This again?
That doesn't mean it exists, it just means you can't prove that it doesn't, and you can't prove a negative.
edit: You can prove a negative? YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE???
I know that I can't prove that you didn't kill president Kennedy, how do you explain that?
2007-02-14 10:49:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most
theists is that this term is a moving target.
In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the
existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).
So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that he intervenes to circumvent natural laws.
If God circumvents natural laws, then it is impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "it is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."
However, since we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen), the scientific method works in this discovery. And the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.
Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions).
If God is less than these and/or does not intervene in our existence, then he is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.
The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.
It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.
Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.
So that's why I don't believe God exists. And do you know what? It's okay if you do believe God exists.
2007-02-14 11:03:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by NHBaritone 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Saying that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim for existence is not avoiding the question, it's stating facts. And there's no need for atheists to be confident in their "belief": they don't believe. They lack belief in the existence of God, hence the word a-theist
2007-02-14 10:57:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by murnip 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most people will answer that it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't think so, I think it IS possible to prove a negative (for example by following logical conclusions leading to a contradiction). This, however, would require a complete definition of god and the rest first.
Anyway, I think the strongest argument against the existence of god etc. is the fact that there are thousands of religions on earth. If there were such a thing as a true god, it seems pretty obvious to me that there could only be one, the true, religion.
2007-02-14 10:51:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by NaturalBornKieler 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
First of all, you call it rhetoric, but one CANNOT prove a negative. It's logically impossible.
Since you're asking what it is that makes me so strong in my conviction...
After spending the better part of 10+ years studying the bible, I decided to study the history of the book itself. I began to learn that the gospels were written well after Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John died; that the most famous historian (Josephus) had his work sponsored by a bishop who advocated lies and deception to keep the church in power; that many of the stories within the bible are bastardizations of tales told by earlier religions; that archeological evidence doesn't support the "history" that the bible purports to contain; etc.
When the one book that is supposed to be the undeniable word of god, and the basis of the entire faith, can't hold up to scrutiny, the "truth" that its supposed to contain is anything but true. The foundation is questionable at best.
2007-02-14 11:27:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
We will, as soon as you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. It's that simple.
===
PROVE A NEGATIVE THEN! Prove I don't have a glowing pink squirrel up my nostril humming the Latvian national anthem! It should be easy. PROVE, remember - not just a categorical assertion. You've got to offer the same standard of proof as 2+2=4. No-one reading your proof can be allowed to be in any doubt. Go on!
YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE! IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL IMPOSSIBILITY!
2007-02-14 10:52:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bad Liberal 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
No, Tim, you CANNOT prove a negative. If you want a logical argument, you must honor the rules of logical engagement.
The proof is in the living. No one has seen god. Never. Ever.
The folks who say there is one have nothing to offer me in terms of factual, testable proof. If they wish to accept an almighty on faith, that is their prerogative. I cannot and will not.
.
2007-02-14 10:58:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chickyn in a Handbasket 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
One normally cannot prove the non-existence of something. However, one can argue that an omnipotent being is inherently contradictory, since in order to be omnipotent, this entity would have to do things that are in direct contradiction with each other.
The classic example of this: Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Whether you answer yes or no, you effectively put a limit on what God can do. Limits would translate out to "not omnipotent."
2007-02-14 10:53:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lunarsight 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's not possible to provide proof that anything does NOT exist. You'd be hard pressed to prove the Tooth Fairy isn't real. The burden of proof is on the person making the ridiculous claim. In other words, it's on you people who think there's a sky fairy.
2007-02-14 10:50:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Asking me to prove that something doesn't exist is like asking me to tell you what you're thinking.
In the story story of doubting Thomas, Jesus proved to Thomas that he was really Jesus. If he could give proof then, why not now?
2007-02-14 10:50:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Study Buddhist logic and you will understand my pov on why I don't believe in the concept of an omnipotent creator god and why I feel such a concept is wholly illogical.
It's far too much information to write about in here since it uses logic and reasoning... and it's far better for you to look it up yourself and understand, or not, for then you cannot say the info was fed to you incorrectly.
_()_
2007-02-14 11:03:02
·
answer #11
·
answered by vinslave 7
·
1⤊
0⤋