There really is no need to disprove God. This particular one (the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad) will simply be forgotted someday like the thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of others throughout history that are no longer worshipped.
No one needed to disprove Odin, and nobody is trying to get public schools to teach the theory that the world was created by the sons of Bor from Ymir’s dead body in the middle of Ginnungagap. I hope.
Wha’?
no, the laws of math do indeed require a universe, they do not exist independently of it. at its heart, even math is empirical. for example, there is no mathematical definition of what “x is true” actually means, that is data gathered from the universe. at its core, math makes assumptions and works with things that must be taken as granted. they are taken as granted because of empirical observation.
also, the universe is defined as “all that is”. so unfortunately, there is nothing more.
One doesn’t. You do. You can declare God to be anything your heart desires, and none of us are going to be any the wiser for it including you. I don’t know why some religious people think this is there Ace in the Hole by saying you can‘t prove He does not exist. Often, proving A exists, and proving A does not exist are not equal in what they demand. One good reason scientists often say they don’t prove negatives on existence claims on a large scale such as this, is the very likelihood they don’t exist in the first place. After all, how do you gather evidence on something that in all likelihood doesn’t exist? Negatives can be proved all the time when two things are met: it has a descriptive term, and one limits the domain of the search. This is not the case here. You don’t give us anything to work with. Everything you offered up are metaphysical concepts. I could talk about souls, ghosts, spirits, IPU until the cows come home, and still no one couldn’t prove they didn’t exist either. Give God some descriptive terms and have some falsifiability built into it; then, let’s see how far you go with it.
JZ
I second the above 
Revkim, you seem to overlook the fact that the discussion doesn’t even turn around “the God of Abraham etc…”
But around the “concept God”
as in
“supernatural being/not being, influencing-and/or creating life and being on earth and the universe”.
A concetp that seems to have existed in one form or the other for as long as one can trace the history of humanity upto now.
Salaam. A
John Z
The discussion is about the question if it is possible to proof that God can’t exist.
Next there was posted that by necessity one should have a “definition” of “God” before one could fight such definiton in order to gather proof for the non-existence.
Thus I provided for a definition and next clarified a bit its meaning.
It is not my task to provide for the proof of the non existing of God, but the task of those who ask if it is possible to prove that, no?
But you seem to say that I want to prevent this to show up here. I don’t. I’m waiting for it to come
Salaam. A
IIRC, any definition containing a contradiction is false, and I haven’t come across any definition of God (sufficiently God-like) that doesn’t have some contradiction. This is in part why I don’t believe in God, at least how some define it.
So, for me, there is no need to disprove it; the definition of God (as I’ve heard it) is false as-is.
Of course, this doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist; it may just mean that we haven’t found the right definition for it yet.
Tony, It would be interesting to hear what contradiction you see in what I posted to provide for some definition of God.
Salaam. A
Number one has some interesting implications. An absolute creator of everything effectively means the only creator of anything. This means, that if you believe you create anything, you must define yourself as your own God. If you do not define yourself as your own God, then problems emerge with regards to the perception of will or the purpose for engaging in any action under the auspices of such a perception of will (such as following a commandment of God – which would be redundant to the extreme).
“The ability for something to be discerned” is shorthand for “otherness exists”.
This does not suggest whether or not it HAS been discerned, or will ever be discerned, only that it is able to be discerned.
The point here is that our hypothesis of a being who by definition is supposed to elude us in every way either calls into question this beings ability to elude us in every way or it calls into question the power for this being to reveal themselves to us.
In the instance that the being can reveal itself to us, the definition is a contingent definition.
In the instance that the being truly does have every property that can elude us, and never reveals itself to us, the only hypothetical rescue for this beings existence is to assume that this hypothesis of its existence in the meme pool of human minds must have come from absolutely nothing at all. Since this being is said to exist, and absolutely nothing at all, by definition does not exist, then it follows that we are recieving something from a “source” other than this immaterial being. Since this source, by definition, has nothing to effect or affect, even an immaterial being cannot “control” the emergence of something from nothing.
Since the emergence of something from nothing has no predictive power, this being can be proven to not be able to control the necessity of it’s immateriality with regards to what defines a property of it’s being in existence.
What this does, is make the property of immateriality a contingent property to this beings definition. Something that effectively refutes the definition.
olanv
Since God is uncreated = not even created by Himself because already always there , there is in my view no need for God to define anything about or considering God. And why should or would God have any perception of “will”.
The problem is that since we are limited in our description, we define God with human perception, thus including words like “absolute” and all the rest of it.
While God has no language and no emotions and no “will” since God is God, which is something completely incomrehensible for our minds.
Salaam. A
11.) Using the concept of fraud to refute God, by definition of God, always proves God. A refutation of God cannot discuss the concept of fraud in any form, such a concept is necessary ommitted from any topic of refutation, per the definition of God.
12.) The concept of deception can only be used insomuch as it does not refute God.
Is there anyone here who conceivably objects, that if these twelve properties of God are refuted as stated, that god is effectively refuted? If not, can you submit your own step for refutation?
Uncreated = property
Exists = Property
Creator = property
Creator is anthropomorphic and connotates perception of existence. Do you mean that God is existence, as opposed to created existence?
Regardless, my reply to you dealt with the issue of ones perception of god who doesn’t believe that they are God.
I wasn’t relating this argument specifically to Gods perception of self. You can check my reply to your propeties again.
Which god are we talking about? The Judeo-Christian God? I have heard this god disproved in the following way:
The J.C. God has the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.
If God is omniscient, He knows if evil exists.
If God is omnipotent, He can remove evil from existence.
If God is benevolent, He cannot allow evil to exist.
Evil exists; therefore God does not.
God probably could make 2+2=5 true, but in this universe, it simply is not. Aquinas also mentioned that one should not fault God or anyone for not being able to produce something with contradictory qualities, such as a round square.
I still don’t remember who did this “evil in the world” proof, but it assumes things about God that may or may not be true. Primarily that God would attempt to remove everything that everyone would consider ‘suckage’ or ‘evil’. Of course then TGU or DtC is gonna call me on the “mysterious ways” stuff, but I have no problem with that.
Kinda like kids and shots, kids get hurt by shots, and hate 'em. You might try to explain that while shots hurt, they are ultimately beneficial. If the kid doesn’t understand, then it seems like you’re inflicting harm upon him for no reason.
That’s how a reductio proof works, simply assume that something is true, and then derive a contradiction. If you can do that, then the assumed positive is false. But like you said, it all depends on the definition of God. Kinda reminds me of the Hitchiker’s Guide.
dakravel:
Is God benevolent or is He not? If He is benevolent, he cannot allow evil by the definition of benevolence.
But parents are not omnipotent. If I had the power to make shots painless, yet chose to inflict pain on my child, it would indeed be “for no reason.” Besides which, your analogy assumes that the evil is necessitated by a greater good. What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?
Diogenes the Cynic: Can you give an example of something that can be disproved?
Yes, but people presumably have the power to not reproduce. There is no law that says you have to reproduce. You’re supposing these hypotheticals as if reproduction is a must and a given. You know that by reproducing, your child will recieve a painful shot. Yet you call this a benefit? Surely not for the child. You are also aware that the child will most likely die. Yet, you would probably state that you would prevent death if you could. But again, you begin twisting an entire morality around some vague idea that reproduction is a given and a must. That simply isn’t the case.
All right. You say he is the creator of all, which necessarily includes himself, yet he is also un-created. So, this is a false property (and you’ll need to redefine).
(This is a tad semantical.)
In a sense, however, this also implies that certain qualities - e.g. omnipotence - cannot hold. I mean, he created almost everything, which means he’s not quite unlimited (i.e. all-powerful). He is also not powerful enough or simply unwilling to create another God, per your definition. So, it could be said that there are certain things beyond even God, I suppose.
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that we may be unable to explain Godly attributes in our un-Godly, human expressions. It may be, as the lyric goes, like trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. If this is the case, then this entire effort is moot.
Including kitchen utensils? Does that make you a frying pantheist?
This joke brought to you by Grant Naylor.