could you prove that god dose not exist?

Question

i need an rational answer and not an emotional ,,,like ``i dont feel he exsist,,,

Answer 1

God does exist in the mind of man. There have been many Gods over time. Man created God because he does not want to die, but tries to kill those who worship the same God in a different way.

Perhaps each of the ten plagues was presented to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of each of the Egyptian ten god’s. Osiris was the Egyptian god of the Nile. The Egyptians believed that Osiris gave life and sustenance to the people because the Nile itself was the vital life-source of ancient Egypt. The first plague was Blood. The waters of the Nile turned to the symbol of death, blood. That was a sign of G-d’s superiority over Osiris.

The name of the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus was Amenophis, more commonly called Amenhotep. His son and successor, Akenaten, did away with the Egyptian collection of gods and taught a monotheistic religion throughout the land. That God was the SUN!

Answer 2

An absolute negative cannot be proven absolutely, so no, I cannot prove that God does not exist any more than I could prove that he does exist. One could approach a proof of nonexistence only if one defined what one was looking for, i.e., if someone DEFINED God and then set about showing the preponderance of evidence is against this particular definition existing, at least locally and with the tools available to the researchers. But prove with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist? Can't be done.

Answer 3

Nobody can. It's impossible to prove something does not exist (the same goes for Zeus and the Invisible Pink Unicorn).

Not being able to prove something does not exist does not mean that it does. Nor does it imply that it does. What is more important is the evidence for its existence. The evidence for the Christian god is the same as for all the other gods - there is none.

Answer 4

There is no evidence that there is a god. No evidence essentially means that someone made it up. It isn't rational or reasonable to believe in things without any evidence to back it up. You would be stuck with hundreds of thousands of gods and everything else that human imagination could come up with since they all have the same evidence.

Not believing in god is the same as not believing in Odin, Zeus, Ra, Hera, Bacchus, The Great Spirit, Osiris, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the others. I would be no less surprised of evidence of Odin was found than I would be if evidence of your god was.

Answer 5

1. You need to learn how to type or spell.
2. It is not the responsibility of the non-believer to prove that "god" doesn't exist. It is the responsibility of the believer to prove that god DOES exist.
.

Answer 6

I can't prove a negative. It is the believer's responsiblity to prove He does exist. In Christianity's 2000 years, you would think somehow someone would prove that He does exist, but I have yet to witness it. What's taking you guys so long? I think I know...

Answer 7

No. And you can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, either. It's never possible to prove a negative - that's one of the laws of logic.

The fact that you can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't prove anything - you can't turn it around and take it as proof that he does exist.

Answer 8

It is impossible to prove any proposition about the empirical world. "Proof" suggests absolute certainty, which is unattainable for experientially-based claims. For example, there is no proof for the claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun, nor is there proof that human beings exist. Proof, and certainty, only exist for claims that are analytically true: "All bachelors are unmarried men", for example, or "1 + 1 = 2". The claim "God exists" can neither be proven or disproven, thus, because its truth depends not on mere examination of the concept of God, but rather on the state of affairs in the real world, and our understanding of the real world is always imperfect and fallible. Thus, it is not only unproven, but unprovable.

If, on the other hand, you want us to give a good reason to believe or not believe that God exists--i.e., show that God is plausible or implausible, rather than trying to attain certainty--then that's quite possible. Simply evaluate the evidence for God, and, if it is compelling, affirm that God exists; if it is not, then do not affirm that God exists, and be a nontheist. There currently is no compelling evidence for God whatsoever; none more than there is for Santa Claus, unicorns, or dragons. Even most people who believe in God admit that they do so based on faith and personal conviction, not based on the evidence. Therefore it is reasonable to say "God does not exist" for the exact same reason that it is reasonable to say "Santa Claus does not exist": not because there's evidence against either of those claims, or because they're impossible, but merely because the default stance is to doubt any such extraordinary claims, until they are shown to be true. The burden of proof is on theists, not atheists, to provide compelling arguments for theism. Trying to shift the burden of proof is a fallacy, and as absurd as arguing that people who don't believe in leprechauns need to prove that leprechauns don't exist first.

So, in summation: it's perfectly possible that God exists, and therefore there is no "proof" for or against God. However, that alone doesn't make belief in God rationally tenable, because there also needs to be compelling evidence for God's existence in order to warrant such a belief. In lieu of such evidence, doubt is always expected and normal. If someone told you that he had an invisible, undetectable dog, your default response would be disbelief. You wouldn't believe him until you could prove that he wasn't right (which you can't do anyway).

Answer 9

Is 'God' a dependent being or independent being?

If you say independent, he does not care (by the nature of independence) about you, me or anyone else.

If you say dependent, he is not all knowing, powerful, etc... he changes.

Either choice and you're stuck with a 'God' that does not fit most theists view of God.

The main problem in disproving God is that the believer's mind is usually like a grunion and will make any exception in keeping their belief in-tack

Answer 10

No, I don't have to know every detail.

The existence of a deity would have numerous consequences. No meaningful deity would create a universe where free will is impossible. Thus, a meaninful deity has as its consequences the possibility of free will.

This is impossible in the universe we find ourselves in.

This can be expressed in formal logic:

IF [a meaningful deity exists] THEN [free will exists] (premise)
NOT [free will exists] (by Church-Turing Thesis)
THEREFORE NOT [a meaningful deity exists] (modus tollens).