Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 119 by Divine Insight]

Hey, you can have the last word, my man. It is your eternity, not mines. See ya around

Look at that! An Argumentum You're going to Hellum. What a rationally acceptable argument. Believe like me or face Hell.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 119 by Divine Insight]

Hey, you can have the last word, my man. It is your eternity, not mines. See ya around

Look at that! An Argumentum You're going to Hellum. What a rationally acceptable argument. Believe like me or face Hell.

The "Argumentum ab damnatio" is typically issued as the person issuing the argument abandons the field shedding copious tears of frustration. But, not to worry, no serious harm done, they usually return flying the same banners and blowing the same trumpets. Their beliefs cannot be harmed by reason.

[Clownboat]

Surely, if you set your religion/faith aside for a moment, you would agree that all religions are false. Just like an atheist, they just take this concept one god further than you. Take a 100 god concepts, and you are 99% atheist. So ask yourself how those 99 originated. Whatever you do, DON'T apply those standards to yours though.

Is how those other 99 religions originated relevant to ANYTHING that is going on here?

I fail to see the relevance.

See the thread topic: Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

Since it is generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, I instead offered you a the line of reasoning that you assuredly must have in place for why all other religions are false.

Basically, you have been informed about how religions form. Not that you didn't know this already. It's up to you if you want to apply special pleading to yours of course and go on with life pretending that your religion is special and just all the others were invented by men.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 123 by Clownboat]

Since it is generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, I instead offered you a the line of reasoning that you assuredly must have in place for why all other religions are false.

This is only an academic standard, there are other standards which one can prove non-existence.
One standard is "the best hypothesis," where you simply find a better hypothesis than the one at hand.

Anything beats an "invisible all powerful creature who wants your money," hypothesis, including unicorns.

In any case we can disprove God easily enough:
Examine what is claimed about him and demonstrate paradox, impossibility, or other incongruous features.

Best regards

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 123 by Clownboat]

Since it is generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, I instead offered you a the line of reasoning that you assuredly must have in place for why all other religions are false.

This is only an academic standard, there are other standards which one can prove non-existence.
One standard is "the best hypothesis," where you simply find a better hypothesis than the one at hand.

Anything beats an "invisible all powerful creature who wants your money," hypothesis, including unicorns.

In any case we can disprove God easily enough:
Examine what is claimed about him and demonstrate paradox, impossibility, or other incongruous features.

Best regards

I agree with you...

Don't get me wrong, yes, the Christian god concept (and others) can be shown to be wrong because we have claims about its qualities. Showing logical contradictions can suggest the concept to be false for example.

Gods (generic) however, where we don't know specifics about them would be immune to this it would seem.

This is why I phrased it the way I did: "generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist"

[For_The_Kingdom]

See the thread topic: Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

Since it is generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, I instead offered you a the line of reasoning that you assuredly must have in place for why all other religions are false.

So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheism viable position?

Basically, you have been informed about how religions form. Not that you didn't know this already.

Again, showing how a belief was "formed" says nothing about the truth value of the belief itself. To continue to argue this way is to continue to argue fallaciously. There is a fallacy named just for this occasion; the GENETIC FALLACY.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 119 by Divine Insight]

Hey, you can have the last word, my man. It is your eternity, not mines. See ya around

Look at that! An Argumentum You're going to Hellum. What a rationally acceptable argument. Believe like me or face Hell.

Hey, look at the bright side. After all, if God doesn't exist like he says he doesn't, then..."what hell?", right?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 126 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheism viable position?"

You have been subscribed to this forum over two years, For_The_Kingdom, so there is really no good excuse for you not to know this: An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a deity. Most atheists make no positive claims that there absolutely is no deity. All they maintain is that there is no reason to believe in one except the tendency of believers to do all in their power to persecute unbelievers. In those cases, pretending to believe makes sense.

Most would be happy to believe could you present evidence. Until you can provide convincing evidence that position is more viable than your "certainty".

And if there should be evidence and there is not, the absence of evidence is evidence.

[benchwarmer]

See the thread topic: Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

Since it is generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, I instead offered you a the line of reasoning that you assuredly must have in place for why all other religions are false.

So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheism viable position?

TSGracchus pretty much covered it, but perhaps this will also help:

FTK, if you can't prove invisible purple pixies don't exist, how is Christianity a viable position?

Atheism is not a positive belief, it is a lack of belief in all presented god concepts. i.e.
1) Zeus: I don't believe it
2) Thor: I don't believe it
3) Christian/Jewish God: I don't believe it
...
etc.

Your point only stands when someone makes the assertion that God does NOT exist. This is more than atheism. This is a positive statement that needs to be backed up. I don't recall anyone here making that statement. If someone has, take it up with them, they do not represent atheism.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheism viable position?"

You have been subscribed to this forum over two years, For_The_Kingdom, so there is really no good excuse for you not to know this: An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a deity.

Maybe I worded that wrong. Maybe I should of asked "So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheist a LOGICAL position".

Now that that is out of the way...you said "An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a deity".

Hmm. That is strange. If you say "I don't believe God exist"...yet, you maintain that you can't "prove" that God doesn't exist...then it seems to me as if agnosticism is the best position. Just sayin.

Most atheists make no positive claims that there absolutely is no deity.

Yeah, they've softened their approach there over the past 20 years or so. When it was brought to their attention how illogical their position was, they've had to backtrack and take a more "agnostic" approach (as I alluded to above). They are now what is called "soft atheists".

But then again, if that is the case, then there is really no difference between a soft atheist and a agnostic. Same thing.

All they maintain is that there is no reason to believe in one except the tendency of believers to do all in their power to persecute unbelievers. In those cases, pretending to believe makes sense.

I see you added your own little spin on things. Gotcha.

Most would be happy to believe could you present evidence.

I doubt that.

Until you can provide convincing evidence that position is more viable than your "certainty".

The evidence is there...it is the acceptance part..that is the difficulty.