2007-11-03 18:20:38 · 21 answers · asked by Mutual Help 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Absolutely not. One would have to be God, that is able to see everywhere at once, in order to conclusively prove the non-existence of God. If one were God, that would disprove the non-existence thereof. Therefore it is a flat impossibility to prove the non-existence of God.
2007-11-03 18:31:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
No more than you can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence false completely, 100%. You can't prove a negative, pal - the burden of proof is upon the person making the affirmative claim.
2007-11-03 18:32:38 · answer #2 · answered by nobody important 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If he cannot be proven to exist, then he is not existent. Nothing to say that he's false, he's just not in existence.
2007-11-03 18:28:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it can't..it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. He is a spirit and nobody can even come close to analyzing something that is not of this Earth. They try and prove Him out of existence..
Read Carefully......
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bog-gglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets
himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
Douglas Adams
2007-11-03 18:28:27 · answer #4 · answered by SMX™ -- Lover Of Hero @};- 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, and like many atheists, I don't need or even want to be able to do so.
"Believe the null until there is evidence against the null" is how it goes, so whether or not something theoretically can exist does not matter.
2007-11-03 18:30:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If god actually does not exist, and is not defined in a contradictory way, it will be impossible to prove his nonexistence.
This is why the burden of proof is always on those making a positive claim.
2007-11-03 18:25:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Define "God" and we'll see.
People who ask this type of question generally refuse to provide an adequate definition for "God" and then claim that every proof they are offered is not based on what "God" really is.
That means that even trying to answer your question is a futile endeavor until you provide a complete definition for "God." I'd love to see you provide one without ascribing a list of mutually exclusive traits to him.
2007-11-03 18:30:14 · answer #7 · answered by scifiguy 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately, it's not possible to "disprove" something unless you can prove something exists in contrary to the original theory. E.g., if God didn't create humans, evolution caused it.
So no, it can't.
:)
2007-11-03 18:28:19 · answer #8 · answered by twentytwo_eucalyptus_trees 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Replace "God's existence" with any other thing you could possibly imagine. The answer will still be "no".
2007-11-03 18:24:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why would I waste my time *proving* what doesn't exist? Look instead, at what does exist.
2007-11-03 20:11:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋