Proof for God's Non-Existence

Damn, that was quick. Got three replies in about 60 seconds. Looks like this is gonna be a hot topic.

The concept of free will is interesting, if this entity is leaving us to our own devices and not interacting with us in any way then again, I would have to say that it is in no way relavant to us and so falls outside of what I would define as "God"

I would just like to clear up the fact that I do personally believe in Gods but I like a challenge so I thought Id try this. Prove a negative and prove something that I know to be false, both at the same time. mmmmm tricky.
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
I suppose that the most compelling evidence would be that there is no intervention by God in the world around us. Everything follows natural chemical and biological processes which have slowly shaped the godless universe as far back in time as our current science can see.

Of course it is impossible to prove that there is no god just sitting and watching us and doing nothing, but if that is the case then he serves no purpose in our lives and I would argue that he would fall outside the definition of what "God" is.

There, that should get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

Now that is an interesting point of contention. Thank you.

v/r

Q
 
Devadatta said:
For Q: This will be my last post, since we can't seem to agree on the ground rules. Obviously, I can't agree that I've gone off topic in any sense.
Click to expand...

Oops! I'm back. For sure this will be my last.

I just realized, especially with Bandit's post, that the idea of the gulf between verbal desciptions and spiritual experience really goes directly against the grain of some traditional Bible-based views, which specifically claim a continuity between word & God. So if it is this kind of Bible-based, Abrahamic God you're talking about then again debate is pointless. It only leads to the circular argument: it's true because the Bible says it's true, and the Bible is true because tradition has it so. So whether we're talking about God in an ultimate, non-sectarian sense, or the Biblical God, debate is fairly pointless.

If this exercise is to provide anyone any real illumination, I would suggest working out some common ground rules to make debate possible.

Cheers as ever.
 
Devadatta said:
Oops! I'm back. For sure this will be my last.

I just realized, especially with Bandit's post, that the idea of the gulf between verbal desciptions and spiritual experience really goes directly against the grain of some traditional Bible-based views, which specifically claim a continuity between word & God. So if it is this kind of Bible-based, Abrahamic God you're talking about then again debate is pointless. It only leads to the circular argument: it's true because the Bible says it's true, and the Bible is true because tradition has it so. So whether we're talking about God in an ultimate, non-sectarian sense, or the Biblical God, debate is fairly pointless.

If this exercise is to provide anyone any real illumination, I would suggest working out some common ground rules to make debate possible.

Cheers as ever.
Click to expand...

As you Brits are fond of saying in the movies. "never say never".
 
Devadatta said:
To Bandit: Thanks for the precision. Now others can carry on the debate, if they like. But as I said from the very outset, I'm not interested in disproving anyone's conception of God. You're a good guy, Bandit, and if your Christian beliefs help make you so, that's the biggest advertisement in its favour.

Cheers all around.
Click to expand...

no problem, Devadatta. this type of thing is only brought up for fun any way.:)

Peace & Cheers to you also.
 
Quahom1 said:
As you Brits are fond of saying in the movies. "never say never".
Click to expand...

will you involve in the debate or sit there and act like a teacher who frequently gives zero or similar grades
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
I suppose that the most compelling evidence would be that there is no intervention by God in the world around us. Everything follows natural chemical and biological processes which have slowly shaped the godless universe as far back in time as our current science can see.

Of course it is impossible to prove that there is no god just sitting and watching us and doing nothing, but if that is the case then he serves no purpose in our lives and I would argue that he would fall outside the definition of what "God" is.

There, that should get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
Hi, Awaiting. i thought since Q appreciated you getting the ball rolling and as I like a discussion such as this since it gets the imaginative juices flowing, i figured, what the heck, maybe I will chime in on the matter of as I put it earlier, "God" stepping into the world of form in view of your comment here. Just for the sake of argument, ATF, alot of montheists might make the point that as "God's" eyes, ears, and hands on this world, whenever someone acts with ego-less/self-less love to enact whatever "God/Spirit" is moving them to do, as they are definitionally doing "God's will," God is acting upon this world;) Let's just see where this goes:p Take care, Earl
 
But our self less actions can be explained by psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists or neurologists without any need for devine intervention in the process.

Also

If God created us, he knows us and understands our thought processes therefore he knows what decisions we will make in any given situation. In this case, he would have no need to move, nudge, encourage or cajole us to do anything. If we are created by God we are no more than a computer program in mid-execution which needs no intervention. So I reitterate my original argument, if the entity, "God" does not interact with us in any way, he ceases to be something which can be called God.

I am, of course, basing this argument on the pre-supposition that God is an entity which is central to our lives, who answers our prayers (in any way) and has a direct influence over the world. I think monotheists would accept this.
 
Hey ATF-your response addresses some of the counter-arguments to traditional notions of "God." As a non-traditionalist, I'm looking forward to playing this game some more, but I want to wait for the more traditional players to join in:p Thanks for the thoughts, earl
 
PersonaNonGrata said:
will you involve in the debate or sit there and act like a teacher who frequently gives zero or similar grades
Click to expand...

Why, hmmm. I am a teacher. I teach young people how to become responsible adults (and how to be engineers). I don't as a rule look to deliberately "fail" students...
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
But our self less actions can be explained by psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists or neurologists without any need for devine intervention in the process.

Also

If God created us, he knows us and understands our thought processes therefore he knows what decisions we will make in any given situation. In this case, he would have no need to move, nudge, encourage or cajole us to do anything. If we are created by God we are no more than a computer program in mid-execution which needs no intervention. So I reitterate my original argument, if the entity, "God" does not interact with us in any way, he ceases to be something which can be called God.

I am, of course, basing this argument on the pre-supposition that God is an entity which is central to our lives, who answers our prayers (in any way) and has a direct influence over the world. I think monotheists would accept this.
Click to expand...

and i am just suppose to just believe whatever a socia, neuro, psyhco shrink has to say? that is not proof but a nice suggestion.

just because God does not intervene/interact for & with YOU, that proves there is no God? you said 'US' but i think you mean YOU.
you said we are no more than a computer program if God created us...but that is not proof, that is just your idea. maybe YOU (there i said it again), are just a computer program, but I am a child of the MOST HIGH GOD & every second i live, i make my own decisions but that does not prove there is no God.

Who says God does not move, nudge & encourage? another psycho head shrinker?

got any other brainstorms there ATF?:)

this part sounds right so you get a ++++ for effort.

I am, of course, basing this argument on the pre-supposition that God is an entity which is central to our lives, who answers our prayers (in any way) and has a direct influence over the world. I think monotheists would accept this.
Click to expand...

Next------->
 
earl said:
Hey ATF-your response addresses some of the counter-arguments to traditional notions of "God." As a non-traditionalist, I'm looking forward to playing this game some more, but I want to wait for the more traditional players to join in:p Thanks for the thoughts, earl
Click to expand...

Earl, i dont know what to say. it is impossible for me to think the way you do, even when i try, i can only laugh uncontrolled, not at you, but at the thought.

i have never never never, been able to concieve of there is no God because i end up laughing like crazy & cannot stop. i am serious, like it is the biggest joke i have ever heard. it is like an unending joy that will not allow me to think that way & all i do is laugh.

so i am just curious, since you dont believe, when you think of there being a ONE true God, do you laugh the same way I do? & i mean in a funny way, not a mean sarcastic way.
i have been wanting to ask someone that for awhile, so i look forward to your reply.:)
 
Hey, and peace to all everywhere, especially here--

I love you Bandit, and I know that you believe. You may not agree with me, but I also believe that earl believes.

Actually, I am not the judge, and neither are you, and neither is earl.

I am sure that I should write some more, but for right now, at this moment, I thought it right to write what I have right now.

InPeace,
InLove
 
Okay, maybe I have not read through the thread for, like the one millionth time---

Eventually, everyone is going to have to decide what he or she believes.

Bandit, I love you for what you want to be real. Can you make it real--today? Now?

I understand you, and what you want. I just don't think that you really understand what has been implemented in the name of what you believe....

Oh, God--I really love you, and I know this is going to offend you, but I do not know what else to say....

InPeace,
InLove
 
And in case anyone is wondering? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and His Lamb. Without Him, I am lost.

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove, no one could ever doubt that you believe and you always say it in such a perfect way, but for me at least, this thread isnt about belief, its more of a debating exercise. I think most people understand that we cannot either prove or disprove God with our brains, only with our hearts.

Having said that, Im gonna give it a good try. Y'all ready for this....?

Where was I? Oh yes, Bandit,

Should you just believe the word of these scientists? Yes, because they can prove theur points of view with empirical evidence. A neurologist will use MRIs to show how the individual neurons in your brain are firing in preset groups which are built up by your experiences and detemine your reactions to any given stimuli. A sociologist or anthropologist will determine how your actions are subconsiously designed to be of use to the community in which you live and a psychologist will explain the chemical imbalances in your brain which give rise to certain emotions. I do not personally know all the explanations because I am not any of these things, but I do know that scientists do not expect us to take their word for anything, everything must be empirically proven. Once these processes are proven, there is no longer any room in the equation for devine influence.

As for God interacting, did he not create us, did he not know us when we were in the womb and does he not know exactly what will happen in every second of our lives? Therefore what room is left for devine intervention here.

So I maintain that there is no direct intervention with God, he is therefore irrelevant to our daily lives and so is by definition, not god.

Quad erad demonstratem. (Who am I kidding) (and yes, I know my latin sucks)
 
ATF, you can manitain that until the day you die, yet that still does not prove there is no God & that does not prove that in Him & by Him all things consist.
 
InLove said:
Okay, maybe I have not read through the thread for, like the one millionth time---

Eventually, everyone is going to have to decide what he or she believes.

Bandit, I love you for what you want to be real. Can you make it real--today? Now?

I understand you, and what you want. I just don't think that you really understand what has been implemented in the name of what you believe....

Oh, God--I really love you, and I know this is going to offend you, but I do not know what else to say....

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

it is real for me. as real as it has been for 30 years, from the day & hour I was filled with the Holy Ghost, the same way it happened in the bible all through the book of Acts & no, i cannot do it for anyone else. it is not just a belief or theory for me.
so i don't know what you mean InLove. :)
 
hey--never mind, Bandit--I think it is me that got confused. I kind of jumped in again where I did not need to be. I guess I thought earl was being misunderstood, and I think I was trying to help. Anyway-LOL--just doing what I do sometimes. Confusing others, as well as myself--carry on, you guys:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top