Can Someone prove to me that God doesn't exist?

Great Debates
41

offtopic

Well, after two weeks of terrorists and WTC threads, its nice to see the SDMB back to the same old same old.

/offtopic

The easiest way to understand this argument - substitute Santa Claus for God. You will immediately see that:

  1. Atheism is not a religion (after all non-belief in Santa is not a religion).

  2. As fans of the classic Miracle on 34th Street know, Santa cannot be disproven - but that doesn’t mean rational humans have to believe in him. Or that rational humans have to disbelieve in him.

  3. Defining Santa is part of the problem of the argument - define Santa as the spirit of Christmas and you’ll find a lot more Santa believers. Define Santa as the guy who sits in a chair at the mall and almost no one will deny he exists. Define him as a fat guy in a red suit who lives at the North Pole has flying reindeer, elves and delivers presents to children all over the world each Christmas and you’ll have a hard time finding adult believers.

42

are we talking about the normal old “omniscient” god of the christans?

I have to ask what possible reason would an all knowing all seeing being have for creating this universe when a few seconds of thought would be enough to play out the whole thing from begining to end. never haveing to go through any trouble at all with the acctual creation proccess anywhere but in his head.

god is omniscient. he knows the universe in a newtonian sense, hes not restricted to the randomness of quantum physics at all. he can predict the movement of the smallest particles in the whole place from start to finish.

free will doesnt come into play, its irrelevant if we have freewill. He would still be able to predict our every thought, dream, and the day to day paths of our lives.
proof? I guess its up to you but it works for me. I never figured any omniscient being would be illogical and the creation of the universe seems damn silly for someone who would have no need to do so.

43

Atheism, like religion is based on FAITH. The faith that there is no God.

44

So, you have faith that the third moon of Saturn isn’t made of green cheese, that there are no leprechuans living in your computer, that there is not an Invisible Pink Unicorn galloping around your front lawn, and that I do not have a four-sided triangle tattooed on my forehead?

45

Did you ask for proof when you decided to believe in God? And except his teachings? Or did you just think hey a billion or so people can’t be wrong?

Just because we do not believe in God does not mean that we are all experts on the big bang, evolution or physics, just as you are probably not an expert on the details on how someone comes back from the dead, walks on water or how his father creates a virgin birth, and made the world in 6 days…And Because hes God is not proof.
Plus wouldn’t you be happy there are more disbelievers it will be roomier in heaven and when christ has his second coming there will be less of a queue to get his autograph.

46

Vicar: Sigh, I’m so tired, I have to work so very hard
Parishioner: yes, it must be a soul-destroying job

47

Actually, I could be wrong, but I think you’ve all misunderstood the OP.

Cyrin isnt asking anyone to prove that there isn’t a God. This is a slightly different argument.

What he’s saying is that the position of Strong Atheist is a logically impossible position to hold. This is because you could only be a Strong Atheist if you’ve looked everywhere and not found God. But if you are a being that is capable of looking everywhere then you would yourself be a God. Therefore you could not be an Atheist.

A circular argument.

On the other hand, in order to hold the position of believer, you don’t have to look everywhere to find God. But even if you were capable of looking everywhere (and hence were yourself God) then this doesn’t destroy your position as a believer.

Therefore the only two logical positions we are able to hold are agnostic or believer. It is logically impossible to be an Atheist (a Strong Atheist, that is).

I think this is what he is saying but, as I say, I could be wrong.

48

Even so, presumably you wouldn’t have to look everywhere in the universe, just everywhere that matters; if there is a god confined to the black hole in the centre of the galaxy, for example, then you could quite easily be an atheist within the bounds of the solar system, just agnostic about regions outside of that. I suppose.

it all boils down (I think) to what MEBuckner implies;

not (believing X) [sym]¹[/sym] believing (not X)

or:

not (holding a banana) [sym]¹[/sym] holding a (not banana)

49

Nope, That’s pretty much it! Thanks xanakis!

50

The more I read the OP, the stupider it gets.

I hate to resort to old, tired tricks, but replace the word “God” with “Santa” or “leprechauns” to understand just exactly how silly it is. Cyrin, have you looked everywhere for Santa? Then how can you tell me he doesn’t exist?

Furthermore, I refuse to entertain the notion that believing in the objective existence of something for which the only evidence is internal experience, and that cannot be seen, touched, or in any reasonably objective way measured is somehow more intellectually respectable than not believing in same.

I am as confident that there is not a God as Polycarp, for example, is that there is one. One of us, clearly, is wrong. I bet it’s him, and he bets it’s me. If I’m right, he’ll never know, because he’ll simply die and cease to exist. If he’s right, I’ll know it when I die.

51

This is, of course, nonsense. By this reasoning, the only logical position to hold is agnostic. You are distinguishing “agnostic” from “believer” with the criterion that a believer knows there is a God.

Horseshit. If the condition for “knowing” there is no God, as outlined in the OP, is going to be so stringent as to require that the knower have looked everywhere and be able to prove God does not exist, then it only makes sense that the condition for “knowing” there is a God be stringent enough to require the knower to have evidence presentable to anyone.

52

Well frankly I don’t remember ever saying that God, Santa or Leprechauns DID exist! The fact that I happen to believe in God has absolutely nothing to do with the question I posed in my OP.

Entertain the notion that I am an Agnostic (if only for the purposes of this post) then maybe we can finally discuss the question posed by my OP, as opposed to challenging me to prove the existence of something I’m not even sure exists.

53

Christians have been presenting evidence, or “kinds of evidence” to everyone since the coming of Christ.

It’s up to you to make a decision whether to believe the evidence or not, obviously you don’t so you can go back to being unsure about the existence of God, personally I am going to continue to believe. When you have searched EVERYWHERE and found there to be no God, come on back, present your findings and we’ll talk. Heck by the time you do that, (assuming Christ hasn’t returned by then) I’ll probably be ready to change my mind… well actually I’ll probably be dead… details, details.

54

My question to this is, “Why does Cyrin need proof?”

He’s a good friend and I know he is a believer, so therefore proof is not needed. Unless, of course, he has doubts about his own faith or he believes that an Atheist not being able to disprove God’s existence somehow discredits the Atheist’s belief or strengthens his own.

But as for the OP, as an Atheist, I can not prove one way or the other that God does or does not exist. Nor do I feel a need or care to. (If someone wants to believe and spend their life searching for God, all power to them.)

I don’t believe he exists, and I get on with my life without pondering his existence.

55

The essential question a believer must address is this; what influence does a personal belief have on the regulation of an impartial universe?
And whence one understands a personal, or shared, belief has no influence then one may address the world from a different perspective, far less skewed by the natural desires of propagation and equanimity.

To assert a human belief/idea assumes a presence beyond human interaction is absurd.

Think about it this way; we all experience gravity. Gravity is not a human idea. We have a word describing a condition, but we have not supposed a force and sought to reconcile it according to a further humanistic ideal like good or evil. Now, an idea like God must be reconciled accordingly. Hence we can establish a clear disparity between human desire and universal conditions.

Scientific endeavor is not attached to notions of good or evil, of right or wrong, it is simply an observation.

God, however, has attachments and is never impartial.

56

Well I would disagree (anyone see that coming?)
I look upon science as a means of understanding. As human beings, here on a planet with a whole bunch of animals, plants, and, in essence, an inexplicable existence, we have since the beginning of time, yearned for an explanation for it all. So we came up with the idea of science and research and exploration. All of these are great things when they attempt to explain things which can be explained.

However when we look at the mind boggling questions. Such as, “How did we get here?” and “Why are we here”, science can only attempt to infer a response for one of those questions, the how. It cannot infer anything on the why and nor does it attempt to. A belief in a creator, a greater being in every sense, a non-liner (therefore truly incomprehensible) God, who created all of this for reasons we cannot possibly understand makes much more sense. We, as humans, looking to our own understanding for some sort of truth, makes no sense. The only truth that science can present is an inference based in human understanding. If the human mind is incapable of understanding the “real” truth because we are linear and in this world, unable to see the “whole picture” then a lot of things will not make sense. Such as “why do bad things happen?” or “why are we here?”. To say that there is a greater power, who created us, and is controlling the world, is a much more intelligent belief than to look to other humans, in the same boat as us, who try and explain their own existence.

If I created a lesser form of life in a science lab, and then, somehow, couldn’t remember how I did it, I certainly wouldn’t ask the being I created to explain it, how could they possibly be expected to understand?

57

Science tries to answer “How did we get here?” but isn’t really interested in “Why are we here”.

That’s why we have theologians and philosophers.

58

Ya, I said that, but I really didn’t make it clear.

As humans, we need the answer to how and why (or at least I do) God answers both those questions. Science only attempts to answer one of them.

59

Ever seen The Princess Bride? Okay, so that word was inconceivable, but incomprehensible works just as well. Just ask Inigo. Let me get this straight:
science: “why” (in the metaphysical sense) is not a question that science can explicate.
religion: “why” (in the metaphysical sense) is not a question that human beings can explicate.
Cyrin: Religion’s answer makes much more sense than science’s answer.
Spiritus Mundi: Hmmmmm, maybe we better add “sense” to that list of words for Inigo.

This didn’t make me laugh

More intelligent? You stamp your ignorance with a label, define it as incomprehensible, and declare that it is a more intelligent answer than saying, “we don’t have the tools to answer that question”.

This probably should make me laugh, but I’m afraid it just feeds my bitter cynicism. I might have to go back and reread Polycarp’s post just to restore equilibrium.

60

I think we have to distinguish between fact, conclusion, certitude, belief, faith, and opinion to get anywhere here.

First, any datum is immediately available to anyone willing to take the time to obtain it. This constitutes it as a fact.

From an assortment of data one may establish a conclusion. If this is done with perfect logic, then that conclusion becomes a fact – but it is subject to thorough logical analysis.

In the absence of thoroughgoing data adequate to form a logically sound conclusion, one may infer from the majority of the data an opinion. Such an opinion may be strongly held, but is subject to change (by a rational person, at least) when additional data becomes available that either proves or refutes its premise.

Belief is similar to opinion but distinguishable by three characteristics: (1) It generally comprises opinions on topics generally regarded as supernatural in nature; (2) It usually deals in matters that are not at present subject to logical proof; and (3) It generally constitutes matters on which strong convictions and their results in behavior choices are held.

Certitude is the valid or invalid sense of knowledge that something is indeed factual. Facts and beliefs are held with certitude by most individuals, except true agnostics, who staunchly restrain themselves from any beliefs whatsoever.

Faith is one’s certitude of the goodwill of another and the consequent commitment to that other. I have faith in pldennison: I am certain he would come to my assistance if I was in need of something he could provide without an extreme sacrifice (and suspect he might come through even at personal cost); I know I can count on the factuality of matters he posts as fact; and I know I can count on his respect of my opinions, even when we disagree.

I have faith in God because I have personally known a supernatural entity that purported itself to be Him and am convinced of His goodwill. This is my belief, in which I have certitude.

However, I consider it to be entirely reasonable for another to have inadequate grounds for such a faith, and to therefore be lacking in such a belief, on the grounds that he or she has no or insufficient evidence to construct such a belief.

Pragmatic atheism is in fact an opinion. It results from the reasoning by the PA that there is not sufficient evidence to form a belief in any god, and that one may therefore make the presumption that such a god does not exist. Virtually everyone holds the conclusion that there is no such deity as Xiuntlaco, the interpretation of Quetzalcoatl proposed by a Mayan heretic in 1344 AD and abandoned by the few he had convinced of it after he was killed by a jaguar the following year, contrary to his own prediction of his death, and failed to return to life as he had said he would.

Can one describe pragmatic atheism as a belief? I would say so, in that it forms an opinion, held with some certitude, on assertions regarding the supernatural on which no logical certitude is possible.

It is not a faith, for the same reason that Wildest Bill’s view that Buddha will not free him from reincarnation if he follows the Eightfold Path and achieves Enlightenment is not a faith. Quite simply, Bill is a variety of Christian who rejects all of the Buddhist view as poppycock, Englightenment, reincarnation, karma, and the whole schmear inclusive. There is no adherence to the goodwill of another involved. His view that Jesus died on the cross, and that His atonement will suffice to save him, no matter how off the wall his opinions may be or how poorly he practices the Fruits of the Spirit, is in fact a faith: Bill is betting his existence on the goodwill and power of the Risen Christ.

So am I. The one point on which he and I differ is how one is supposed to respond to others in consequence of this belief.

Can one achieve any logical conclusions working strictly from facts regarding matters of belief? I think virtually all, believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, would assert one cannot. The best one can do is strongly supported opinions – and these will vary according to the weight one places on various data, and what data are available. (Which is why pld and I, holding diametrically opposed views on this truly crucial subject (pun intentional), can nonetheless see eye to eye on how one deals with it.)

I would note that in 1940 Robert A. Heinlein based a novel, Beyond This Horizon, on the premise that a thorough investigation by scientific means could lead to conclusions that are logically supported and validate or refute propositions of metaphysics and theology. This has always to me seemed most worthy of follow-up, but the only persons to have done it have not been sufficiently rigorous, with obviously bizarre results.