Proof for God's Non-Existence
- Thread starter Quahom1
- Start date
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
Hi Q.
Well, the question isn't usually put this way on the basic principle that "you can't prove a negative", i.e.; it's just not a fair or meaningful question.
On the other hand, if you were more specific about what sort of God you're talking about, it would be a little more fair. Lots of people could at least give you some reasons why they think that particular conception of God is unlikely to exist.
For myself, I take the pragmatic position that all gods and all conceptions of God do exist for the most basic reason that the words and the ideas they signify exist; the argument is over how they exist, and in what other senses, and how one conception compares with another. On that, I'd leave everyone to their own ideas.
So I would never try to prove that anyone's God doesn't exist. In my own idiosyncratic and Buddhistic kind of way I even believe myself in a kind of reality some would style "God".
Cheers.
B
Bandit
Guest
oh no. 
here we go again. actually Q, it sounds a lot better worded that way.
way to go man.
i was looking for proof that God does not exist but i could not find any.
so, i guess that means He still exists!
here we go again. actually Q, it sounds a lot better worded that way.way to go man.
i was looking for proof that God does not exist but i could not find any.
so, i guess that means He still exists!
Devadatta said:
LOL, I'm afraid it is a very valid question. Negatives are proven everyday. It is a meaningful and very valid question, just one that most are not comfortable trying to answer, simply due to the fact that this particular "negative" can't be proven objectively. Just like its antithesis can't be objectively proven.
Of God and Mammon, one can be proven. And why should the question be phrased in an easier, more "palatable" fashion? I find that lopsidedly idiosyncratic, and catering, to the humanistic perspective.
Very easy for an Atheist to ask for proof of God, and the world doesn't bat an eye. Have someone else ask for the proof of no God, and the world gets a little hot under the collar, squeamish in the seat...so to speak.
No, my question is valid as stated. Show proof that there is no God.
v/r
Q
"proof" for existence or non-existence is an impossibility given that all "data" relate to delimited, specified "forms," and as those writers of old and new of an apophatic bent rightly point out that the force called "God," is largely ineffable. Like St. Francis of Asissi said, "what we're looking for is what is looking;" the eye cannot see itself. I do agree with a comment Vajradhara made on some thread around here, that we can determine the effect on our "mindstream" from the belief we hold; or put another way, as the old saying goes, "we become what we worship." A materialist, be they theistic or atheistic, will look for their treasure in coin that is worthless. If we worship a God of fear, judgment, and damnation, we become either cowered fearful individuals or judgmental fear-mongers. In a way, then, perhaps it is more useful to ask what "God" do we worship? Take care, Earl
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
With all respect, I guess I stand by my objections as well. Perhaps some exceptions exist, I don't know, but in general the demand to "prove a negative" is a bit of sophistry.
Consider standard courtroom procedure. The state makes a charge; it claims the existence of a certain definite event and the involvement of a particular person or persons. The job of the defendent is not to prove a negative but to discredit or undermine the evidence; that is, to prove that the evidence doesn't exist. So it's always a question of proving or disproving a positive assertion. By contrast, the question you're proposing is equivalent to the police pulling someone off the street, saying, "Prove you DIDN'T commit this Murder!"
As well, I would also repeat that speaking of "God" without offering any parameters just isn't meaningful. You've started this thread in the general "Belief and Spirituality" forum, so how do we know what sort of God you're talking about? To assume, for example, that it must be the Christian conception is to ignore the fact that there are other views.
(At the very least, as the Indian tradition would have it, are you taking about God with attributes or without?)
Anyway, don't mean to get shrill or anything. It's just a matter of agreeing on the ground rules.
Cheers.
earl said:
I appreciate your point. We are not, however "God" in any sense of the word. Regardless of how we may feel, the proof is we are fallible beings. God is not supposed to be that. Perhaps then God is an "ideal"? That would imply humanistic perspectives (to aspire to an ideal created in the mind).
Even the most gifted of us, make mistakes. "GOD" does not.
So, back to square one. Prove God does not exist.
v/r
Q
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
earl said:
Thanks for this point in particular, Earl, which I don't think is made often enough. Rather than being stuck on verbal formulas we really need to observe how people are living and acting.
Cheers.
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
I agree. That was just an aside to Earl.
But speaking of beating around the bush, what about my main objectives? Leaving aside the framing of the question, I believe you're beating around the bush by not specifying what conception of God you're talking about.
If you're talking about God "without attributes", or as Earl prefers God in the "apophatic" sense, then proofs in any sense are beside the point. If you're talking about God "with attributes", such as the Christian God, you should say so. In that case, people would have something to talk about, and evidence to provide on both sides. After all, Christianity makes very specific claims about incarnation and the role of the body of Christ through history, etc., which are not the same as Islam, for example, and so open to examination.
Devadatta said:
Is this so hard? I'm talking about that which is so far beyond us, yet we each "know" exists. Yet there are those of us that say "it" does not exist. So, simply put, prove "God" does not exist. No parameters, no specifications, no exceptions to the rule. Prove God does not exist.
v/r
Q
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
Again, it comes down to a little more precision. What you're expressing here is a kind of intuition that is so general that it could be applied to everyone from the most orthodox, to a deist, a scientst, a bonafide secularist, to anyone with any imagination who is thrilled by the sight of the Milky Way. I'm sure you understand that until you start spelling out preciesely what "God" you're talking about - which you're starting to do here - the rest of us can only guess.
I think only a ridiculously small proportion of humanity - who are probably depressed or upset for some reason - never feels sheer awe in the face of existence and its overwhelming scale & ineffability. If this is what you're articulating as "God", then where is the debate?
On the other hand if you're making more detailed claims about God, especially when it comes to specific interventions in human affairs, then you should say so.
Devadatta said:
LOL, does God exist, or does God not exist? How much more precise can one be? I'm not asking depressed or otherwise disposed individuals that question.
This is the third time you have gone off subject or skirted the issue. Prove that God does not exist..."simple task". Or perhaps not so simple....
v/r
Q
B
Bandit
Guest
Devadatta said:
eh?
what does precision, intuition & intervention have to do with it? that is like saying we never found the murder weapon so it does not exist.
speaking for myself as a Bible believer, that means ONE God, monotheism- the same God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. The same God of Jesus.
is that precise enough or are you going to keep beating around the bush. YES, the bush where God intervened with Moses & the bush where God intervened with Abraham.
Prove He does not exist.
Bandit said:eh?
what does precision, intuition & intervention have to do with it? that is like saying we never found the murder weapon so it does not exist.
speaking for myself as a Bible believer, that means ONE God, monotheism- the same God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. The same God of Jesus.
is that precise enough or are you going to keep beating around the bush. YES, the bush where God intervened with Moses & the bush where God intervened with Abraham.
Prove He does not exist.
Well Bandit buddy, let me think here. I've asked: Prove God does not exist.
I've been asked, concept negative, concept irrelevant, which god, be more precise...have I covered all points?
Prove that God does not exist...pretty simple request, not so simple to fullfil.
v/r
Q
B
Bandit
Guest
Quahom1 said:
hee hee.
someone has a long row to hoe.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
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.
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.
P
PersonaNonGrata
Guest
uhhmmm, freewill?
As for me, I believe "God" exists just as I believe a "self" exists, but then I'm quick to ask myself the all important apophatic questions-what is "God?" What is "self?" Frankly, I think Q & D are both right. Let's face it folks, as I said at this forum before, we all know we were brought into this world as was the world by some process/force larger, more encompassing than us. Those of us with a theistic bent refer to that by the term "God." But, how do you demarcate, define, delimit that which theists refer to as infinite & eternal?-can't wrap finite minds around that. So, D is right-how do you know you're debating and discussing the same thing unless you clearly define your terms. Obviously, the more amorphous, all-encompassing, ill-defined our definition of "God" is, the more universal agreement as to non/existence-but if it reached that level of vagueness, what's to debate? Perhaps, a more useful way to narrow down the field of debate is to debate regarding the traditional Christian notion of God along the lines d suggested-do we believe in a "God-of-personal-relationship," a God who "steps into the world of form in a personal way?" Though not sure i want to join that debate take care, Earl
take care, EarlDevadatta
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 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.
Sorry if I've caused you any frustration, but it was not intention. Naturally, I feel a certain frustration from my side, in that I don't appear to be able make my self understood to you on this question.
But let me try to put what I've been trying to say in a more positive light. I'm not denying your inner experience, or your intuition of God. I'm only pointing out the gulf between that experience and its expression. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," as Shakespeare said. I'm saying that there is a base of real experience, common to humanity, which in the broadest sense is not debatable. What is debatable are specific expressions of it, including, for example, Christian theology. Monotheists everywhere tell us that God is finally ineffable & unknowable. Why then is it so difficult to understand that our verbal descriptions of God - and even the word itself - are human, all-to-human and not literally the same as the experience we point to? These verbal constructs are eminently debatable, so yes I think it's necessary to be specific.
In the Jewish tradition there is a saying that not only human beings but even a stone is constantly sustained by God; if it were not, it would instantly crumble. I can read that and agree, and even find it inspiring, not because I share the theology of its context, but because I have an intuitive sense of what it's ultimately pointing to. At the very least, I give the writer of this saying the benefit of the doubt.
I'd like to think that you too are giving the rest of us the benefit of the doubt as well, and allowing us our own expressions of what finally can't be described. And being myself a person of all faith and very little belief, I trust that in the end your heart & soul are that big.
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.