Personally i do believe there is a God. I just could not understand why some people believe there is no God. Can someone show me a prove that God doesn't exist.
2006-10-30 06:04:50 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Your question is so stupid on so many levels, theymight just give you a prize. However, now I've had to read it, I may as well try to answer you in simple terms so that you might understand...
1) An atheist is somebody who does not believe in God. Therefore, the answer to the firstpart of your question should be fairly self explanitary... (no).
2) The next part of your statement is that you do believe in God...surely you can work out that - to your mind - that means God does exist, for you?
3) Okay, here's where it gets a little tricky. Given that (1) and (2) are in direct conflict, you begin to form your thought. However, you - quite honestly - admit that you will never be able to bring yourself to see why somebody would choose not to believe in God, thereby rendering the whole exercise a little pointless, wouldn't you say?
4) Ignoring the grammatical error (or correcting it to be precise), you would like somebody to give you proof that God does not exist. This is a tad tricky, for a number of reasons (including that you have already stated that you will never be able to understand any reason for not believing in God).
Firstly, it is a pretty well agreed philosophical starting point that you cannot proove a negative. As the Universe continues to develop, so does our understanding of it. Just because there is no physical evidence that God does exist now, it can never be said that such evidence will never exist. All that can be offered is that using the best available technology and the five special senses afforded to the human being, God remains completely undetectable. A current lack of God can be shown, by virtue of not being able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell God.
The normal order of things in investigation is to not assume something which cannot be proved. Since the existence of God is not proved, and proofs which have been previously offered have all been flawed (not to mention been deliberately altered from their original forms for political reasons), the logica approach would be to assume a lack of God(s) until such a time as proof to the contrary might be made available.
In my opinion, an atheist has an intellectual responsibility to not rule out the possibility of the existence of God(s), but also the responsibility to reject all religious theories which have been thus far offered, as all have been shown to be flawed in some of their detail.
An intelligent, thinking, religious individual might follow a similar tenet; that religious texts are flawed, but choose to believe that a benign and satient God does exist.
I could enter into a discussion with you over various theories on the statistical likelihood of there being a God, based on the mathematical and physical laws of the universe (as we currently understand them) and whether such can be said to be evidence of order or chaos in the universe.
However, on the evidence of your ability to ask a simple coherent question, I strongly suspect you would struggle to follow such a debate - and further suspect you will blindly stick to your stated position of not being able see why somebody might choose to reject the theory of an omniscient, omnipotent divinity, regardless of what arguments might be put to you.
2006-10-31 00:52:03 · answer #1 · answered by lickintonight 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The proof is called induction. If I study religion, I can see that there are many many gods. There are the 300 million hindu gods, The greek pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, the Aztec pantheon, the Norse pantheon and on and on. Each member of any one of those religions would tell me that I can safely ignore all the others. Since each one has a more or less equal and overwhelming amout of detractors, I feel that I can safely conclude that they are all wrong. Induction.
This is the same logic that, even if I don't understand how the local cosmos works, I can safely assume that the Sun will appear to rise again the next day and the day after that.
You, my friend, are just playing a trick on yourself by thinking that your god should have special weight in my consideration of the facts. But I could narrow my inductive logic down to all the different factions of, say, Abrahamic religions and come to the same conclusion.
I could make a simple computer program that would make all the combinations of letters up to, let's say twenty letters, and declare to myself that these are the names of all the gods that conspired to create the universe, or make up an off-the-cuff religion over a period of months (FSM) or years(scientology) and declare that this must be the true religion because it was inspired. Or I could take an already established religion and alter it, alter the emphasis, or add to it (mormon) and declare my version to be the one and only right one.
I am digressing here... is induction, inductive logic, not proof enough that God does not exist, even though it is powerfull enough that I can safely assume that the Sun will appear to rise, in the East tomorrow???
2006-10-30 06:33:39 · answer #2 · answered by eantaelor 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you believe in the devil, demons, witches, ghosts, frankenstein, vampires, werewolves and other superstitions? These were all created by man's imagination, right ? Why not god too? People need an explaination for everything and thus made an answer for everything. The creation of the universe-god.See how easy it was to explain the creation of the Earth. Throughout history ,People used religions to weaken the minds of the soon to be conquered. Religious people have accused people of being witches( I guess you believe in witches). You truly dont think religion is based on the supernatural. By definition, wouldnt that be considered superstition? Prove to me that monsters and other superstitions are true than I will believe in your superstition of the supernatural god. Lets believe in everything that is mystical and ilogical!
2006-10-30 06:23:29 · answer #3 · answered by Maikeru 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Non-existant beings do not tend to leave evidence of their non-existence. I am an atheist because I have seen no credible evidence of any god. If you have evidence of a god please provide it. If you don't have evidence, then why would you believe in something without evidence to support that belief?
Abu -- People who claim that existence implies a creator just have not thought about it very much. If so then their god either has it's own creator or does not exist. If it has a creator then that creator needs a creator etc. Who created your god? If you say your god did not need a creator then why would you think the universe needs one?
Abu -- I was not created. I was born. I have a birth certificate to prove it..
2006-10-30 06:19:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I personally see no evidence that god exists, and therefore no reason to believe that god does.
Just like I when I open my fridge, I do not see a bottle of ketchup and therefore I am fairly certain in my conviction that there is no bottle of ketchup in my fridge.
If someone can show me evidence that there is indeed a god, and on top of that, that it is indeed the god described in the Bible, and that even if that god exists, there is some reason why I should bend, grovel and scrape to worship this being, then I may adjust my beliefs accordingly.
Just like if someone were to point out that there's ketchup on the sandwich in my fridge, I would amend my assertion that there's no ketchup in my fridge.
I'm not adverse to the idea of the existence of god, I just don't see any evidence for it.
2006-10-30 06:11:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
An atheist, or anyone, cannot prove the non existence of God.
Logically a person would have to know absolutely everything to be able to prove the non existence of anything, and certainly of God.
The existence of God can be satisfactorily proved. ( That is also another reason why the non existence of God cannot be proved)
It can be proved in various ways.
The problem is in the heart which refuses perfectly acceptable and valid proof.
It is not the proof that lacks but the heart that refuses.
2006-10-30 06:41:54 · answer #6 · answered by Ernest S 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You show me yours and I'll show you mine. And just in case there's any question, neither the Bible nor subjective "feelings" are proof. I don't believe in god because there is no evidence that he exists. There is no "proof" that he doesn't, but there is a lot of convincing evidence that he doesn't. I have no desire to believe in or change my life for something no one can prove exists. That includes Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as much as God.
2006-10-30 06:09:33 · answer #7 · answered by Jensenfan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. There are no gods. I am justified in saying that with no proof whatsoever, as I judge the very concept absurd.
However, depending on what you mean by "god", there may be a disproof. The simplest form of disproof is simply the inability of theists to define "god" in a self consistent way. It can also be proven that the universe can not have been created, which thus disproves any creator-style gods.
2006-10-30 06:30:20 · answer #8 · answered by lenny 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No god DOESNT exist, he was thought up by man to answer all the things man couldnt fathom out, What does the word 'God' mean ? Too all that worship God, does any of you know he exists? where does he live? 32 St.Peters Gate maybe?
No one has living proof that he exists i choose to say he doesnt exist, purely because if there was a God then there wouldnt be any of the violence in the world and no wars all in the name of God, i find it pathetic to be honest.
2006-10-30 06:51:45 · answer #9 · answered by vampire_o3 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And there I was thinking that belief in God was based on faith.
An atheist does not believe in God for the same reason he/she doesn't believe in a flying spaghetti monster or a teapot orbiting the sun. There is no evidence.
2006-10-30 06:24:24 · answer #10 · answered by kano7_1985 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋