No.
Does this board hide the first post from the person who posted it? I cannot see a first post other than “no”.
I’m interested, Diogenes, in what compells you to such certainty that something should either remain uncertain for all time, or that God necessarily exists.
God could only be disproved if “God” were precisely defined. A nebulous definition leaves a nearly infinite amount of wiggle room.
olanv,
The hamsters are chewing on your OP.
My topic starting post is below.
Apologies if this is the wrong forum for this post!
Do you think that it may be potentially possible to disprove God?
This question fascinates me with regards to how a theist would answer it, being as their arguments tend to fall back on the possibility for God to exist.
I’m assuming then, that “they” would suggest that it is completely, totally, utterly, for as long as existence is and all possibility of that existence, that it’s not even a remote possibility that such a thing as a disproof of God could ever emerge. This would work to the effect of securing the existence of God in their mind, even if the theist was ever totally convinced that God didn’t exist. A strange paradox.
I think it is possible that God is able to be disproven, I believe that this is still open for answer, and that the answer will be “yes” or “no”, and that this answer will be a fact in every sense of the word.
In general, you can’t prove a negative. Now, if god were properly defined, it’s quite possible that the definition would prove incoherent. But that’s the best your’e gonna get.
Thank you SimonX. I re-posted my “op”.
I suppose that’s true. But then I started thinking, “Ok, so you define God as a loaf of bread. Does that really mean that you’ve proven the existence of God?”. Strange.
Between your use of “properly” and SimonX’s use of “precisely”, I started thinking, “Is it possible to disprove something defined as being impossible to disprove?”. It seems to me that there should be a method of at least falsifying this claim, and thus the possibility to prove or disprove it.
Well, if you could show that it’s impossible for a loaf of bread to exist then, you could disprove God.
Generally, since God is assigned an infinite number of superlative qualities, (making for an infinitely nebulous definition 
) there’s no impossibility possible. Therefore, in such cases, there’s no way to “disprove God.”
First of all, welcome to the board.
Secondly, since you’re new here I should start by saying that I personally don’t believe in God or anything supernatural at all.
Disproving God, however, is impossible in any systematic manner since falsifying God would require some hypothesis or theory of “God” which could be subjected to an empirical test. There is no way to “test” for God, so there is no way to falsify it in a scientific sense.
Part of the problem. as SimonX pointed out, is that God is not very clearly defined to begin with.
To use one of the favorite SDMB analogies, can you prove that there is not an Invisible Pink Unicorn floating over your head? How would you prove it?
Asking if God can be disproven is the wrong question. the rel question is can the traditional concept of god be supported with empirical evidence. It cannot. The default presumption in science then, is that something is presumed not to exist until it can be proven to exist.
But non-existence can never be proven in an absolute sense without a testable theory.
I hope this doesn’t change the topic. In light of what you’ve all said, what would be some bare essential definitions to God?
I’ll try some and see if you agree or disagree. I want to see if I can disprove God.
1.)Creator of the earth and everything consisting in it and of it.
2.)Is an intelligent being.
3.)Exists.
That could just describe a colony of extra terrestrials though.
So I’ll add a couple more.
4.)Is not a colony of extra-terrestrials.
5.)Cannot be disproven.
That’s 5 criteria.
Who would disagree with these criteria? Why?
Word!
I am hoping for criteria that places against me a hopelessness for disproof. Something that both a theist and a logitician would aknowledge, “If this argument can be made convincingly, then I conceed my claim.”.
“5.) Cannot be disproven.”
I think that’s an excellent example of something that places tremendous burden on myself. If anyone can think of others, I’d appreciate adopting them into my definition of God. I will then see if I can disprove this compiled list of attributes.
6.) People disagree on many critical attributes of God, and all of these disagreements are correct interpretations of god, including the ones that directly contradict each other and ones that self refereentially disagree with this statement.
???
Any others?
I think you’ll have to wait for someone who believes in God to define it for you. I think we’re all non-theists in here right now.
7.) If this proof infact disproves God, then it is automatically, by definition of God, a proof of God. A statement that declares God’s existence as a positive is, by definition of God, proof of God.
God is defined as a being that is proven when disproven, and proven when asserted in any way. Even if all of Gods attributes are shown to be undeniably false (including existence), simply by the act of this disproof, one must accept that it, by definition is a proof for God, and must also accept steps 1-5 unconditionally.
Make it is difficult as the imagination can wander.
Any others? I wanna nail the coffin.
Diogenes,
Maybe you can devise a clever logical trap for me though! I imagine that non-theists will be better equipped for this task then theists. I’m sure I’m missing many.
8.) In a disproof of God, it is understood that
a.) God is not being referred to
b.) God cannot be referred to
c.) It cannot be implied that god is being referred to
per, the definition of God.
OK, just as an exercise…
God is invisible, immaterial, silent and utterly undetectable either to human senses or to any possible inference from scientific investigation.
Prove it doesn’t exist.
Well, theists have had two millennia to come up with explanations for pretty much anything we can think of. To echo what others have said, you need to get the theist to start with a definition. If the god is that who created the earth according to Genesis in 4004 BC, the god can be, of not disproven, made unlikely to a very large amount. If the definition is that superior being who floats in the sky watching over us, but not helping, and in general being indistinguishable from chance, you’re out of luck.
Theists, when cornered, retreat to faith anyway, so even if they admit there is neither proof nor evidence for their god, they still feel justified in believing.
So, the goal is to start off with all possible outs that a theist takes, and define God by all of those outs, and ONLY those outs, plus the positive claims they make about God. That way, the argument is not vulnerable to the “agreement of definition clause”, because all possible modes of defining are covered.