is.

Any objective evidence for this statement?

A three letter word that stands for eternal, that which is beyond decay; present tense of the verb "to be" in all his anthropomorphic glory. So there! I

Thats an assetion. Any evidence for it?

If one can show that protons decay; god remains the only thing eternal.

Do protons decay? What about all those other things like quarks, etc.? Do they decay? Dark-matter? Again just a statement about god. How are you sure that your god doesn't decay or whether he hasn't completely decayed already to non-existence?

If you can show that protons don't decay, how can you be certain that the proton is not the proof of god that you so desperately do not want to find? Oh, because you so desperately do not want to find it.

Oh, I would love to have a sky-daddy. You'll just have to provide better arguments than "god is" or "you can't prove that god does not exist" for me to get convinced. I prefer realism and the truth above wishful thinking.:angel2:

 

[Krok]

Proving god's existence, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Sufficient explanation exists for the creation of, and belief in, such concepts.

I've never seen one bit of evidence for the creation and believe in a god concept whatsoever. The fact still remains that the argument "you can't prove that god does not exist" works against theists and is an excellent argument in favour of atheism.:sorry1:

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Then you should inform your theist buddies that using the argument "you can't prove that god does not exist" is a very bad argument and works against them.

You think that I have some magic formula to make them understand?

I wish.

 

[ChristineES]

The thread is about the bad argument "You can't prove that god does not exist". It is not about faith, it is about a very specific argument used all the time by theists.
Yes I know. Nobody will ever convince me that blind faith is a good thing!

I know of very few theists who actually worry about proving God to anyone. You can't prove or disprove God, either argument is pointless. :angel2:

EDIT: I don't consider my faith to be blind.

 

[Looncall]

I know of very few theists who actually worry about proving God to anyone. You can't prove or disprove God, either argument is pointless. :angel2:

EDIT: I don't consider my faith to be blind.

If you don't have evidence to back up your faith, it is blind. What evidence do you have?