Where is the evidence against God? Do you have it?
Posted on: September 7, 2007 - 1:11am
Offline
Where is the evidence against God? Do you have it?
I am a person who believes in God. I believe that God created the universe/world/etc. Regardless of the religious belief that I believe in, my question is can you prove that God does not exist? I mean, no matter what I say as to the evidence of the existence of God it really boils down to faith on both sides of the issue. However, on the other hand, can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist? Forget religious intolerance/human issues/or whatever - (during the course of the earth's history), prove to me that there is no God and I'll convert. The problem is, you can't. Or, can you? Please, no insults. I just asked a question. We can debate faith later. Let's start with the basics. Thanks.
- Login to post comments
Which God?
Please define God coherently with no contradictions as compared to our natural world. For example God can't be omnipresent and all loving, because if he is, hate couldn't exist for all of the Universe would be comprised of love. Since hate exists we know a God that would exist could never be defined as both all loving and omnipresent. I hope I've helped clear up the sort of definition of God I'm looking for, however if you do present a definition that has a contradiction, I will show you that contradiction and it will be the only proof I will offer (or feel the need to offer) to prove that particular God could never exist.
Welcome to the board.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I don't care if you convert or not. You won't. Your challenge is a farce, as evidenced in your demands. What kind of logic dictates the exclusionary proof against a proposition for it to be safely assumed false? Can you prove to me you didn't take my newspaper? Even if you're in another state, I can choose not to accept your circumstantial evidence. Better yet, there had to have been some murders yesterday. Prove to me you didn't commit any of them. It's ridiculous. Just as it's easy for me to let go of the idea that you're a mass murderer based on my idle speculation of such, it's simple to assume a religious proposition for which there is no evidence has none because it's just a literary invention. You probably have the same attitude toward all the other religions of the world.
Show me why you believe in a God. Any at all.
First of all by asking for disproof of God you are commiting a major fallacy. I have shown that here:
Secondly, it is possible to create inductive arguments against God. I have shown that here (this is a lot of reading, by the way)
All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt
A Clarification Regarding My Position Relative to theological noncognitivism
Although the second link, by its title, appears to be a refutation of an argument for Gods existence, within it is contained an argument against God.
These three articles raise serious questions about the plausability of God. I hope you enjoy.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I am a person who believes that there is a valid argument against God. I believe that there is a valid argument showing that God did not create the universe/world/etc. Regardless of the lack of religious belief that I believe in, my question is can you prove that that a valid argument against God does not exist? I mean, no matter what I say as to the evidence of the existence of an argument against God, it really boils down to faith vs. reason on the sides of the issue. However, on the other hand, can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that a valid argument against God doesn't exist? Forget religious tolerance/human issues/or whatever - (during the course of the earth's history), prove to me that there is no valid argument against God and I'll convert. The problem is, you can't. Or, can you? Please, no insults. I just asked a question. We can debate faith vs. reason later. Let's start with the basics. Thanks.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
It's a good answer, Brian, though it doesn't, actually, preclude the existence of and all-loving and omnipresent God. This dualistic comprehension of hate is not the lemma that we often assume it is in our everyday thoughts, it is not self evident that hate, a human emotion, a colour of human psychology, is any more plainly distinct from Love than mass from energy.
In my "religion" if you can call it that, which I wouldn't normally as it's more a philosophy but it involves a deity concept so I guess it is convenient to the structure of this forum, there is a central tenet which states "all is love seeking itself", and I give myopinion here, a thoughtful contemplation of hate itself will lead to confirming this and hence the plausibility of an all-loving omnipresence in the universe.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
What would you accept as proof that god does not exist?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
This isn't going to work, this type doesn't understand proof at all. We almost need to just set up a hotline with a recording to answer this one. It'd be nice if we had better sparring partners around here. The regular answers to this one would have been found in seconds if he Googled first.
It'd probably have math in it, I bet. "The integral of God is zero therefore:"
Or, we could just make up silly examples to use against him until he grasps things like "proof" and "empiricism" and "deduction vs. induction". Things like "Prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Prove that JeremiahSmith is not God". Actually, in practice, they never answer and just keep wanging their heads against the wall, but hope springs eternal.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
I have to have a belief in God before I'm allowed to lack one?
Shades of TAG!
Coming to an atheist website and telling them to prove the non-existence of god is a bad approach. There is no reason for them to respond to such a request. First, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. Secondly, they can't begin to offer any rationale without knowing more about you idea of god. Are you a fundamentalist Christian? A Wiccan? A pantheist? Each of these have different ideas regarding divinity and each invoke dofferent responses. So tell us more about your beliefs and you will get some intelligent feedback.
My Artwork
"all is love seeking itself" is nonsensical
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
NO IT DOES NOT.
Just because you don't know something with absolute certainty DOES NOT mean you have to have faith. You only need faith if you have NO REASON or NO JUSTIFICATION for holding that belief. There is good evidence that God does not exist. Therefore it is rational not to believe in God. It is a justified belief. No faith is required because the belief is supported by evidence. Faith is only required in the absense of evidence OR in the presence of contradictory evidence.
No. So what? Can you prove to me that invisble pink unicorns don;t exsit? Or snarfwidgets or green 100 ft tall blood sucking aliens who live on venus, or any other crazy thing you care to imagine? Can you prove 100% that anything does not exist. If we follow your "reasoning" then the belief in the existence of 100 ft tall pink elephants who live on pluto is an equally valid position of faith to the belief that 100ft tall pink elephants do who live on pluto do not exist. Do you really think for one momment that both positions are merely equally valid positions of faith? Due equal respect? Or do you actually think that one position is the preserve of lunatics and idiots and the other is rational and sensible. Come on just think about it for a momment please!
I can't for most Gods* SO FUCKING WHAT!!! You can't prove to me the non existence of anything I care to imagine. So what? The basics are that absolute proof is not necessary to justfy our beliefs. We just need evidence. This evidence need not be concrete it just needs to exsit in order to move a belief from a statement of faith too being one that is justfied and hence rational to hold. The reason you should "convert" is not to do with absolute proof its to do with evidence. look at the evidence, take a good look around, read up on the science, read up on evolution, learn about the world and look at it objectivly. Once this is done the conclusion that most rational people come to is that God does not exist. All the evidence points to the fact that God does not exist.
* Any omnipotent God I can show is a logical contradiction by this property alone and so is defintly 100% nonexistent in the same way as a 4 sided triangle is definitly 100% nonexistent.
Sandtwister, you out there?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Maybe he realised that he could categorically not prove his own existence, hence the belief in a sandtwister was merely a position of faith and then he disapeared in a puff of his own extreamly flawed logic.
He could be working or something. We'll see by tonight if he has an answer.
I doubt it. It just looks like another drive-by theist to me.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
evil religion,
Your logic is so impeccible that is must come from God and therefore you have proved to me that God does exist. Thank you for opening my eyes to this truth.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
No problem. All praise the flying spaghetti monster may his noodly apendage touch you.
Ramen!
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Thank you for the comments/suggestions for reading. I came onto this website out of curiousity. Reading all of the comments, I figure that I should have re-worded my question. But, to be scoffed at just because I asked a question is hurtful. I did not attack anyone, call names, or any of that sort. Nor did I tell what my religion is. It was a basic question, or so I thought. However, my question should have been, "Why do you not believe in God?" I'll read your suggestions and go from there. Take care.
Sandtwister -
I do not believe there is a god because I don't see any evidence for such a being. Yes, this world is amazing and complex, but just because I don't understand the workings behind it doesn't mean it was developed by a god.
It seems reasonable to me that our existence came into being because of natural occurences rather than at the whim of a supernatural deity.
I think in this day and age there is no reason to 'explain away' the unknown as the works of a greater being.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Heres the thing, I hate the arguement but I guess I have to use it. How do you know this reality isn't a illusion, and we are just living on the top of a big purple bunny, and infact, the universe is part of him. The thing is, there is no proof against it. The other thing is, you can not prove it's true. So here comes the problem you suppose, you believe in god. Both the bunny, and god are equally the same, they are both unprovable, untestable, and unproven. Both also hold no proof what so ever. So we don't believe for the same reason we don't believe in the purple bunny who shits out rainbows, and our universe exists on him. Simply because, where is the proof? Any proof shown for god has been a strawman arguement or a watchman arguement, shown to be falacies long ago, but are still used for evidence of god.
Now the thing is, this all falls into burden of proof. You may come back and say it's our duty to disprove god, but infact it is not. It is your duty to prove god. Why? Simply, burden of proof lies with a person making a positive claim, when positive claim is yet to be proven. You make the claim god exists, yet show no evidence. You have faith. You may think we have faith, and choose not to believe in god, fact is we don't, we just don't believe if the evidence is lacking.
Does this mean god doesn't exist? No, no one is saying that. Although, at the moment he has just as much of a chance of existing, as the flying spagette monster, or the purple bunny.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
A list:
1. Lack of Evidence.
2. Critical thinking.
3. Independent thought.
4. Observation.
5. Lack of a need for a God.
6. No need for spirituality.
7. No need for praise and worship.
8. No need to scare my morals into me.
9. Cancer.
10.
Let me explain 10 so it doesn't sound like an emotional plea.
If there was a loving, caring God then it would not allow that to happen.
However, it did happen. So I must deduce one of two things.
A: There is no loving, caring God.
B: Islamic Extremists have it right.
There are thousands of mythological deities. What makes one more valid than another? If you can narrow that down without resorting to special pleading or an appeal to popularity or authority, there's still the question of what "god" is supposed to mean. As Todangst often points out, to exist is to exist as something. To exist outside nature is not to exist. Any question involving the generic term "god" is presumptuous.
Wave, exelent advice. Funny how you dont take your own. This person will dodge for the same reason you do. Because the fear of being wrong overrides introspection.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are relentless dude.
I've never asked anyone to prove god doesn't exist. I'm in "hostile" territory. Why wouldn't I play it close to the vest?
My Artwork
I don't need evidence against the celestial cocksucker's existence when the lack of evidence FOR him is enough to justify my position.
Read the links and find out why.
You are Christian I trust? In that case, I do not believe in your God (notice how I said your God, not God which is a meaningless term). In that case, I reject your God for the same reason you reject the 10,000 others that have been created in the past and the theoretically infinite amount that could be created in future...
They are all equally ridiculous. Jesus versus Muhammed versus The Flying Spaghetti Monster versus the soon-to-formed hypothetical Xuitizahultu God of the Samoan tribes.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
My friend, I do not belive you will like the answer I will give, so i will give you two. one is the answer you will hear all the time (which is a worng answer), the other is the answer that you probably may never have heard of and is IMPOSSIBLE for you to really comprehend as of this point in your life.
1. Because I see trees and stars and such.
2. Because I have had an experience with a living God. i have experienced his saving grace, and seen him work in me and in my life.
the first anser is the generic one and I can't stand to see it. Just because one thing exists doesn NOT mean that another thing exists. I can not say I belive in god because I see His planet. That is illogical. I can not tell you God exists because I see something...who am I as a human to tell you how the world was created. Now, when you add God in my life, I see His truth, and so I beleive His word that tells me He created the world.
There it is. I bet you're either laughing or thinking I need to be locked up, huh? Call me crazy, call me brainwashed. But whenever some one says they beleive in God because the earth exists, etc. tell them to check their beliefs. I can't say that God exists because an earth exists. I say God exists because God exists.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
Describe this experience.
I'm not going to laugh at you because you've had a religious experience. I'm just going to say that the extremely subjective nature of religious experience means that the only person it could possibly provide evidence for is the person to whom it happened and perhaps his/her close trustees. Its not that I dismiss it, merely that I, having never had such an experience, could not accept it at face value.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm not either. Instead, I'm going to relate it to how my cousin Sean acted before he became skytzophrentic.
He described he was having direct contact with both God and the devil. He continually said he was talking to God *as* I spoke to him (he lived with me at the time). In other words, he was having a religious experience. One that lasted several days.
Was it? No. He literally became skytzophrentic *sp*. He also thought he was projecting his thoughts onto the T.V. That flames were coming out from under his bed. He thought that I was someone named Tim. Nobody had eyes (instead, they had dark holes).
This is why I'm skeptical about people who say they have talked to God or had religious experiences. They are never able to restate what the experience was and instead replace it with "I talked to God" or "I can't explain it."
Ok, fine.
No insults, no bullshit. You don't understand Critical Thinking. I know this because I do. In fact, I've written a series of essays about it. I'm not through with them yet, but I've written enough so that you can get started.
READ THEM HERE
Pay special attention to Item G in the first essay. It discusses presumption and burden of proof.
Once you've finished reading, you'll understand that your first sentence is a positive claim. You now have the responsibility to demonstrate the truth of the claim.
If you look at the bottom of that essay, you'll find links to several other essays. If you're not interested in reading all of them, you need to skip to the two called Evidence and Evalutating Evidence. This will give you some idea of what kinds of questions you need to be asking yourself before you try to present evidence.
Hard to say. As many have pointed out, you have only said that you believe in God. You haven't defined what god is. At this point, no. You cannot disprove flarbs either, for exactly the same reason. Without a definition, there is nothing to disprove.
Another mistake on your part. You also need to take a look at THIS ESSAY.
When you're done, you should be able to see that only one of us takes things on faith, and that's you.
You haven't considered the implications of what you're asking. Suppose that I could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Leprechauns don't exist. What would that mean? That now everyone would stop believing in Leprechauns?
No. It means people would keep on disbelieving in them! They don't exist. You know it and I know it, but guess what? Neither of us can prove it for certain.
You don't believe in Leprechauns because there's no proof that they DO exist. That's the same reason we don't believe in god.
If we were required to disprove everything that doesn't exist, we'd literally have to disprove TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of things. When we were done with that, we'd still have trillions of things left to disprove. There is no limit to what might exist. However, we only deal with things for which there exists evidence. It would be philosophical chaos if it were any other way.
I'm totally serious. You lack a basic understanding of logic. You don't know this because you lack it. Once you learn about logic, you will see that your last statement is completely ass-backwards. You've got it all wrong.
If you stick around the boards for a while, you could learn a lot. There are some good philosophers and logicians here, and you could probably get the equivalent of a college course just from reading with an open mind for a while. If, however, your mind is closed, I suspect there's no hope that you'll ever get past the notion that anything, including god, is presumed true until proven false.
(Have you thought about what that would mean for our court system? There are historical records that could shed some light on it for you if you're interested.)
You're not prepared for a debate. You don't know anything about our side, and the first rule of debate is: 1) Know your opponent's case at least as well as your own.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
In my definition there are no exceptions to all .
Well I was reaching for 'hate is love', rather, it's not really a distinction but it makes for better understanding to read it that way.
First, name something which you hate in an exclusive manner; where your hatred exists in the complete absence of contrast or a comparison that you feel equally oppositely about. People love a thing and while they hate what opposes it they are still expressing their love for that thing through their hate. For example an atheist can often feel justified in hate of dangerous religious ideas but this hate is nothing if not loving concern for the well being of innocents in the firing line. That is a simplified example of how manifest hate at it's source is no other than love, though it probably doesn't pertain precisely to all-loving omnipresence, it answers your question.
Yes there is a difference between free energy and bound energy.
Hardly! I did mention that my 'religion' is more of a philosophy didn't I? It's about thought, we build emotions around thoughts, and frequently we humans jump from thought to emotion quickly and unconsciously and, at best, only vaguely cognisant of the thoughts behind them, and almost always in ignorance of the reasons why we connected that exact emotion with those thoughts.
For example on the typical conscious level a story goes - I see a man beating his wife, I feel angry.
On the unconscious level the story might look more like this - I see a man beating his wife. {Man beats wife = cruelty .. to hate cruelty is to love kindness. } I feel angry.
My "religion" is to open myself to the hidden part in {} .Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thank you all for your advice and such. I'll look over the essays/links and all and study. I do appreciate Hammbydammit's comments especially about critical thinking. Sometimes in life we miss this about our beliefs. It's good advice and wisdom. Take care.
People talk about their personal experiences with god all the time; it's hardly something unique to you.
However, no one has been able to describe such an experince that actually even suggests the existence of god, much less proves it.
I say god doesn't exist because god doesn't exist.
Are you convinced yet?
I shall do my best to describe it. Imagine you have been messin around all day in the mud, workin hard. So at midnight you come in hot, tired, sweaty, and really dirty. You take a nice long shower and hop into the whirlpool. When you step out of the whirlpool, you feel like a new man. You feel so fresh. Think of that, except spiritual.
It's a bad example, but the best I got. Ever since I came to God I've realized how little I am and how big he is. I've seen his glory as it works through me, and that feeling is just hard to put into words. Alot of people view a Christian as some one who feels they have done something, when really TRUE Christians realize they hae done nothing. And why me knowing that I am nothing but a spect of some one elses glory qualifies as an experience worth sharing, I dont know. But thats it. I dont expect you to understand it because a) you havent felt it and b) I explained it real bad!
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
I'm happy with that, because alot of people do laugh, you'd be surprised. But, let me clarify something that I do believe....RELIGION KILLS. I am a Christ follower, and I hate religion. A relationship with God, has nothing to do with religion. A relationship with yourself and your wacko ideas of who you think God is...thats religion. Thats religion practiced by alot of proclaiming Christians, Muslims, and almost every other religion. I hate it...and I'm pretty sure God aint to fond of it either.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
Point 1: You are rigt. What I tell you about my relationship with God doesn't proove the existance of him...to you. But if I were to talk to you about my relationship with my mother you wouldnt understand and it wouldnt point to her existance either.
Point 2: The "I beleive in God because I beleive in God" thing....that was a sarcastic remark, showing the WRONG answer of why some one beleives in God.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
So he hasn't interacted with you at all. Instead, you've had a 'turn around' point in your life where you decided that X was the best result. Things like this have happened to me many times before. It's called making a choice you felt was right.
Not to get too far off topic, but have you heard of the book "The End of Religion"?
http://tinyurl.com/3ynrqu (Amazon link)
It's written by a Christian theologian about how one of Jesus's consistent messages in the bible was anti-organized religion. I heard about it the other day and am rather curious about the book, but haven't read it yet.
Again, my appologies for veering off topic.
-Triften
Not really. First off, I didn't really chose God (but that gets into the depth of a discussion tha even the most educated Christian theologians can't agree on...but I didn't choose him, He chose me). Secondly, I don't beleive in God to save me from hell, or to get to heaven. So to say "the best result" is really not true. I follow God to know Him more and to glorify Him. It''s not about heaven or hell, although god is in heaven it's not about that. Lots of Christians will screw up and tell you it is, but those are the ones saying "you're going to hell." But I guess assuming you want to call faith a choice, then I chose to go with my heart. Science can't convince me there is a God, nor can it sway me the other way (first because no matter how much we fight it's scientifically impossible to prove a God) but I know from my relationship, and my life with God that he is there.
God's level of interaction in my life is debatable, but yes, he does interact with me. Can I say "hey god" and him say "hey Nathan"??? Probably not oging to happen. But, as far as I can say, His level of interaction has been him blessing me, him humbling me, and him saving me. Is salvation interaction? Yes. Can I give you a copy of some IM's from me to God...no.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
So you don't believe you have the freedom of choice and that your life has been planned out. Any harm, pain, suffering, or otherwise bad things that happen to you come directly from your god, in turn, making him not omnibenevolent (but we knew he wasn't from the old testamant). On top of this, he is not all powerful because he could not give everyone free will.
In other words, because you admit to not having any choice, you openly admit that your God is an evil, abusive, power hungry, bully who isn't omnibenevolent or omnipotent.
What makes your experience an actual experience from God and my cousins simply a skitzophrentic fit? What makes you 'deserve' to interact with this God and not the billions of others on the planet who are still waiting?
I'm happy with that, because alot of people do laugh, you'd be surprised. But, let me clarify something that I do believe....RELIGION KILLS. I am a Christ follower, and I hate religion.
Then I suppose Jesus has come back and the two of you have had regular lunches. If that's not the case, I wonder how you're so confident what you know about this character is extricable from the awful, nasty religion you reject.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
As the man beats his wife, are we to just watch and analyze the act philosophically? No, we respond out of recognition that it is wrong. But Tao teaches non-deeming action. How did we determine it is wrong? We project our self interests.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
There are several problems with your argument, such as the fact that I have a mother too, and so obviously I could understand such a relationship.
However, by far the most important problem is that I could actually meet both you and your mother and see the relationship by myself, since both of you exist. Since your god does not exist, it is impossible for me to ever see it, or your relationship with it, or any effect you imagine it has on your life.