CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
eyrei said:
I do not go door to door or try and convert people.
I think they people who try and sell religion should back it up with proof.
Why is this wrong in your view, sir?
Prove God does not exist!
- Thread starter mazzz
- Start date
I do not go door to door or try and convert people.
I think they people who try and sell religion should back it up with proof.
Why is this wrong in your view, sir?
Iggy
Deity
eyrei said:
You are quite right. The picture that is clearly coming across in this and other threads is that belief in God is a condition of the mind. If people have been brought up or are open to influences of one religion or another and feel it is relevant to themselves then their God exists in their mind. I feel the best way to view the whole religious issue is that for religionists God exists in your mind and your mind is closed to any other possibility; that being the case it is not possible for anyone to prove otherwise whilst in this mental state. Often we humans "know" with conviction we are right about something even if it is questionable and then we feel a little silly when we are proved wrong. Religion is the extreme of this "knowledge".
Prove that something that is all in the mind doesn't exist?
A ridiculous idea. One can no more do that than definitively prove that flying elephants don't exist.
But if you claim they do, I would expect to see proof.
The very premise of this thread demonstrates no understanding of formal logic.
A ridiculous idea. One can no more do that than definitively prove that flying elephants don't exist.
But if you claim they do, I would expect to see proof.
The very premise of this thread demonstrates no understanding of formal logic.
Well, I have proved it. I created a machine that analyses the entire spectrum of existence in all it's levels, and after a comprehensive analysis of this satisfying amount of data, it generated rather obvious and completely undeniable backed-up evidence that God does not exist. Case closed.
Oh, you wish proof that such machine exists? But why? Isn't it a correct assertion that claiming the unproved is a valid statement?
Be careful of what you answer here, kids.
Oh, you wish proof that such machine exists? But why? Isn't it a correct assertion that claiming the unproved is a valid statement?
Be careful of what you answer here, kids.
Now seriously:
There is no validity in asking such question. The fact is that the only statements that require proof are the "constuctive claims", being those not necessarily the ones that say that something "is there", but those who pretends to contradict our perception of surroundings.
So, both if I say "God exists", or "there is no such thing as water" (what would classicaly be a positive and a negative statement), I would have the burden of proof on my back, because either way I'd be challenging our senses.
Senses are imperfect, and subject to failure? Sure. What does not mean that we don't have to proove that such failure exists. Because, surprise surprise, they are subject to sucess too, and we have no reason to assume "a priori" that they are wrong. Trusting our senses when there is no evidence that they are wrong is an eminetly reasonable course of action.
That's not all, though. One can have a rational disbelieve in supernatural entities derived from their contradicting caractheristics. So, things as omniscience and infinite power allow us to disregard the "God" thesis as a viable one, without actually having to materially proove they don't exist, what is, in fact, an impossibility (except if you have a machine like mine), just like you can state that there is no such thing as a round square, without having to check every single inch of the universe.
Regards
.
There is no validity in asking such question. The fact is that the only statements that require proof are the "constuctive claims", being those not necessarily the ones that say that something "is there", but those who pretends to contradict our perception of surroundings.
So, both if I say "God exists", or "there is no such thing as water" (what would classicaly be a positive and a negative statement), I would have the burden of proof on my back, because either way I'd be challenging our senses.
Senses are imperfect, and subject to failure? Sure. What does not mean that we don't have to proove that such failure exists. Because, surprise surprise, they are subject to sucess too, and we have no reason to assume "a priori" that they are wrong. Trusting our senses when there is no evidence that they are wrong is an eminetly reasonable course of action.
That's not all, though. One can have a rational disbelieve in supernatural entities derived from their contradicting caractheristics. So, things as omniscience and infinite power allow us to disregard the "God" thesis as a viable one, without actually having to materially proove they don't exist, what is, in fact, an impossibility (except if you have a machine like mine), just like you can state that there is no such thing as a round square, without having to check every single inch of the universe.
Regards
.
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
Duddha said:
This sounds like a good place to start. How about it Mazzz?
What are your conditions for proof and for testing that proof?
@Newfangle. My wife will hunt you down and skin you alive if you hurt a single puppy.... you should be VERY scared...
Pointlessness
Prince
Prove god does not exist?
First of all, the burden is on you to prove that god does exist. As is it in law, innocent until proven guilty.
Second of all, all right.
This is a symbolic proof the law of inference I used can be found here.
Premises: If god were unable to prevent evil, it would be impotent; if god were unwilling to prevent evil, it would be malevolent. If evil exists, then god would be unable or unwilling to prevent evil. There is evil. If god exists, it would be unwilling or unable to prevent it.
Symbols:
W: God is willing to prevent evil.
A: God is able to prevent evil.
I: God is impotent.
M: God is malevolent.
E: Evil exists.
G: God exists.
^: Conjunction (And)
V: Disjunction (Or)
~: Negation (Not)
->: Conditional (If then)
Proof:
1. ~A -> I (1-5) (Given)
2. ~W ->M
3. E -> (~W V ~A)
4. E
5. G -> (~I ^ ~M)
6. ~W V ~A (3) (M.P.)
7. (~A -> I) V (~W -> M) (1,2) (Conj.)
8. I V M (6,7) (C.D)
9. ~ (~I ^ ~M) (8) (De M.)
10. ~G (5,9) (M.T.)
Therefore, god does not exist.
First of all, the burden is on you to prove that god does exist. As is it in law, innocent until proven guilty.
Second of all, all right.
This is a symbolic proof the law of inference I used can be found here.
Premises: If god were unable to prevent evil, it would be impotent; if god were unwilling to prevent evil, it would be malevolent. If evil exists, then god would be unable or unwilling to prevent evil. There is evil. If god exists, it would be unwilling or unable to prevent it.
Symbols:
W: God is willing to prevent evil.
A: God is able to prevent evil.
I: God is impotent.
M: God is malevolent.
E: Evil exists.
G: God exists.
^: Conjunction (And)
V: Disjunction (Or)
~: Negation (Not)
->: Conditional (If then)
Proof:
1. ~A -> I (1-5) (Given)
2. ~W ->M
3. E -> (~W V ~A)
4. E
5. G -> (~I ^ ~M)
6. ~W V ~A (3) (M.P.)
7. (~A -> I) V (~W -> M) (1,2) (Conj.)
8. I V M (6,7) (C.D)
9. ~ (~I ^ ~M) (8) (De M.)
10. ~G (5,9) (M.T.)
Therefore, god does not exist.
CurtSibling said:I do not go door to door or try and convert people.
I think they people who try and sell religion should back it up with proof.
Why is this wrong in your view, sir?
And what is your whole thread about people needing to prove the existence of god about then? I think people who try and sell atheism should back it up with proof.
Pointlessness said:
The premise that god is willing to prevent evil is not true. Even the Christian god has not made any claims of preventing evil, and I cannot actually even think of a god that does.
HamaticBabylon
Deity
Well, well, well why Im I not surprised that when the question is put to the atheists to prove that the creator of the universe does not exists; they too are strangling to find an answer. 
Any way guys it's better that we keep Religion off the Net, since people have a hard time understanding it's amazing concepts and revelations. Indeed, Science as already proven that Allah exist through nature; every thing works according to a law, and that law does not change unless the creator decides it should. Man should not be worrying about trying to disprove this and that, but rather try and understand why we are here.
You guys are playing with fire, repent now and you might be saved.
Any way guys it's better that we keep Religion off the Net, since people have a hard time understanding it's amazing concepts and revelations. Indeed, Science as already proven that Allah exist through nature; every thing works according to a law, and that law does not change unless the creator decides it should. Man should not be worrying about trying to disprove this and that, but rather try and understand why we are here.
You guys are playing with fire, repent now and you might be saved.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
eyrei said:
Which can only be explained by the non-existance of any god.....
Voynich
Letter of Napoleon
A lot of people denying the point of this thread are unaware of a field called "Philosophy". The sub-branch known as Philosophy of Religion has arguments like this quite frequently.
And so many would instantly claim that the majority of philosophers do not even know their own field? That sounds pretty ridiculous.
And so many would instantly claim that the majority of philosophers do not even know their own field? That sounds pretty ridiculous.
Stapel said:
I don't see why that is necessary. Why does a god have to be benevolent? And even if god were benevolent, it may understand something we don't about evil. There may be a very good reason for evil existing...what we consider Evil may not be evil at all.
Most of the logical arguments I have seen on this subject (and believe me I have seen some...I used to be an atheist) are designed to debunk the god of one of the major religions, or even all of them. They often fall apart at the seems when put up against more individualized conceptions of a deity, however, as this one does.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
eyrei said:
Which is how I started my more serious post, a few posts up.
The non-existance of any deity at all, cannot be proven. But, The non-existance of God, Allah, Hindu spirits or Buddha spritits can be proven to a certain extend.
New gods can be created faster, than I can debunk them
.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Gods existemce cant be proven. Neither can his nonexistence. Therefore god is like Schrodingers Cat, simultaneously real and imaginary, until we figure out how to 'look in the box'.
Dear Curt, I may be completely mistaken, but it seems as if it's not just that you DON'T BELIEVE in a god, much like many other people here including me. It's that you BELIEVE no god exists. You have frequently claimed that they're all just myths, created by humans. It's as if you recognize a god existing as having a 0.0% chance of being true.CurtSibling said:
If my understanding of your viewpoint is correct, you DO have to prove it. (Well, okay, you don't *have* to, just as the theists don't *have* to prove their god(s) exist(s), but it'd be nice if you could.)
The only way for you to escape having to prove anything is if you say, "Well, I dunno, I guess a god COULD exist. I obviously won't worship any, since I don't KNOW they exist, but they COULD exist."
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
You can't prove a matter of faith and neither can you disprove it. Therefore you can never be sure whether God exists or does not exist, simply that you do not know. All you can do is prove or disprove the myth surrounding that faith. That is why I believe every religion that claims divine intervention is wrong. If God intervenes then that is proof that God exists, which negects the need for faith, which is the whole foundation upon which the concept of God is built. Basically, God is God because of faith. Without faith there is no God. Instead there is a lifeform beyond our current understanding.
Not true with God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacab. The Bible clearly teaches Abraham BELIEVE GOD (Not that he exists since He talk with God many times)and it was counted unto him as rightousness. I have faith in God isn't the same I believe that God exists(which the scriptures point out is totally useless since even Satan knows God exists). The faith in the scriptures has nothing to do with believe in God's existance but the put yout trust in the true living God. The bible is for those who already knews that God exists.MrPresident said:
Romans 1:20-21 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,and their foolish heart was darkened."
Similar threads
