# On God, His/Her/Its Nonexistence, and Bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240 "2005-04-26T20:31:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/61 "2005-04-27T16:39:46Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What’s the problem with disproving something’s existence? Depending on how your word it, one thing’s nonexistence might be harder to prove than another. But then other things are trivially easy. For example, I can easily disprove the existence of a contradiction — _any_ contradiction. The dickens you say!!! Like my sister Joann is 5 ft 1 inch tall. or My sister Joann is 5 ft 11inches tall, or something like GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. or were you speaking of something else? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/62 "2005-04-27T16:52:59Z")
> [@Knowed Out](#): > > God exists on paper, just like any other fictional character. The difference is, he’s got a really rabid fan following. May I request that we qualify statements like this more correctly. Very often on SDMB someone will point out the worst of those who claim to believe in God and throw out a statement that seems to paint all believers with that brush. I’m sure you know that there is much diversity among believers. Many of us are not rabid. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/63 "2005-04-27T17:15:14Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Disproof of God: > > Let’s say humans make it - we get out into the Universe, spread across the Cosmos and survive till all the stars go out and beyond. We observe life spontaneously arising from non-life, observe and record evolution actually happening over billions of years, **create artificial conciousness in non-organic matter**. And in all that time, we find NOTHING that requires a God - everything ever observed or reported arises spontaneously from the laws of physics and the Initial State of the universe. Would that disprove God’s existence?. [bolding mine] well, that particular trick would, given the context of its creation along with other embellishments I’ll detail later, would go a long way toward disproving God. Let’s say we figure out how to make a realistic simulation inside a very powerful computer. Not only does it conform to all the laws of physics in this universe, the entities that interact within can easily pass the Turing Test and are for all purposes alive. Thus, we have essentially proven that it does not take a God-like power to create a universe, provided we have turtles all the way down. That’s about as close as you’re gonna get to proving the superfluidity og God. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/64 "2005-04-27T17:16:56Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > But that’s my point: scientifically, you don’t DISprove things. Rather, you start with a hypothesis, amass more and more evidence, and become more and more certain that a given thing exists. If the evidence is inconsistent with the claim, then it simply remains unproven. Hmmm? I thought the scientific method was come up with a hypothesis and then attempt to falsify it, or disprove it. The better the attempt at falsification and the better the hypothesis stands up despite the attack the more accurately it is assumed to model the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/65 "2005-04-27T17:39:40Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > The point under debate has actually been defined: “Did some superhuman intelligence/agency actively create the Universe?” We may have to define “superhuman”, but you could skip that word and the definition works anyway. > > This wouldn’t prove god’s existence, nor that some intelligence/agency actively created the Universe. That’s why I said demonstrate, not prove. In any case, it might be that the creation of the universe is strictly within the bounds of science. But the thread in general is about the existence or non-existence of god. Many Greek gods had no part in the creation of the universe, for instance. While a god doing all sorts of cool miracles might not prove his existence to everyone, it might be the most obvious explanation. Some theists blindly reject every disproof of Biblical events - atheists should not agree to play that game by saying that they would blindly ignore any evidence of god. I’m more of an atheist because there has been no such evidence. If there is, I’d reconsider. I’m not holding my breath though. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/66 "2005-04-27T17:46:42Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > No claim has been made. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/67 "2005-04-27T17:48:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, actually, that wouldn’t have happened. He did not offer a definition of God suitable for ontological examination. In fact, I’m not sure that it’s suitable for any sort of analytical examination. The OP didn’t - his was a mess. Someone else in the thread mentioned a proof however. As I said, the first problem in these discussions is that few people (you being the notable exception) ever actually try to define what they mean by god. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/68 "2005-04-27T18:00:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Then what exactly are you saying? What is the meaningful difference between your position and “it’s impossible to conclusively disprove something’s existence”, which is my position? Like I said, the disproof/proof of the negative depends on _exactly_ what your premises are (_ie._ the properties of the entities): IF Gorillas are easily visible. THEN There exists a/no gorilla in this room. … is an easy disproof/negative to prove. IF Gorillas are **in** visible. THEN There exists a gorilla in this room. … is an impossible disproof/negative to prove. IF Gorillas are easily visible. THEN There exists a/no gorilla on this planet. … is a _difficult_ disproof/negative to prove. Finding one single gorilla _falsifies_ the negative instantly. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/69 "2005-04-27T18:02:26Z")
> [@FordPrefect](#): > > Hmmm? I thought the scientific method was come up with a hypothesis and then attempt to falsify it, or disprove it. The better the attempt at falsification and the better the hypothesis stands up despite the attack the more accurately it is assumed to model the real world. I don’t know about that. If you’re using the scientific method, you use your hypothesis to make a prediction, then _confirm_ that the predicted result occurs. You’re not trying to _falsify_ it, you’re trying to _confirm_ it. But anyway, what I was trying to say is that you can never disprove it with 100% certainty. We all know that what might seem impossible today can very well be shown to be possible tomorrow, so the only rational course of action is to start with the assumption that we only know that for which there is evidence, pending further evidence, e.g. assume that the invisible dinosaur is NOT in my closet until I have some reason to believe so, rather than assuming that it is. I understand what you’re saying though; I probably didn’t word it as well as I could have. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/70 "2005-04-27T18:03:01Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > No, it doesn’t. Why would you say that? > > The OP does not seem like it belongs in GD, since there doesn’t appear to be any “debate” (neither in the post nor implied by the title), and this thread certainly is not “great”. At least, not yet. :rolleyes: > > And, I personally think that anyone who thinks the burden of proof is on either the theist or the atheist needs to take a step back and think again. It implies it only. ;j ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/71 "2005-04-27T18:03:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No I don’t think you can prove or disprove the existance of God. My concept of God has changed over the years as I have continuied studying and searched for understanding. I’ve let go of certain ideas about God and the nature of God. > I don’t accept the stories of the Bible as literal so I don’t wonder why God isn’t doing some tricks for **Voyager** It’s the common Christian explanation for why God isn’t evident - that if he were, it would destroy faith. Since they more or less believe in the Bible (and you don’t have to be a literalist to believe in the Exodus) this is a valid refutation of that argument. It obviously is not valid for non-sked theologies. Deists believe in a god who is not evident, so this isn’t a problem at all for them. That your concept of god has changed is understandable. What is less understandable is that the official definition of god has changed also. If any of these religious folks actually had a direct or indirect line to god, their perception over the ages should remain pretty stable. That it has not means that only one has had this connection (and who that is is unclear) or that none has, which is a lot more likely. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/72 "2005-04-27T18:03:53Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The dickens you say!!! > > Like my sister Joann is 5 ft 1 inch tall. > > or My sister Joann is 5 ft 11inches tall, > > or something like > GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. > GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. > > or were you speaking of something else? I have no idea what you’re asking me. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/73 "2005-04-27T18:08:44Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Like I said, the disproof/proof of the negative depends on _exactly_ what your premises are (_ie._ the properties of the entities): > > IF Gorillas are easily visible. > THEN There exists a/no gorilla in this room. > … is an easy disproof/negative to prove. > > IF Gorillas are **in** visible. > THEN There exists a gorilla in this room. > … is an impossible disproof/negative to prove. > > IF Gorillas are easily visible. > THEN There exists a/no gorilla on this planet. > … is a _difficult_ disproof/negative to prove. Finding one single gorilla _falsifies_ the negative instantly. And what you’re demonstrating is still that this planet has gorillas or is devoid of them. How do you go about disproving that gorillas exist at all? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/74 "2005-04-27T18:31:53Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > And what you’re demonstrating is still that this planet has gorillas or is devoid of them. How do you go about disproving that gorillas exist at all? I already gave you that. Assume that they do exist. Derive an inference that contradicts the premise. The premise is then false; i.e., they don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/75 "2005-04-27T18:34:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I already gave you that. Assume that they do exist. Derive an inference that contradicts the premise. The premise is then false; i.e., they don’t exist. Haven’t these people ever done a proof by contradiction? What the hell are they teaching kids today anyway? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/76 "2005-04-27T18:44:21Z")
It seems to me that proof by contradiction has emerged thus far as the best way to go about proving or disproving the existence of a creator of the universe. In other words: 1. Assume god exists (where god only means an intelligence that created the universe) 2. Show that this contradicts something which we know to be true, or even better, that it contradicts itself If we can do that, we’ll be all set. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/77 "2005-04-27T18:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > …my only claim is that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of god. If you disagree with this claim, I’m curious as to why. Your wrong here SR47. It is possible to prove or disprove God. You yourself dont beieve in God so someone or something must have proved to you that God doesnt exist. I believe in God so someone or something proved to me that he did exist. The question you should be asking is “Can someone convince me God exists”. Asking any other question is misleading and unfair. You already believe God doesnt exist, I assume you came to that conclusion by some method using “proof” of some kind. So really, what are you asking here? You want to be converted? Or do you need some sort of reassurance in your atheism? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/78 "2005-04-27T19:09:19Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > Your wrong here SR47. It is possible to prove or disprove God. You yourself dont beieve in God so someone or something must have proved to you that God doesnt exist. Incorrect. I don’t believe in god either, but that doesn’t mean someone has proved to me that he doesn’t exist. It merely means that I haven’t seen any evidence that he does. I cheerfully accept that he may; I just see no reason to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/79 "2005-04-27T19:14:44Z")
So you spontaneously decided that no God exists? No argument or theory convinced you of that? No annoying born again Christian hounded you so much that you just decided no God could be worth this? Not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe. To form an opinion, any opinion, you must have something to base it on. So somewhere, somehow, you heard/read something that led you to believe God doesn’t exist. And whatever you heard/read was proof enough for you. Therefore you have proof that God doesnt exist. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/80 "2005-04-27T19:23:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Haven’t these people ever done a proof by contradiction? What the hell are they teaching kids today anyway? :rolleyes: I wondered about that so much myself that I researched it for quite some time, and what I discovered was that all this crap — you can’t prove a negative, and so forth — originated on usenet. There are certain conditions under which you can’t prove something, but it has nothing to do with whether it’s positve or negative; it has to do with scope and modality. For example, you can’t prove that there are no invisible unicorns in the universe. But you also cannot prove that there are exactly five of them either. Positive, negative, no matter. The universe is too large to examine empirically. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240.md?page=5)