Proof for God's Non-Existence

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Well Bandit buddy, let me think here. I've asked: Prove God does not exist.

I've been asked, concept negative, concept irrelevant, which god, be more precise...have I covered all points?

Prove that God does not exist...pretty simple request, not so simple to fullfil.

v/r

Q

hee hee.
someone has a long row to hoe.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I suppose that the most compelling evidence would be that there is no intervention by God in the world around us. Everything follows natural chemical and biological processes which have slowly shaped the godless universe as far back in time as our current science can see.

Of course it is impossible to prove that there is no god just sitting and watching us and doing nothing, but if that is the case then he serves no purpose in our lives and I would argue that he would fall outside the definition of what "God" is.

There, that should get the ball rolling.

[PersonaNonGrata]

uhhmmm, freewill?

[earl]

As for me, I believe "God" exists just as I believe a "self" exists, but then I'm quick to ask myself the all important apophatic questions-what is "God?" What is "self?" Frankly, I think Q & D are both right. Let's face it folks, as I said at this forum before, we all know we were brought into this world as was the world by some process/force larger, more encompassing than us. Those of us with a theistic bent refer to that by the term "God." But, how do you demarcate, define, delimit that which theists refer to as infinite & eternal?-can't wrap finite minds around that. So, D is right-how do you know you're debating and discussing the same thing unless you clearly define your terms. Obviously, the more amorphous, all-encompassing, ill-defined our definition of "God" is, the more universal agreement as to non/existence-but if it reached that level of vagueness, what's to debate? Perhaps, a more useful way to narrow down the field of debate is to debate regarding the traditional Christian notion of God along the lines d suggested-do we believe in a "God-of-personal-relationship," a God who "steps into the world of form in a personal way?" Though not sure i want to join that debate take care, Earl

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

LOL, does God exist, or does God not exist? How much more precise can one be? I'm not asking depressed or otherwise disposed individuals that question.

This is the third time you have gone off subject or skirted the issue. Prove that God does not exist..."simple task". Or perhaps not so simple....

For Q: This will be my last post, since we can't seem to agree on the ground rules. Obviously, I can't agree that I've gone off topic in any sense.

Sorry if I've caused you any frustration, but it was not intention. Naturally, I feel a certain frustration from my side, in that I don't appear to be able make my self understood to you on this question.

But let me try to put what I've been trying to say in a more positive light. I'm not denying your inner experience, or your intuition of God. I'm only pointing out the gulf between that experience and its expression. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," as Shakespeare said. I'm saying that there is a base of real experience, common to humanity, which in the broadest sense is not debatable. What is debatable are specific expressions of it, including, for example, Christian theology. Monotheists everywhere tell us that God is finally ineffable & unknowable. Why then is it so difficult to understand that our verbal descriptions of God - and even the word itself - are human, all-to-human and not literally the same as the experience we point to? These verbal constructs are eminently debatable, so yes I think it's necessary to be specific.

In the Jewish tradition there is a saying that not only human beings but even a stone is constantly sustained by God; if it were not, it would instantly crumble. I can read that and agree, and even find it inspiring, not because I share the theology of its context, but because I have an intuitive sense of what it's ultimately pointing to. At the very least, I give the writer of this saying the benefit of the doubt.

I'd like to think that you too are giving the rest of us the benefit of the doubt as well, and allowing us our own expressions of what finally can't be described. And being myself a person of all faith and very little belief, I trust that in the end your heart & soul are that big.

To Bandit: Thanks for the precision. Now others can carry on the debate, if they like. But as I said from the very outset, I'm not interested in disproving anyone's conception of God. You're a good guy, Bandit, and if your Christian beliefs help make you so, that's the biggest advertisement in its favour.

Cheers all around.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Damn, that was quick. Got three replies in about 60 seconds. Looks like this is gonna be a hot topic.

The concept of free will is interesting, if this entity is leaving us to our own devices and not interacting with us in any way then again, I would have to say that it is in no way relavant to us and so falls outside of what I would define as "God"

I would just like to clear up the fact that I do personally believe in Gods but I like a challenge so I thought Id try this. Prove a negative and prove something that I know to be false, both at the same time. mmmmm tricky.

[Quahom1]

The ground rules are simple. Prove that God does not exist.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I suppose that the most compelling evidence would be that there is no intervention by God in the world around us. Everything follows natural chemical and biological processes which have slowly shaped the godless universe as far back in time as our current science can see.

Of course it is impossible to prove that there is no god just sitting and watching us and doing nothing, but if that is the case then he serves no purpose in our lives and I would argue that he would fall outside the definition of what "God" is.

There, that should get the ball rolling.

Now that is an interesting point of contention. Thank you.

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

For Q: This will be my last post, since we can't seem to agree on the ground rules. Obviously, I can't agree that I've gone off topic in any sense.

Oops! I'm back. For sure this will be my last.

I just realized, especially with Bandit's post, that the idea of the gulf between verbal desciptions and spiritual experience really goes directly against the grain of some traditional Bible-based views, which specifically claim a continuity between word & God. So if it is this kind of Bible-based, Abrahamic God you're talking about then again debate is pointless. It only leads to the circular argument: it's true because the Bible says it's true, and the Bible is true because tradition has it so. So whether we're talking about God in an ultimate, non-sectarian sense, or the Biblical God, debate is fairly pointless.

If this exercise is to provide anyone any real illumination, I would suggest working out some common ground rules to make debate possible.

Cheers as ever.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Oops! I'm back. For sure this will be my last.

I just realized, especially with Bandit's post, that the idea of the gulf between verbal desciptions and spiritual experience really goes directly against the grain of some traditional Bible-based views, which specifically claim a continuity between word & God. So if it is this kind of Bible-based, Abrahamic God you're talking about then again debate is pointless. It only leads to the circular argument: it's true because the Bible says it's true, and the Bible is true because tradition has it so. So whether we're talking about God in an ultimate, non-sectarian sense, or the Biblical God, debate is fairly pointless.

If this exercise is to provide anyone any real illumination, I would suggest working out some common ground rules to make debate possible.

Cheers as ever.

As you Brits are fond of saying in the movies. "never say never".

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

To Bandit: Thanks for the precision. Now others can carry on the debate, if they like. But as I said from the very outset, I'm not interested in disproving anyone's conception of God. You're a good guy, Bandit, and if your Christian beliefs help make you so, that's the biggest advertisement in its favour.

Cheers all around.

no problem, Devadatta. this type of thing is only brought up for fun any way.

Peace & Cheers to you also.

[PersonaNonGrata]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

As you Brits are fond of saying in the movies. "never say never".

will you involve in the debate or sit there and act like a teacher who frequently gives zero or similar grades

[earl]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I suppose that the most compelling evidence would be that there is no intervention by God in the world around us. Everything follows natural chemical and biological processes which have slowly shaped the godless universe as far back in time as our current science can see.

Of course it is impossible to prove that there is no god just sitting and watching us and doing nothing, but if that is the case then he serves no purpose in our lives and I would argue that he would fall outside the definition of what "God" is.

There, that should get the ball rolling.

Hi, Awaiting. i thought since Q appreciated you getting the ball rolling and as I like a discussion such as this since it gets the imaginative juices flowing, i figured, what the heck, maybe I will chime in on the matter of as I put it earlier, "God" stepping into the world of form in view of your comment here. Just for the sake of argument, ATF, alot of montheists might make the point that as "God's" eyes, ears, and hands on this world, whenever someone acts with ego-less/self-less love to enact whatever "God/Spirit" is moving them to do, as they are definitionally doing "God's will," God is acting upon this world Let's just see where this goes Take care, Earl

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

But our self less actions can be explained by psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists or neurologists without any need for devine intervention in the process.

Also

If God created us, he knows us and understands our thought processes therefore he knows what decisions we will make in any given situation. In this case, he would have no need to move, nudge, encourage or cajole us to do anything. If we are created by God we are no more than a computer program in mid-execution which needs no intervention. So I reitterate my original argument, if the entity, "God" does not interact with us in any way, he ceases to be something which can be called God.

I am, of course, basing this argument on the pre-supposition that God is an entity which is central to our lives, who answers our prayers (in any way) and has a direct influence over the world. I think monotheists would accept this.

[earl]

Hey ATF-your response addresses some of the counter-arguments to traditional notions of "God." As a non-traditionalist, I'm looking forward to playing this game some more, but I want to wait for the more traditional players to join in Thanks for the thoughts, earl