Disprove the existence of God?

Question

Why do religious types go on about us not being able to disprove the existence of God? Surely it is for the theorist to prove his/her theory, rather than for others to disprove it. I can't disprove the existence of tapdancing unicorns, but that doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, should believe in them.

Answer 1

They don't understand what empirical evidence is or how it relates to science or theory. While they request a complete set of data to prove evolution they can produce none to prove that God exists.

We can prove God does not exist, because we can demonstrate with neuroscience, psychology, anthropology and genetics that God-type ideas are historically a convenient recurrent dillusion which, while incosistent in the details, are consistent in the impact of genetic procreation. This means that it doesn't matter if your ancestors believed in Thor, Zeus, or Bozo, the idea of a God or Gods gives people a reason, all be it false, to gather together and cooperate which encourages an enhanced genetic survival.

This is similar to how the brain processes language. We have to be born with some sort of inherent programming to allow us to know that the sounds humans make have different values than the sounds a refrigerator makes. We also need the knowledge that those human sounds have values that are relative to the tone and manner that sound is produced. Without this inherent grammar we cannot learn language. However, the inherent grammar works for all languages. Our genes tell us how we grow relative to the resources in our immediate environment. So the fundamental rules are the same in chinese, arabic or english though the order and sounds may be different.

"God" works in the same way. Our first blush a understanding something is to anthropomorphize it because we are programmed to understand the world in a context of human behavior. We pay more attention to how humans create things than to how things actually work. Your genes don't care that you get the answer right, just that you know enough to stay alive. Notice the history of beliefs, and how as humans learn more about how things actually work and as that knowledge is shared, the idea of God's role decreases. Apollo no longer rides his chariot daily; disease and birth defects no longer have anything to do with demons; and nature is somehow not all entirely under the control of God until it can be interpretted by humans to support their billion dollar industry.

Answer 2

A quick answer from my blog; www.god-101.blogspot.com

Dr. Richard Dawkins (whose thoughts are also responsible for one whole chapter in my book) is an avowed athiest.

He has come up with a story that has been widely circulated and I feel needs repeating here. (Even though I am just an Agnostic, or maybe Gnostic/Existentialist, or even Unitarian/Universalist! Remember, my book God-101 is about what God is NOT!)

He theory? If there were a "teapot" in orbit around the sun we would have no way of proving it, since it is much too small to see!

None the less that would not stop anyone from "believing" there really is a teapot out there. The fact that we can't see it doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist!

So, when we get down to a matter of faith, or belief, - facts don't have much to do with anything.

Just because we can't see the teapot doesn't mean there is not one out there. Conversly our "belief" that one is out there has about as much to do with anything - as the price of tea in China!

(Thus the "teapot!" HA HA)

We also at one time or another chosen to beleive in Thor-God of Thunder, Odin, Zeus, (not Dr.Suess) astrology etc. etc.

Dr. Dawkins conclusion was this: "Since what we believe about things is so fluid and subjective we should only go with what we do know."
(Objective Science)

Since I was para-phrasing the good Doctor Dawkins I hope I got his meaning right. But there is one aurgument he has not taken into account and which I talked about in my book - and that was this: "We cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God because the one common denominator in all religions in the World is the NEED to have those beleifs in the first place."

So the end result is that we can in no way prove the existence (or not) of God, it is the common need for God that makes me suspect there is something to it!!!

Your scribe
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html

Answer 3

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." ~ Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?" commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

"We are all 'teapot atheists'... I just happen to believe in one fewer teapots than you do." ~ Richard Dawkins, commenting on Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' vignette

Answer 4

Why?

Both God and Satan exist. Dying tends to clear these matters up.

Tapdancing unicorns sound perfectly natural to me. Tapdancing unicorns in high heels. That needs to be proved.

No one cares what you believe needs to be proved/disproved.

Can you prove that your, or anyone elses existence is worth anything?

Can you prove that fairies doesn't exist? If you can prove that, I will hit you in the back of the head with a hammer. (Nothing personal)

Answer 5

You are correct in your statement concerning proof. The Judeo-Christian belief is a religion. By definition it is unproven and unprovable.

So is atheism. It is unproven and unprovable, thus it is a religion.

Evolution is also a religion. It is unproven and unprovable.

All religions point to uncontrovertible facts and explain them by means of a dogmatic pre-conceptual framework based on their belief system, their religion.

Both look at the same facts and claim them as their own as evidence. None can claim facts as "proof". Facts merely exist, by themselves they don't "prove" an explanation as to why they exist.

We can find fossile remains of unicorns, but there is no proof they ever tapdanced.

Christian archeologists find the remains of unicorns and beleive it's proof of a young earth and that the Bible is right after all.

Evolutionists find the remains of unicorns and call them triceritops and believe it's proof of an old earth and that their religion requiring millions of years is correct.

Footprints of men and dragons are found together all over the earth. Christians believe this proves men and dragons lived together and men drove dragons into extinction.

Evolutionists find footprints of men and "dinosaurs" and believe this proves there were dinosaurs that left a footprint the same size and shape as a man's foot, but it couldn't have been a man because the dinosaurs all died out before men "evolved".

It's all a matter of which religion you prefer to believe, and how much of a leap you're willing to make to remain unshaken in your religion.

Answer 6

The problem is simple, the complete lack of any and all empirical data to suggest the existence of anything even remotely godlike, should suffice to disprove at least the probability of god's existence to anyone with their critical thinking faculties intact.

William Occam's Razor anyone?

I happen to know a few tap-dancing unicorns, how did you hear about them?

Answer 7

Good way of putting it. What I still can't understand are the wars and people killing in the name of God when noone can even be sure he exists. Imagine now if people were killing each other over tapdancing unicorns and I think it puts it in some perspective.

Answer 8

If one could either prove or disprove the existence of God, there would be no use for faith.. which is what most religions rely upon.

Answer 9

There are at least 5 reasonable and philosophical proofs of God's existence so the burden falls on you to disprove them.

Answer 10

There are great differences between the Creator and the creations ...

The creator like the teacher , teaches children to do things , children invent thing themselves but they don't beat their teacher , they may become just like him but can't beat him ....

If you see the organization of every thing , from top of the universe down under ground , nothing happens with no order , nothing randoms ....

Every child in the universe born with faith of the exsistance of God ..... but the sweet world we live in turn them into believers or nonbelievers ....

And God is not to blame for this cruel world we live in cause WE creat it ourselves ....