So if science can’t disprove God, what can?

[Willum]

Unfortunately we just had a post where someone asked for proof of God’s nonexistence. When several instances were provided, it was repeatedly not refuted, but denied. A repeated unsubstantiated claim.
1. If science can’t used to disprove deities, what can, assuming they don’t exist?
2. If all the authority our respective theists need is their personal opinions to sabotage threads, what is the purpose of discussion?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Usually just asking for a crystal clear definition of the god in question starts the ball rolling. If they point to a holy book, then you can usually defeat the concept purely on the contradictions in the source text.

The real question is, why does anyone have to bother disproving other people's imaginings of gods? Shouldn't the onus be on them to show some evidence the god exists to begin with? Just because theists can't provide sufficient evidence of their gods does not mean everyone else has to do the work for them and disprove their concepts.

[Willum]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Excellent insight BW! However to answer the second part, your question... the answer is, because they asked!

Answering the first part of your post:
You don’t need a definition of God to disprove it, you just need to know the claims, like: God created the universe, God is everywhere and omnipresent...
Like anything else WITH properties, all you need to do is see if you can discount those properties.

[Zzyzx]

.
My approach is to challenge CLAIMS of knowledge made by god promoters.

The responses:

1. Take my word for it (or his) and don't question what I say
2. I read a book
3. Many believe
4. People told me
5. I thought about it and concluded
6. I had a psychological experience
7. I don't want to go to hell for doubting

Opinions, testimonials, unverifiable tales and pleas to authority

[Willum]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I read a little of this elsewhere and YES!
What kind of faith should we put in people who claim to know Cosmic stuff because they... read a book, or someone told them, or your other criteria?

Let’s try it out practically:
I am qualified to build a skyscraper because I read how.
I can perform surgery because someone told me how.
I can drive a semi (/lorry) because I had a powerful revelation!

None of these have any weight.
How much less so a divine revelation.

[Eloi]

This post is just pretending that the other one was sabotaged. That is not true. When the post was closed by a Moderator the reason was clear enough:

If someone wants to prove something, you must make the claim yourself and then disprove it. Do not wait for someone else to make a claim and then try to disprove that.

You cann't open a thread saying that you can prove God doesn't exist, and after that to wait for another to talk about God to go further on your claims. I do believe God exists, but I was not the one who opened a post saying that I have proofs to demonstrate it. YOU FAILED on proving what you said you could prove.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by Eloi]

I presented several proofs God did not exist: Conservation of mass disproves a creator god. Mass does not need a creator, no creator, at LEAST one god down. Conservation of mass is an observable, with no relevant exceptions.
I invoked mass energy equivalence to disprove the necessity of an all powerful god. Something all-power has an unquantifiablly large body of energy available. Energy having mass, will be detectable. God has no mass, so at least on other god is disproved.

You responded “that’s not proof,� and expected me to take your word for it.

So, obviously you are misunderstanding the moderator’s comment, as you do the Bible.

Why is it theists think stalemate is proof of God? Stalemate proves exactly nothing. Which is the atheists’ position.

[Eloi]

Conservation of mass has nothing to do with God existence. "mass energy equivalence". I am not a scientist, but I think that is almost the same thing, so, same thing: that has nothing to do with God existence.

If I say: God exists cause the law of mass conservation cann't appear by itself, I turned your claims upside down. The existence of Laws in nature is the best proof of God existence, contrary to your claims.

[Divine Insight]

1. If science can’t used to disprove deities, what can, assuming they don’t exist?

That easy. The theology that claims the existence of the God can be used to disprove those claims. If fact, this is precisely what the Hebrew Bible does.

I didn't need to use science to discover that the Hebrew God is false. All I needed to do was study the Bible. It disproves its own God.

No science required.

~~~~~~~~

Having said the above, there is scientific evidence that disproves the Biblical claims as well.

For example, science has shown us that humans are extreme latecomers on planet earth and disease, death, and destruction has always existed long before humans ever appeared on the planet. Therefore the claim that humans cause this by their so-called "Fall from Grace" is clearly a false man-made fable.

The Bible also claims that its God caused a global flood that killed all but a handful of humans on planet earth. But the Human Genome Project has shown that claim to also be false. If it were true, there would be a huge bottleneck in the human genome at the time of the flood. But the Human Genome Project clearly demonstrates that no such bottleneck has ever occurred since humans had evolved to the point of building cities.

So Science actually disproves the Biblical God anyway. Even though its not even required to see that the Bible is false based on its own self-contradictions.

No science is required to see that the Bible is false. But it does indeed verify that obvious conclusion.

[Zzyzx]

.

The existence of Laws in nature is the best proof of God existence, contrary to your claims.

How, exactly, is 'God' involved in 'laws in nature'?