Disproving God

[adherent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, there are only 2 possibilities about a God:
1) There is a God
2) There isn't a God
Could anybody out there prove that there isn't a God. And, by the way, please don't answer this post with another question, like: "Well... can you prove to me there IS a God?"

[perspective]

If there were absolutely no arguments to believe in the existence of God, then they would be in the same category. However, as I've pointed out in Goes God exist or not?, there are several arguments that point to God's existence.

I guess it all depends on the weight one puts on the arguments that a god exists. One who places no weight on the presented "evidence" that we've read in the mentioned topic would still see no evidence towards validating supernatural beings, thus one's belief that there is surely no god would be just as illogical as believing that there surely is one.

If we are going to base logicality on the existence of arguments for or against - there most definitely exist several good arguments that god does not exist - the most notable argument being: why can I not see him?

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

why can I not see [God]?

Because He's invisible?

Seriously, I suspect what you're really asking is why can't one "detect" that God exists? In other words, why can't science come up with a "theory of God" (correct me if I'm wrong about what you're asking)? The answer, I believe, is quite simple: God cannot be observed and experimented with as required by the scientific method. Science deals with the physical universe, but God does not exist as matter or energy (though he may, and does, manipulate those in any way he chooses), for he is spirit. Therefore, the ability of science to determine the existence of God is about the same as the ability of a microphone to determine the existence of light. Incidentally, the greatest evidence for the existence of God is when He defies science.

[adherent]

amen brother

[perspective]

why can I not see [God]?

Because He's invisible?

Seriously, I suspect what you're really asking is why can't one "detect" that God exists?

Actually, it was a rhetorical question. I'm not asking why can't I see this supernatural being. I'm pointing out to Osteng that he claims it is illogical to believe that a god definitely does not exist because there are no arguments for the non-existence. I was pointing out that there are arguments for the non-existence, and if an argument is all that is needed to validate a theory logically, then atheism is just as logical a proposition as deism. I propose that both are illogical because neither can be put to reproducable, verifiable tests.

[otseng]

I was pointing out that there are arguments for the non-existence.

So your argument that God does not exist is because God is not directly detectable?

[perspective]

I was pointing out that there are arguments for the non-existence.

So your argument that God does not exist is because God is not directly detectable?

One of the arguments supporting the non-existence of god is that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell, or hear this being. All other beings that actually exist are attainable in one or all of the mentioned ways. I'm not trying to argue the specific points about proof or no proof. We already know that god cannot be proven to exist. Your statement was that there was NO evidence to support the sure non-existence of god. I'm pointing out that there IS evidence - the absence of this supernatural being is evidence in itself. Your argument is that god exists despite the fact that he is not directly detectable. I'd say that both arguments are equally illogical.

[adherent]

Corvus:
Where are you going to get the proof for the absence of God if God doesn't exist? How can evidence of the non-existence of something ever exist? As an example, I could just as easily ask you to disprove me when I say my fondest memories of my childhood were spent with a boy called Nebuchadnezzar, (a lie) and the only resources you can use are in America.

Well, if God doesn't exist then he is absent. Your fondest memories are limited to far more than just 2 choices. There being a God or there not being a God is limited to those 2 choices only.

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

I think we are agreed that, strictly speaking, no one can prove that God does or does not exist. So, let's talk about strong evidence.

One of the arguments supporting the non-existence of god is that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell, or hear this being. All other beings that actually exist are attainable in one or all of the mentioned ways...Your statement was that there was NO evidence to support the sure non-existence of god. I'm pointing out that there IS evidence - the absence of this supernatural being is evidence in itself.

Seems to me that you are still trying to treat the existence of God as a scientific issue by pointing out that He cannot (at least in general) be observed with the five senses. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that a being that cannot be seen does not exist. But given x < 1, one cannot logically conclude x = 0; in the same way, just because the essence of God is not of the physical dimensions, that does not mean he does not exist. Is not the definition of supernatural being a being that cannot be detected using our physical senses or the tools of science?

Let me put it another way: No one can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear either of the weak and strong nuclear forces (two of the four fundamental physical forces: gravity, week nuclear force, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force). So how do we know they exist? Scientific experimentation has shown that particles and masses consistently behave in a way that fits the theories of these forces (it isn't a perfect fit, however, leading Scientists to speculate about other possibilities, such as a fifth force). But God is a creative God with a free will. His nature is consistant, but the details of how he responds to a particular type of situation differ with each recurrence. Therefore, God cannot be scientifically experimented on to determine his existence (or lack thereof). So, science, by itself, is inapplicable to this issue.

Now, there are other evidences that God does exist (historical, moral, philosophical, etc.). But I believe that would be getting off topic here, so I will reserve those for another thread.

[Corvus]

Corvus:
Where are you going to get the proof for the absence of God if God doesn't exist? How can evidence of the non-existence of something ever exist? As an example, I could just as easily ask you to disprove me when I say my fondest memories of my childhood were spent with a boy called Nebuchadnezzar, (a lie) and the only resources you can use are in America.

Well, if God doesn't exist then he is absent. Your fondest memories are limited to far more than just 2 choices. There being a God or there not being a God is limited to those 2 choices only.

I’m not sure I follow you. If I told you a long history of my relations with this friend, and you suspected me of lying, then his existence is limited to two choices, “he exists” or “he does not”. You could not prove either case unless you went to Australia. Even then, you’d have to interview everyone who had ever known me, or check school records. God, however, doesn’t leave behind a paper trail because he has never left a mark on the material plane.

[perspective]

Seems to me that you are still trying to treat the existence of God as a scientific issue by pointing out that He cannot (at least in general) be observed with the five senses. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that a being that cannot be seen does not exist...

I'm not trying to debate the merits of the arguments for or against the existence of god. I've already admitted that no one can prove the non-existence of anything. To ask someone to prove a negative is logically fallacious. I won't even try. Personally I won't argue the merits for or against, either. It all comes down to personal preference. I personally see the "evidence" that is offered in favor of his existence as lacking integrity and merit. You see my evidence offered against existence as the same. So there's no point in offering evidence if the evidence cannot be tested in some agreed upon way, with some agreed upon rules. In everything else in this world - science, legal, medical - regardless of language and culture, we all agree upon standards and rules - the rules of science - rules that can be tested and verified by all people anywhere regardless of race, religion, belief, or location on this planet. But when it comes to religion the rules of science are no longer agreed upon rules and standards. So there's no point in trying to debate evidence when there are no agreed upon standards and rules.

My explanation was directed at Osteng's claim that being an atheist is more illogical than being a deist. We all agree that god cannot be proven to exist and god cannot be proven to not exist. I still propose that those who subscribe to either theory are equal in their "illogic". I say "illogic" in quotes because Osteng was the one who claimed that being an atheist is illogical because one cannot prove that god does not exist. (I'm not saying I agree that atheists are illogical, but I'm addressing the claim objectively).

Then he stated that atheists are more illogical than deists because there is no evidence that god doesn't exist, where there IS evidence that god DOES exist, so therefore the deists are more logical, and the atheists less logical. I'm saying I disagree that there is 'no evidence that god doesn't exist'. There is plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist - namely the endless search for him that produces no results, the improbable and unparalleled nature of existence, and the contradictions in those who describe him. While this evidence might be considered weak evidence by deists - deists must understand that the evidence they provide in support of his existence is equally weak to those who don't believe. Therefore, I still believe that both atheism and deism is equally illogical, if illogical at all. The claim that the theories are both not equally illogical is obviously corrupted or biased one way or the other.

My argument is that if he classifies atheists as illogical, he must also classify deists as equally illogical.

I will tell you what IS illogical - the circular logic in asking one to prove a negative.

If a man walked up to you and stated: "you called me a dingus." And you said, "No I didn't, I don't know what you're talking about". And the police came and said "Prove you didn't call him a dingus or else we're going to arrest you" -you'll probably be in jail that night. You can't prove a negative. It should be his responsibility to prove that you did call him a dingus. He's the one making the claim. Without the claim, the issue wouldn't even be discussed, the police wouldn't even be involved. That's kinda how atheists feel about god. We're being asked to prove a negative. It can't be done. Trying to shift the burden of proof to us is like shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense in a court trial. We can all see the illogicality in that. If you went to court to protest your arrest, you'd be bewildered that you were being asked to prove that you didn't call him a dingus.

Illogical. The request is ludacrous.