Please prove logically god does not exist?

Question

Many have asked for people to prove that god does exist, starting from a standpoint of nuetral through to that he does not exist.

However I wish to reverse the situation, I would like for people to try and prove logically that god does not exist.

Please answer within the bounds of the question, and explain your reasoning.

Thanks.

Answer 1

No way to prove either side of this. In fact I would have to lean toward there being a God. To me its like a little kid asking why over and over to a set of answers someone is providing for him. If you go back far enough even to amoeba someone had to put them here also.

Answer 2

All evidence to human beings comes from the natural world.
There can not be any evidence of any plot beyond (externally) the natural world because any evidence has to come from within the natural world. There have been many humans who have claimed to have this knowledge, but they are relegated to the natural world as well. Of course there are events beyond human explanation, but this not show support for a transcendental explanation. There will always be limitations to human knowledge. If there were a cosmic order: we could not know that it exits, nor what form it takes; therefore there are no rationally defensible answers. Those answers put forth are speculative and arbitrary. This leads to the presumption in favor of a God not existing; switching that presumption is quite a neat logical trick.

Design theory attempts to create evidence inferred from the natural world to a designer, but that designer has to be external to the natural world. The presumed principle here is that humans have a function and everything else has been develop around Humans. People (cities) habitate around rivers for their own benefit; rivers do not habitate around humans for their benefit.

Belief and faith are rooted in the emotions and feelings. Any argument that refutes the principles in the realm of reason will only strengthen the faith. If faith loses in the realm of reason, it shakes the validity of the convictions, and persuades its adherents that there is a profundity to their convictions that reason could never touch. Religious arguments start from presumptive principles, they are not argued to the presumptive principles; hence any other entity could be defended in the same manner as those presupposed to be true (e.g., the Easter Bunny, Santa, Leprechauns). This has lead many to contort their reason around the faith in order to maintain itself (preservation techniques), like the reversal in your question. Faith is a powerful faculty that is probably intrinsic to humans, and as part of the emotional makeup, will protect itself from being defeated at nearly any cost (Self defense mechanism).

Answer 3

you begin with a false premise so your question is worthless. I have not seen any proof that convincingly shows that god does not exist. I have also not seen any proof that convincingly shows that god does exist.

However, the burden of proof is decidedly on those that want to prove the existence of that which is not immediately obvious. so we do not start from a 'neutral' place, this is where you are mistaken, we start with the burden of proof being squarely on those that want to prove the existence of god.

Also,to believe in god we would have to introduce all sorts of complex concepts attributed to god into our ontology, whereas to not believe in god our ontology does not change, it merely sticks with what's already proven. we would have to accept the existence of supernatural entity outside of all known science that has omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so on.

Occhams razor dictates that a good rule of thumb is to not introduce a more complex explanation of the phenomena than is necessary to explain the phenoman. this is because the more things you have to assume to explain something the more things can be incorrect.

so, since your explanation introduces many more concepts than are necessary, since those concepts fly in the face of science and would require huge leaps of reason, since their is no deductive argument proving the existence of god, since their isn't exactly a large amount of inductive evidence for the existence of god, since the existence of god is the positive claim, it follows that the burden of proof is squarely on those that want to prove gods existence.

by analogy if you lose a sock in the laundrymat, the simple explanation is that someone stole it or that it fell somewhere, the complex explanation is that invisible all powerful gremlins stole it. since only the latter explanation requires us to assume the existence of something that is over and beyond what we currently know, the burden of proof is on the gremlin investigation.

Answer 4

Your difficulty is that if God exists, it may be in a transcendent way that isn't capable of logical proof either of existence or of nonexistence. God is experienced, not reasoned.

I personally believe God exists, and I see proof of this in the experiences and attitudes of humanity. But I've never found a strictly logical way to prove or disprove (beyond all doubt) the existence or the nonexistence of God.

Logically, I believe the only strictly rational stance has to be agnosticism. For this reason, I don't think your question can be answered - if you rely on logic and logic alone.

Answer 5

Bravo!! I believe God does exist! I applaud you being brave enough to post any question having to do with God, but I think that speaking LOGICALLY most people could questionably argue that he doesn't exist, hence the whole reason that Christianity is a religion based on FAITH. If it could be proved or disproved without a doubt than this wouldn't be possible. Just my opinion on the matter...but please look it up and see for yourselves.

Answer 6

I think that your question itself makes a very good point. There is no real "logical" proof that God does OR does not exist. In fact there is no proof of any kind at all that either is true other than the fact that the ideas themselves exist. Whether he does or not is only a matter of whether you believe he exists or not. It is purely a matter of opinion.

Answer 7

I don't think ANYONE CAN answer you. Logic itself forces me to believe that there is a God. Pls. understand. Study metaphysics. It may help you understand life better than Rick Warren. Warren is not a philosopher. His book is for Christians, not for converting atheists.

Answer 8

Unfortunately for this type of query, the burden of proof tends to lie on proving said existence. However before that, one needs to establish a definition for "god" ... I assume you mean "God," (capitalized,) the subject at the center of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths.

How can one begin to disprove something that you haven't defined?

Is God a being? Is God an entity of some kind everywhere around us? (Akin to the air around us that we breathe, and not Bugs Bunny as a baseball team "everywhere".) Or is God something else? Is God tangible in some way? Can God's presence be detected in a way we can sense or measure? And so forth. You get the picture.

In trying to work towards the affirmative, the argument can at least establish the definition it's trying to prove. (Which of course is then subject to review and evaluation to its validity.)

Answer 9

If you really wanted a nuetral starting point you should have asked does god exist or not exist, please provide proof? so the question really is what is your agenda?

Answer 10

Show me a miracle. Like the ones in the bible - walking on water, wine into water, people raised from the dead, or flames consuming a sacrifice doused in water.
How come "God" could do all of those things to prove his existence back then, but stubbornly refuses to do it now?
I don't buy it.
(While you're at it, please explain the Tower of Babel to me too. I can't bend my mind around that one. God throws a tantrum 'coz the people decide to build a tower high enough to reach him - but we've had men walking on the moon... WTF?)