The atheists can never disprove the existence of unimaginable God due to several unimaginable events (miracles) exhibited by several Godly people and due to several practical experiences of the existence of unimaginable power of God during the lives of several people in this world. The miracles are exhibited not only by Godly people and human incarnations but also by evil people having very bad character and conduct, cheating the public in many ways. The development of atheism is mainly due to the existence of such evil people only. But, the atheists are also not analyzing the miracle performed by an evil person.
The concept of the miracle is completely different and has nothing to do with the character of the person performing that miracle. A petty fellow, who has worst character due to bad habits like drinking etc., is announcing a rule of Municipality in a town to the public. The message of the announcement has nothing to do with the character of the announcer. Since, the announcer is a bad fellow, you cannot ignore the message of the Municipality and behave as you like. The announcer will be separately punished for his bad character. You will be also punished if you ignore his announcement based on the point that the announcer is not a good fellow.
Similarly, you have to take the point conveyed by the miracle and ignore the character of the evil person performing that miracle. God will punish him separately for his evil nature. From the unimaginable event (miracle), you should conclude the existence of unimaginable God. This is the message of any miracle to create the fundamental belief in God. Some people having jealousy on great devotees of God or the human incarnation of God, reject the greatness of devotees or incarnation based on miracles by saying “even dirty people perform these miracles. What is the greatness by such miracles?”.
They pass such comments due to two reasons:
1) they are jealous of the greatness of devotees or incarnation and
2) they have not understood the message conveyed by a miracle.
If a good fellow is announcing a message and if you say that the same message was also announced by a bad fellow previously and hence the message should be neglected, is it correct? A miracle is necessary for majority of human beings to have real belief in the existence of God. Several people are standing on the ground and require this to climb the first step. After having the full belief in the existence of God, miracles are not necessary because the second step is to attain the grace of God through practical sacrifice. But, several theists also need the observation of miracles, because their belief is not perfect and hence to strengthen their belief, miracles are necessary. Even a person having full faith in the existence of God should not criticize the miracles, because you cannot ignore the first step after climbing the second step.
Atheist can never disprove the existence of God
Moderator: Moderators
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2146 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Atheist can never disprove the existence of God
Post #11[Replying to sridatta in post #1]
I always find it amusing when a poster talks about atheists and yet doesn't actually address a position any atheist actually holds. It may not strictly be a straw man, but in essence it is no more valuable than one.
There is nothing earth shattering that no one (it's absurd to limit this to atheists) can disprove an unfalsifiable claim. No unfalsifiable claim can be disproven or proven which displays the uselessness of such claims.
Tcg
I always find it amusing when a poster talks about atheists and yet doesn't actually address a position any atheist actually holds. It may not strictly be a straw man, but in essence it is no more valuable than one.
There is nothing earth shattering that no one (it's absurd to limit this to atheists) can disprove an unfalsifiable claim. No unfalsifiable claim can be disproven or proven which displays the uselessness of such claims.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
Re: Atheist can never disprove the existence of God
Post #12No, we can't disprove God. The question is what we should do about that.
Theists can't prove that God is actually good, except by definition. God might be anything by the same logic that it can't be disproven. God might want rape and murder and blood. Can you prove he doesn't? Well then, you should... do that...? See, that's where it doesn't follow: Expecting some behaviour because of something we can't disprove.
I might be a child who meets another child that tells me, your mother said she wants you to go and kill all those people right this minute without going and confirming it with her because she'll be mad if you go and ask. And in the moment, I can't disprove that. Should I do horrible things just because I can't prove that I'm not supposed to? No, I don't think so, and I don't think anyone else really thinks so either.
My basis for rejecting God is not that he can't possibly exist (though I don't think he does) but that a fair God would provide a fair way for me to know what I'm supposed to do, and I'm not obligated to listen to an unfair God. I am obligated to look at the world (which might be a creation) and hunt for clues as to what I'm supposed to do, and I do that. Questioning and trying to gain understanding is part of that process. I am not obligated to do what I am told without questioning, because this world and the things in it, have taught me that that is wrong, maybe even evil.
But let's say instead this fellow is a murderer. I don't think I have to accept the morality of a society that places a murderer in a position to dictate to a non-murderer. I don't think I have to accept that dictates of a society that does that are valid. You can say, he's just announcing the rule, but if he's some genuinely immoral (hurting others) thing, why does he have that cushy job while people who don't hurt others toil? Yes, at some point I think I have the right to reject an immoral society's authority over me, and if they set the murderer higher than the non-murderer, that would be a pretty good indication. I even think I can ask, why does this drunken idiot who misses over 50% of his work days, have this nice job, while the reliable person toils? Is that fair? Is that right? Is this not a meritocracy?
Theists can't prove that God is actually good, except by definition. God might be anything by the same logic that it can't be disproven. God might want rape and murder and blood. Can you prove he doesn't? Well then, you should... do that...? See, that's where it doesn't follow: Expecting some behaviour because of something we can't disprove.
I might be a child who meets another child that tells me, your mother said she wants you to go and kill all those people right this minute without going and confirming it with her because she'll be mad if you go and ask. And in the moment, I can't disprove that. Should I do horrible things just because I can't prove that I'm not supposed to? No, I don't think so, and I don't think anyone else really thinks so either.
My basis for rejecting God is not that he can't possibly exist (though I don't think he does) but that a fair God would provide a fair way for me to know what I'm supposed to do, and I'm not obligated to listen to an unfair God. I am obligated to look at the world (which might be a creation) and hunt for clues as to what I'm supposed to do, and I do that. Questioning and trying to gain understanding is part of that process. I am not obligated to do what I am told without questioning, because this world and the things in it, have taught me that that is wrong, maybe even evil.
I don't entirely agree on this, but I do to a point. You used drunkenness as an example in which case I agree it's fair. People can be drunk if they like, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.sridatta wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:29 amA petty fellow, who has worst character due to bad habits like drinking etc., is announcing a rule of Municipality in a town to the public. The message of the announcement has nothing to do with the character of the announcer. Since, the announcer is a bad fellow, you cannot ignore the message of the Municipality and behave as you like. The announcer will be separately punished for his bad character. You will be also punished if you ignore his announcement based on the point that the announcer is not a good fellow.
But let's say instead this fellow is a murderer. I don't think I have to accept the morality of a society that places a murderer in a position to dictate to a non-murderer. I don't think I have to accept that dictates of a society that does that are valid. You can say, he's just announcing the rule, but if he's some genuinely immoral (hurting others) thing, why does he have that cushy job while people who don't hurt others toil? Yes, at some point I think I have the right to reject an immoral society's authority over me, and if they set the murderer higher than the non-murderer, that would be a pretty good indication. I even think I can ask, why does this drunken idiot who misses over 50% of his work days, have this nice job, while the reliable person toils? Is that fair? Is that right? Is this not a meritocracy?
