Proof for God's Non-Existence

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

I see we have a stimulating discussion going on here, great! But I would also like to remind everyone to please not make personal judgements about other members' faith/beliefs. I also feel strongly about my faith and particular beliefs, so I understand the passion being expressed. It's all good--stay cool.

peace,
lunamoth
moderator in Belief and Spirituality

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi All,

I see we have a stimulating discussion going on here, great! But I would also like to remind everyone to please not make personal judgements about other members faith/beliefs. I also feel strongly about my faith and particular beliefs, so I understand the passion being expressed. It's all good--stay cool.

peace,
lunamoth

it is not stimulating for me Luna. laughable? yes.
so the question was prove God does not exsit...that does not stimulate me, but it seems to for some.
it is very simple, we either believe or we do not.

so it seems like a waste of effort to me since everyone knows it cannot be done. all the concept, intuition, God spelled 10 different ways proves nothing.
i mean unless i really liked the ferris wheel & cotton candy that much, but i dont so i am getting off.

[earl]

Hey Lunamoth-you're a moderator now-how cool Yes, given that I'm the kind of guy that looks for the "universal" nugget of spiritual truth in all traditions, I can always find somehting to agree with in all, particularly if I look at their esoteric cores. It's only if I'm feeling "disagreeable," would I find something to debate & frankly 1 typically only find that on the exoteric, doctrinal level. There is a far more interesting question for me, which is non-doctrinal: are there more or less effective paths to "God?" Frankly, that question causes me more consternation than any other since I'm not a "fire & brimstone" kind of guy. Even here, though, I guess my relative universalism is at play in that I believe there is no right path for everyone, but rather right path for the individual and one only has to continue to listen to their inner being to remain alert for that which may change moment to moment, though do believe that the best path always includes an open mind & heart. But, as a child of the hippie 60's, "peace & love for sure, man." Earl

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Im afraid, Bandit, I find myself agreeing with Devadatta here.

The question was Posed, "prove that god does not exist." A logical impossibility to be sure, but an interesting intelectual challenge. Unfortunately, you seem to be taking every proposed point of view as a personal affront to your beliefs.

Yes, we all know that you believe in the Christian God. I respect your beliefs completely, but what we (OK, I) are trying to get going here is a rational, logical debate, and to simply reitterate over and over again that you find eveyone's point of view but your own to be laughable is hardly constructive.

I welcome your opposition and expect it, but please, Im begging you, try to address specific points rather than just laughing at us.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Im afraid, Bandit, I find myself agreeing with Devadatta here.

The question was Posed, "prove that god does not exist." A logical impossibility to be sure, but an interesting intelectual challenge. Unfortunately, you seem to be taking every proposed point of view as a personal affront to your beliefs.

Yes, we all know that you believe in the Christian God. I respect your beliefs completely, but what we (OK, I) are trying to get going here is a rational, logical debate, and to simply reitterate over and over again that you find eveyone's point of view but your own to be laughable is hardly constructive.

I welcome your opposition and expect it, but please, Im begging you, try to address specific points rather than just laughing at us.

funny how people twist things around & pick up on only certain words used . i recall telling Earl I found it that I laugh at the 'thought' of proof, or no God... (which would be my thought, not yours) & it is impossible for me not to laugh & made that very clear i was not laughing at any ONE. i brought it up that way on purpose & asked a specific question about it, which was never answered.

sorry ATF, if you think i was laughing at you or someone. i dont remember laughing at anyone or saying a particular persons POV is laughable or putting any one POV down that way.
rather when I try to think (believe) that way for myself, it becomes laughable as in funny to me & it is impossible for me to think that way.

i have said this same exact thing before here in a different thread & no one said I was laughing at them or there belief.

so carry on with your debate & have fun

[earl]

Ironically, was just visiting the christianmystics.com site, first forum ever joined up with. The guy posts a different quotation from mystically-inclined Christian thinkers of old each day. Today's happened to be this from St. Maximus the Confessor:"God is communicable in what He imparts to us; but He is not communicable in the uncommunicability of His essence." Take care, Earl

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Instead of trying to prove God does exist, let's try to prove God doesn't exist.

I'm afriad I'm a sorry excuse for an atheist, I've never tried to disprove the existence of any deity. As a humorous sidenote it is worth mentioning I've never tried to disprove the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Peter Pan, Santa Claus, myself, etcetera. (My apologies I had to redeem myself in the eyes of the atheist thought police.)

Further, I completely agree that it is a pointless exercise.

Well, that was fun.

Out of curiosity, which god are we talking about again?

[InLove]

LOL, Jaiket--even atheists have thought police? Isn't that against the doctrine?

Anyway, I hope this thread stays here, because I have a desire to contribute some more thoughts. But I realize that emotions have been running high, and so I need to really take some time to prepare those thoughts. In the meantime, can I prove that God does or does not exist? Only to myself, and I couldn't even do that without divine intervention.

InPeace.
InLove

[hammer]

Ok peoples I'm gonna try and answer the question.

As an Atheist I believe that man created God...and for the people who worship that man-made being...I'm sure that it exists. So in that sense - God exists.

I believe that everything that happens in the universe is explainable through scientific methods...eventually (Some things we do not have the knowlegde to explain yet).

If you called the universe "god" - I could not argue. the universe just is and everything is a part of it and related. It doesn't need to be worshipped, but certainly needs to be respected.

****...None of my answers are gonna work here. It's all based on MY belief system...which works great for me...but as an all encompasing statement? Nup! If god exists or not is simply a matter of your personal perspective I guess. I believe that God (as in a higher being) does not exist. But I cannot prove it, any more that a theist can prove the opposite.

Gee...I was really helpful........

Peace, love and harmony.
H.

[lunamoth]

Hello All,

There seems to be genuine interest in continuing this thread but I am uncomfortable with all the personal comments being made about other members in posts coming from both sides of the discussion. Please try to keep the challenges and comments aimed at the ideas, rather than at individuals.

peace,
lunamoth

[InLove]

Hi, Peace to All--

After giving more thought to the idea of a carefully worded post, I have decided that there isn't much I could really add that could not eventually be stated some other place and time just as effectively, and without pouring fuel on the fire.

InPeace,
InLove

[brucegdc]

Just to add to Luna's comments:

1. When you are writing a sentence that includes the word "you", please think about it. At that point it is most likely that what you're saying reflects on the person rather than the thought.

2. Personal attacks are NEVER permitted on this forum. Postings that are personal attacks have been removed.

... Bruce

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Like I said Devedatta, I am not going to ride the little ferris wheel of unbelief with you & who are you to tell me I am in some kind of danger or what i believe is not fit?

since you are pointing fingers you now have four pointing back at you---so,

maybe you are the one who writes badly persistant jingles & maybe you have a dead end frame dogmatic mind. did you ever think of that?

if the bible, Jesus & the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob bother you that much then leave it alone.

& you can try to suck me & others into your way of belief but you will not succeed with me. so whatever floats your boat there.

once again NO PROOF!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I was a silly man I suppose for even stepping into this thread, since this kind of response could have been predicted. Some may think I’m trying to push buttons; in fact, I’m more naive than that. I’m genuinely trying to make a point.

But let’s look at it from the other side. Some may take my concern with the dangers of dogmatic belief as a personal attack and feel justified in adopting an abusive tone. This is a form of intimidation. This creates a situation where people who do not share particular views do not feel they can speak with any honesty. This does not make for a safe environment for discussion.

Self-righteous outbursts are, in my view, in no way justified. In this case, no person’s view of God was in question; neither was a belief that only one view is the correct one. (Let’s be honest, in our hearts of hearts we all believe we have the “right” view.) What was of concern was and is the “my way or the highway” style of presenting views and a persistent attempt to drive the question toward one destination, i.e., a literalist view of the Abrahamic God, yes or no.

As far as my “problems” with the tradition, it has little to do with Abraham, Moses, Jesus or scripture and much more to do with the kind of attitude exemplified in this post. This whole business of “unbelief” and the painting someone as trying to “suck others in” really is just the kind of demonizing that concerns me.

Look, I tried to point out already the difference between faith & belief. The plain truth is that some believers really have no faith, while some so-called non-believers have faith that’s rock hard. The greatest Christians, for example, in my opinion are those who are all faith and who hardly concern themselves with belief. Why bother with the letter when the spirit is doing well, thank you very much?

In the end, most here on these forums are people of faith. I started to write a post some time back pointing out how I identified from one point of view with the idea of laughing at the mere idea of there being no God. My reaction is the same to the idea that somehow we live in an indifferent universe, when we are constantly sustained by the air we breathe and water we drink, and in every detail of our lives and are in fact constantly showered with blessings however tough or brief our lives may be. If this is indifference, then it’s of a peculiar sort.

So there is little to choose among any of us, when it comes to faith.

The difficulty is at the level of belief. Some may find it astonishing that someone could not believe in God. I find it astonishing that anyone could insist that the extraordinary nature of the world, which is spread out before all of us, not only must be articulated through a theistic lens but also through an idea of God formed in a particular culture and with a specific ideological structure, whether it’s outlined by the Catholic Catechism, an Iranian Ayatollah, or in some literalist reading of the bible. And yes, I know these kinds of views remain common among millions of people – they’re no less astonishing for all of that.

From the point of simple faith, we can all see the bible as the word of God, because from the point of simple faith we have the freedom of our reading of it. But from the point of view of dogmatic belief the bible is only the word of God to those who have signed on to that particular system of belief; to others it will appear as an ideology of power, a coercive tool ultimately of human, all-too-human creation and intention. We don’t all agree on this, of course, but I would say that the foundations for strict, literalist beliefs are overwhelmingly political, social & institutional and only rarely religious or spiritual in the strict sense.

Anyway, some may consider this as just a lot of wind, and perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered, especially at this late hour. Realistically, I understand that Christianity, for various historical reasons, has been more dependent on creeds and specific beliefs than any other major tradition. But I would remind everyone of the danger of the letter getting in the way of the spirit – and I would suggest that this old Christian saying should be extended beyond Christianity, where of course the spirit does extend. Of course creeds have bedevilled the faith from the beginning – and these devils have often been projected outward. But I would also remind everyone that there have always been Christians who have transcended the limitations of their creeds.

In faith, Devadatta.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I was a silly man I suppose for even stepping into this thread, since this kind of response could have been predicted.

I, for one, am readily grateful that you did however. The input that you brought (along with a couple of other posters) has been, to me, both insightful and necessary.

Regarding the topic, would anyone object to a little Bertrand Russell quote?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. - Bertrand Russell

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

IRegarding the topic, would anyone object to a little Bertrand Russell quote?

Thanks for that definitive bit from Russell. Though it's depressing to be reminded of how amateur my own thinking is!

But on Russell and religion, I think we do well to remember that his application is limited - as far as I've read - to the strictly logical basis/non-basis of dogma. He really doesn't deal with, or have any real interest in - again, to my knowledge - the more important experiential side. That's why while he brilliantly sums up the non-logic of dogma, his writings on religion on the whole aren't that interesting. I think here pragmatists like William James have much more to say.

But you know "interesting" and "credible" can be mutually exclusive. Some time back I read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, a famous piece of apologetics that is still read I believe, especially by Catholics. Lewis is much more nuanced and literary in his approach, and he also attempts to build up his argument logically. But of course the logic doesn't hold up; the reasoning ends up circular, and the contradictions are easily detected even by a non-philosopher like myself. So Lewis is a more interesting read from a literary point of view, but he provides a logical basis for belief only for those who already believe.

I think Pascal said it most simply: the heart has its reasons that reason knows not of.

And of course this point has been made in various ways by various people throughout this thread, right from the beginning. This whole logical proof business I think you would agree is bogus. The real issue in the end is freedom of thought and expression. Will we all one day be capable of tolerating a variety of spiritual maps of the universe, even if they seem mutually contradictory, and use these maps rightly, for the benefit and not the detriment of self and others, and not try to impose or bully others into accepting our particular map over their own?

Thanks again for your post.