After all, they have just as much evidence PROVING he does not exist! They may have proof of Evolution, or other scientific facts, but there is no proof ANYWHERE that God does not exist.
The very nature of God would make any evidence of Him, either that He exists or does not Exist, completely invalid. That would be like an ant in America trying to prove, say, that people do not exist in China. The ant has never been to China, does not even know if China exists or not, but yet he gets mad at another ant who says Chinese people exist.
(I know that’s a REALLY bad analogy, but it was the best I could think of)
--So come on guys, show us some proof! And if there is no proof, you are better off acting like there is a God. If you live a good life, and there is no God, so what? But if you life a bad life, and there IS a God, you are in trouble.
Unless it is one of those believe-in-me-or-die Gods. Then we are ALL screwed.
2007-03-09 08:48:30 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If you wanted information about the Boys Scouts....you would read the Boy Scout Manual, if you wanted info on Roosevelt you would read his biography or history books....if you want information about God, read His book, don't even bother asking Christians or non-christians.
2007-03-09 08:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
First, before you try to prove or disprove God exists, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most
theists is that this term is a moving target.
You cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a) to absolutely prove God's existence. But you can 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 although this does not constitute absolute proof, it is inductively reasonable to assume God does not exist, in the same way that you live as if you will not die tomorrow.
2007-03-09 08:56:43 · answer #2 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you're right. you can't prove that there is a god and you can't prove that there isn't. That's why I am agnostic.
But I disagree with your statement; "If there is no proof, you are better off acting like there is a god." Why would you be better off? Living life like there is a god means limiting your thought, your actions and your beliefs. And why would we want to do that? Because there MIGHT be a heaven and hell in the "afterlife"? So JUST IN CASE we should limit the life that KNOW exists? I think it is more logical to make the best out of what we KNOW is true and not limit ourselves by basing all of our actions on something that we are not even sure of.
2007-03-09 09:02:35 · answer #3 · answered by J.C. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not quite sure I get what you're trying to say by "The very nature of God would make any evidence of Him, either that He exists or does not Exist, completely invalid." If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I do not understand why, if there's a God, He would need to COMPLETELY hide from us, and then have believers tell us that we just need to have "faith" that He's there, based on absolutely NOTHING but stories told to us by other people who believe in Him based on absolutely NOTHING. (But stories told to them by people who believe in Him ad infinitum...)
Everyone is born an atheist. You need to be TAUGHT to believe in a God. There are literally thousands of gods out there to choose from, and the one you wind up believing in is simply based on who you are born to, and who is teaching you.
There's a quote from Stephen F. Roberts that says:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The only thing that is a THEORY is that there IS a God. It's a theory because it is not the natural state of being. Atheism is the natural state of being. Now it is up to the believer to prove his/her theory that not only IS there a God, but that his/her God is the right ONE.
2007-03-10 13:05:24 · answer #4 · answered by Jess H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because you cannot prove a negative i.e The Loch Ness Monster or Yeti DO NOT exist. That is why you have to look for evidence of existence.
Yes, your analogy was REALLY bad.
2007-03-09 08:52:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Can you show proof that 'god' does exist? Come on now, be fair. If you're going to challenge a nonbeliever, you had better have concrete proof that 'god' exists.
2007-03-09 08:52:22 · answer #6 · answered by Maureen B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in God, but
It is the claimer who must provide the evidence, not the refuter. Just like if I claimed to have been abducted by a UFO. Does that mean I have to provide the proof for you to believe it, or do you have to prove it didn't happen for you to believe it didn't happen?
2007-03-09 09:46:37 · answer #7 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To me it seems that they are not confident in their belief that he does not exist and deep down they have some doubts in their self or why would they protest so much? If they don't believe that God exists then they don't believe. Leave it at that.
2007-03-09 08:53:41 · answer #8 · answered by lilith663 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no evidence even to suggest he does exist. That's the whole point. The default position of anyone should be that he doesn't exist unless the evidence suggests otherwise.
2007-03-09 08:51:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I don't know why we do it either.
There isn't even any evidence to suggest that God exists let alone prove it.
There is however, plenty to suggest that he doesn't even though none definitively proves it.
2007-03-09 08:51:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋