Is there proof God doesn't exist?

Question

Seen all the answers on how people are stupid to believe there is a God at all, the demand to "prove" God's existence, is there any "proof", that God, indeed, does not exist?

My 1)parents
2) friend
3)pastor
4) dog
5) LP played backwards,
told me, will not be deemed authoritative proof

"Common sense" is another no-no.

Many believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution than God

Devil's advocate, (he-he)

"Faith" covers both ends.

You can have "Faith" that God exists, or "Faith" that God doesn't exist.

Sooo...."faith" becomes no-no #2

Don't mean to shout...

I HAVEN"T MADE ANY CLAIM!!

I asked a question.

You don't like the question, you think it's a stupid question, OK, I can live with that. But not making ANY claims!

http://godisimaginary.com/

Interesting ideas, using Western logic, (here's a clue, most of the world couldn't follow this train of thought, much less agree with it), you've managed to out smart God.
If he, (it?) exists.
Keep in mind, I'm not taking sides, I'm asking a question. Do you REALLY believe, that if there's a God, (an assumption), he/she/it would conform to your rules of "logic"?
Additionally, what about all the other "holy books"? Do you try just to trash the bible, or are you an equal opportunity atheist?

http://godisimaginary.com/ = no-no

The not being able to prove a negative, granted.....but that wasn't the question. yes-no

Loved the teapot.

Answer 1

You don't need to prove a negative position. It is assumed by default. The burden is on you.

I can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.

1. God is All knowing
2. God is All powerful
3. God is All loving
4. Everyone who doesn't believe in God goes to Hell.
5. In order to believe in God, I require concrete proof.
6. God hasn't given me concret proof on his existence.
7. If God was all knowing, he'd know what I need to believe.
8. If God was all powerful, he COULD give me that proof.
8. if God was all loving, he wouldn't want me to go to hell and he'd prove he existed to me.

Conclusion: God cannot be All powerful, all knowing, and all loving, and therefore the Christian God (one who is all three things) does NOT exist.

Answer 2

No matter what anyone says, there is no proof for anything (positive or negative). You have to take a statement that is made (i.e. "God does not exist"), process it in your own mind, and make a choice of whether you believe it or not based on things that others have taught you or told you and/or your own conclusions.

Unless you were around before the Universe was to see how everything began then you HAVE NO PROOF or foundation for truth (it has to be theory....and just because something is tested over and over and has the same outcome every time doesn't mean it will ALWAYS have the same outcome, it just means that there's a high probabilty that it will). This is common sense. If you want to argue otherwise then you are not thinking logically. You are stating your opinion or what you believe by faith.

SKIPPY, please e-mail me if you would like to discuss this more. I know you are very fact-minded just like me, but the truth is you can not claim to know for sure if God exists or not because you weren't there before He was. You may have some great arguments, but they are based on your beliefs, not facts.

Answer 3

If you need to believe in God, then do. If you don't, then don't. No reason can be applied to it, because --if you use logic--, that that cannot be proven cannot be proven wrong, either. If you want to proove that God exists, you are at a loss, because, as you say, "somebody said so" (this includes the bible) is not an argument at all. I can say anything to my children (like "apples are actually blue, but people see them red because they are sinners"), and that teaching can survive thousands of generations, but it will still not proove anything. On the other hand, you cannot proove something does NOT exist, because to proove something you need evidence, and if something does not exist, there can be no evidence of it either. So, either way, you loose. You can't reason it out. That is why it is called an "article of faith".

.

Answer 4

In some cases yes. It depends on how define god. That doesn't really matter though. Most of the time it's impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.

Answer 5

I agree with Skippy. Believing in something just because you cannot prove it does not exist is foolish and reckless. Suppose I choose to believe that aliens are an imminent danger to the earth, and will destroy us at any moment. You cannot prove that it won't happen. Does that place the burden on you to prove that space aliens do not exist? Of course not, the burden of proof lies with me proving that aliens do exist.

The "You can't prove it's wrong" argument is the worst argument for a God I have ever heard. At least have the courtesy to not insult our intelligence; introduce a miracle here and there as offers of evidence. Please stop making this ludicrous argument, it makes all Christians look bad in the eyes of people with at least a quarter of a brain.

Answer 6

A necessary consequence of a deity who holds us accountable is free will.

Free will is a literal impossibility as a consequence of the Church-Turing Thesis.

Since the necessary consequence is missing, the cause is missing as well by modus tollens.

This does yield to the possibility of deism -- that is, an uninvolved and uninterested deity, a blind watchmaker. Since the Deistic concept does not have an afterlife, belief and non-belief do not matter. Since belief comes with costs that non-belief does not, even if there is a Deistic deity, non-belief is superior as it has the same consequences (none) of belief, with none of the costs. Worship of a deistic deity is intrinsically futile.

Answer 7

Is there any proof Russell's teapot doesn't exist?

Seen all the answers on how people are stupid to believe there is a Russell's teapot at all, the demand to "prove" Russell's teapot's existence, is there any "proof", that Russell's teapot, indeed, does not exist?

---

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:
“ 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. ”

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:
“ The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 8

You're asking the wrong question. What do you want out of your life? What are your passions, your dreams, your goals, and what's holding you back from pursuing them? Admit your hurt, let go of anger, confront those who've hurt you and reconcile with those who apologize and separate from those who refuse, but forgive all of them, and especially yourself, because everyone makes mistakes and you are a good person because you feel bad when you hurt someone.

Your only criterion for your behavior is whether you initiate the use of force against others and are therefore a criminal and whether you're dishonest (from cheating on your wife to harmful business deals) and are therefore a liar.

Answer 9

Can anyone prove that I don't exist? Can anyone prove that the words I write or the info on yahoo is not really from me? No, because I do exist and I did write these words.

Neither can anyone prove that God doesn't exist or that the written Words He gave us are not from Him.

Answer 10

There is more proof that he exist than to the contrary. If you read the More Than A Carpenter by josh Mcdowell it outlines a compelling case.

Answer 11

You make the extreme claim "god exist" you are required to bear the proof. Burden of proof.
If I say you are a murder, its not your responsibility to prove throught your entire life you have never murdered anyone and if you don't have an answer for every moment, then you are a murder. It doesn't work that way.