You already have a definition of God which you try to disprove. If you don't know what God is, how can you disprove it? Athiests, which definition do you go by, while disproving God's existence?
2007-11-27 10:36:35 · 11 answers · asked by RAJESH 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Oh Oh... I don't mean that disproving a few means that the others exist... I'm just asking because I saw a previous answer that it's easy to disprove God.
2007-11-27 10:51:26 · update #1
Why don't you guys read what the question is before start attacking? You guys are just acting like blind non-believers. Just a simple question!
I am not telling you to disprove God!
2007-11-27 12:16:26 · update #2
God is the Creator. : He "made the world and all things in it." In Paul's day and ours, the truth makes no room for men's opinions regarding origins.
God is the Revealer. Men should "seek God... He is not far from each one of us... Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like [anything] formed by the art and thought of man." God, by creating, ruling, giving, and controlling all things, has clearly revealed Himself in what He has made--men are truly without excuse .
2007-11-27 10:54:02 · answer #1 · answered by †ℱαìtℎ7♥ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm, an atheist will say that God does not exist. They know that God doesn't exist, because there is no factual proof that God exist. So in the sense they are telling you that God indeed doesn't exist.
Yet when you ask them by what a basis are they disproving the existence of God, they retract and tell that the burden of proof is on you. I thought that they already have proof that God didn't exist, or at least some claim that they do?
Plus to answer your question, they think that you are asking them to at least hold on to the possibility that there is a God, and then disprove it. You are not doing this, but yet ironically you can't have a opinion about something unless, at least to you, you already know what that thing is.
Most people know that there aren't any pink unicorns. That is a collective assumption. I think we can all agree that a pink unicorn would be a horse, that is pink, and who has 1 horn in the middle of its head. Since there is evolution there is nothing that supports a pink unicorn exists, if there is, it is mostly likely a mutation. However no one can really say what or who God is. You can't use evolution to explain God and you can't use science to explain God. So anybody, who is claiming that God does not exist or even saying that God does exist are all making assumptions to who or what God is in their own mind.
2007-11-27 20:56:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't try to disprove it. I don't need to. Believe what you want to believe. I care not at all. However, this does not mean I believe in god either.
And how did you disprove the notions of Zeus or Hades? Many consider them to be naught more than fiction. However, there are still faithful out there. Would you not call them silly and try and convince them of the lie of their deities. If so, how can you justify that?
I eagerly wait a response.
2007-11-27 18:44:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't need to disprove the existence of god to not believe, I simply need a lack of proof to not believe and since no one has any proof for the existence of a god I am an atheist.
Some gods can be disproven (and have, including the most popular gods) but not all concepts of god can be disproven.
Then again, you can't prove there's no teapot between Earth and Mars.
2007-11-27 18:40:57 · answer #4 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Which gods can YOU disprove? A few? Many? All?
I'm sure you'll say you can disprove at least a few of them.
What about the ones that are left?
Do they exist then, by default?
You'd better start praying to Zeus... pronto!
2007-11-27 18:42:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't have to disprove the existence of gods. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claim the existence of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent sky pixie. You show some evidence it exists. I don't have to show evidence it doesn't any more than I have to prove there is not an invisible pink unicorn living under the mulberry tree in my garden.
2007-11-27 18:42:28 · answer #6 · answered by tentofield 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, you need to know what others believe him to be. you could have many pre-conceived notions of what god is, and then you could disprove them all, unless you couldn;t disprove one, in which case one would then expect you to believe in the one you cannot disprove. no atheist is denying what god is thought to be, they are denying their belief in him altogether. i happen to not believe in an "H" chord on the guitar, mostly because i haven't the faintest idea what one is.
2007-11-27 18:46:02 · answer #7 · answered by LostKeys30 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In every language and every culture "GOD" refers to the creator of "MAN." Therefor, if you believe that "YOU" exist, then you believe GOD exists.
2007-11-27 18:46:50 · answer #8 · answered by waynesworldstage 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it would be you who needs to prove god exists.
2007-11-27 18:40:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The burden of proof is on you to prove that he exists.
2007-11-27 18:39:37 · answer #10 · answered by S K 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋