Hasn't god been disproved?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2012, 01:52 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
I agree will the arguments that God is not disproven, but he has been declared dead.
It took several centuries, but we finally got him.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 05:28 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(10-04-2012 12:40 AM)Atheist Chiefs fan! Wrote:  I would say that it's been proven that 'God is incredibly unlikely.'
If you wanna take that tack, its easier to prove or rather demonstrate that we're pretty unlikely, or you specifically are pretty unlikly. Yet you and we exist so that statement doesnt really say a great deal.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 05:36 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
I believe God has been disproved because of the existence of multiple religions. Each claims their god is omnipresent and omnipotent. If they were, would they not be able to wipe out the false god and save their souls from worshiping the wrong one?

Under Repair.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(09-04-2012 08:05 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's possible that there is a right argument and theists simply haven't discovered it yet.

Talk about faith... Big Grin

Cannot disprove god 'cause god is in the mind's eye. Gotta go in there and get it. With an icepick. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like houseofcantor's post
10-04-2012, 07:59 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
I don't think you can prove no god exists, as for a broad enough definition of "God" we can imagine a domain outside of this universe we have no knowledge of that some creature with god-like properties may exist within. However I also think that you can "prove" that the christian God does not exist, and suspect that you can prove the non-existence of other superstitions. Such a proof would rely on the existence of that god and its stated properties being self-contradictory.
The problem of evil is one such attempted proof, where a good god that is all knowing and all powerful seems contradictory to evil existing within the world. I think there is enough wriggle room with definitions to make the holes in this argument difficult to plug. My personal preference is to focus on the conflict I see between a good "God" that cares about people as if they were his children, and the fact that most people will go to hell to be eternally tormented/punished. I think this is a straightforward contradiction that is simpler to argue than the broader problem of evil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(10-04-2012 07:59 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I don't think you can prove no god exists, as for a broad enough definition of "God" we can imagine a domain outside of this universe we have no knowledge of that some creature with god-like properties may exist within. However I also think that you can "prove" that the christian God does not exist, and suspect that you can prove the non-existence of other superstitions. Such a proof would rely on the existence of that god and its stated properties being self-contradictory.
The problem of evil is one such attempted proof, where a good god that is all knowing and all powerful seems contradictory to evil existing within the world. I think there is enough wriggle room with definitions to make the holes in this argument difficult to plug. My personal preference is to focus on the conflict I see between a good "God" that cares about people as if they were his children, and the fact that most people will go to hell to be eternally tormented/punished. I think this is a straightforward contradiction that is simpler to argue than the broader problem of evil.
I also like to point out that an all powerful god who requires a sacrifice of himself in order to give something to us .. is either primitive, unimaginative or just not very bright. But a bright theist can always evade any such contradictions by simply dropping belief in the bible as the literal word of God. The best theists for my taste are those who read the bible (and other books as well) as a source of wisdom stories and take everything in it with a grain of salt. They're slippery devils to argue with but so much more human at the same time.

[Image: rSJ3y4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2012 07:55 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(09-04-2012 09:53 PM)whateverist Wrote:  I wonder if you think there is no application for the word "faith" apart from religious contexts. I'm happily atheist but it seems appropriate to talk of faith in things for which objective proof is scarce or all together lacking. "Best guess" or "hunch" doesn't seem to be an adequate descriptor for things like belief in love, other minds or your own creative self worth. These and other such notions seem to have a wished-for aspect as well as reasonableness going for them. Faith apart from religious faith seems sensible enough to me. What do you think?
It's easy enough to find that you're right --- a Google search for the definition finds many sites that list both definitions of faith, and I'll just cite one here (although it isn't the only one). So faith does also mean to have a certainty based on evidence. Apologists, particularly ones that have argued against Sam Harris in his quote that I used, have said that he's equivocating the word, although Mr. Harris is using the definition cited by the bible:
Quote:Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
And it's because of this that I dare say that Christians often equivocate "faith". In fact, in an argument I had yesterday with a Christian I was asked whether I had "faith" in the Earth being round and what evidence I had for it. I personally hate to use the word "faith" to describe things like my conclusion that the Earth is round (notice I dodge the word "belief", too, for similar reasons) because it gives theists the opportunity to equivocate. I prefer words like "confidence" or "trust".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 08:47 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
I actually have more problem with the word "belief" than I do with "faith". The dictionary doesn't back me up but I think "to believe something" should be synonymous with "to have reason to think true". Most of the time when I hear Christians use the word I really want them to substitute the words "wish" or "hope" or the phrase "would like to think".

When there is an element of "hoped for" in spite of the impossibility of actual verification, then "faith" fills the bill for me. But "belief" to my way of thinking should be reserved for claims you rightly feel justified to make, all wishing aside.

[Image: rSJ3y4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like whateverist's post
10-04-2012, 09:15 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(10-04-2012 05:36 AM)itsacow Wrote:  I believe God has been disproved because of the existence of multiple religions. Each claims their god is omnipresent and omnipotent. If they were, would they not be able to wipe out the false god and save their souls from worshiping the wrong one?
Isnt that like saying if we're descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys, or disblieving in Coke, because of pesi and other generic Cola's.
Also if anyone view of religion is right no amount of wrong views changes that. Just as no science isnt invalidated because the are half a dozen crazy ID, creationist mirrors around.

Also just because one is ominipotent - does not mean that they HAVE to act only that they CAN. So that doesnt help either.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2012, 03:34 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(09-04-2012 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, JD.

It hasn't.

1 - You can't prove a false negative (I think that's how Dawkins says it)
2 - You cannot use science to prove the supernatural because science is restricted to what is possible and the supernatural, by definition, is impossible (not meaning it cannot exist but meaning it operates outside of the laws of the natural universe by definition)

So one can say it's disproved, but they'd be lying or in error. One can say they believe there is no God, but that's a belief not a fact. Agnostics refuse to comment either way because of the total lack of evidence.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
If something operates outside of the laws of nature, doesn't that make it impossible to occur? If something breaks a law of nature, that means the law of nature is incorrect, because something has occurred that proves the law insufficient. For instance, if a life form was to reanimate in the form of a "ghost," the law that death marks the complete obliteration of a living being is no longer correct, because that living being is clearly not obliterated; it is right there to see. Therefore, such a law is now subject to change or removal.

Which, in turn, makes it impossible for something to be supernatural. If something happens, it is obviously possible, making it a natural occurrence. Thus, you can use science to prove anything. In summary: Either something supernatural can't occur do to definition, or if something supernatural happens, it changes the laws of nature, therefore cancelling the previous law altogether.

By the way, I'm completely opposed to such a thing a "ghost." But that seems to be the most common example. Also, I'm aware that I could be wrong. Please comment, this logic seems sound enough to me, but I'd like to see any other points of view as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: