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?"

[otseng]

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).

I've never asked for any proof that God does not exist. All I ask for is evidence.

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.

Let's discuss those "plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist" then. That's what this thread is all about. We can investigate those claims, just as we have done in the Does God exist thread.

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

I don't see your line of reasoning here. We have talked about several logical arguments about God's existence already. If one chooses not to believe the conclusions, that is one's prerogative. But it's not because the arguments are illogical.

Also, to clarify, my argument is not that atheists themselves are illogical, but the position that an atheistic claims by stating that no god exists. If there are no logical arguments to support the claim, then the position is illogical.

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

Yet, it is the atheist that accepts the negative as true. So, the burden is upon the atheist to support the claim. Again, no one is looking for a proof. Just the line of reasoning to come to the conclusion that god does not exist.

[perspective]

Also, to clarify, my argument is not that atheists themselves are illogical, but the position that an atheistic claims by stating that no god exists. If there are no logical arguments to support the claim, then the position is illogical.

I agree. In a court trial, the defense takes the prosecution's accusations, the prosecutions evidence and blows holes in it. That is how the defense proves their case. There are facts that either support or oppose the evidence offered by the prosecution. In rare circumstances, there is actual physical evidence that is used to vindicate the accused.

The entire theory of atheism is only possible because of the existence of believers. Without the story of god and religion, atheism would not exist, because it is a set of beliefs that go solely against a theory that cannot be proven, hence cannot be disproven.

The evidence that god does not exist mostly rests on the fallacy of the evidence that he does.

First of all, his true nature is not defined. Some claim god is an all powerful being. Some claim he is good, never sinned. Some claim that he is all knowing. Some claim that he created everything. In order to disprove something, it has to be well defined.

My personal subscription to atheism over agnosticism rests on the intelligence and the quantity of followers of religious supernatural beings. I know deists throughout history are very intelligent, and that they've had centuries to figure out how to prove the existence of such a revered being. Part of atheism is faith in human kind. I have faith that if a god did exist, that humankind would have figured out a way to prove it, or at least have come up with more credible evidence to support the theory.

I will not be providing physical "evidence" to show that god does not exist. Christians don't feel the need to provide physical evidence that he does. Apparently, in this debate, abstract evidence is sufficient. By abstract evidence, I mean the existence of facts that discredit the claims. Those facts are our evidence, because without the claims, the facts are nothing more than observations. In contrast to the claims, the facts become evidence.

[adherent]

God sure did leave a "paper trail". Lets see, the earth, stars and planets, trees, mountains, oceans, aurora borealis, the sun, and us.

[Corvus]

God sure did leave a "paper trail". Lets see, the earth, stars and planets, trees, mountains, oceans, aurora borealis, the sun, and us.

Which isn't a paper trail at all, because it doesn't point to a definite being, it only points to itself. If it were that easy, we would all be believers.

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

I would argue that God did leave a paper trail: the Bible. Of course one can argue that the Bible could have been made up, but the officials who supposedly made the records about your friend could have been bribed. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "absolute proof" of anything, at least not in a purely intellectual debate, so we must settle with high probabilities.

[Corvus]

I would argue that God did leave a paper trail: the Bible. Of course one can argue that the Bible could have been made up, but the officials who supposedly made the records about your friend could have been bribed. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "absolute proof" of anything, at least not in a purely intellectual debate, so we must settle with high probabilities.

Indeed, if the bible were a paper trail, the koran could also be a paper trail, and so would the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. What we need is proof of his presence in the past, but since he doesn't inhabit a material plane, that becomes impossible.

[adherent]

So if something cannot be percieved on the material plane, then it is false? So therefore no deity's exist and evolution is true?

[Corvus]

So if something cannot be percieved on the material plane, then it is false? So therefore no deity's exist and evolution is true?

No, simply evidence of its existence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Evidence of absence is basically impossible in this case.

I'm not entirely sure why you even mentioned evolution.

[otseng]

Let's leave all arguments for God's existence in Does God exist? thread.

[Shild]

Let's leave all arguments for God's existence in Does God exist? thread.

I don't think this is possible. The only way to give evidence against God is to bring up the evidence for Him and proving it is inconclusive.

By the way, many people have said that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. I say some things can be proven not to exist. If something were demonstrated to contradict itself by its very existence (a la "triangle without corners") then one could prove it does not exist. Some have attempted to apply this line of reasoning to God.