Proof for God's Non-Existence

[Quahom1]

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

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

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

Hi Q.

Well, the question isn't usually put this way on the basic principle that "you can't prove a negative", i.e.; it's just not a fair or meaningful question.

On the other hand, if you were more specific about what sort of God you're talking about, it would be a little more fair. Lots of people could at least give you some reasons why they think that particular conception of God is unlikely to exist.

For myself, I take the pragmatic position that all gods and all conceptions of God do exist for the most basic reason that the words and the ideas they signify exist; the argument is over how they exist, and in what other senses, and how one conception compares with another. On that, I'd leave everyone to their own ideas.

So I would never try to prove that anyone's God doesn't exist. In my own idiosyncratic and Buddhistic kind of way I even believe myself in a kind of reality some would style "God".

Cheers.

[Bandit]

oh no. here we go again. actually Q, it sounds a lot better worded that way.
way to go man.

i was looking for proof that God does not exist but i could not find any.
so, i guess that means He still exists!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Q.

Well, the question isn't usually put this way on the basic principle that "you can't prove a negative", i.e.; it's just not a fair or meaningful question.

LOL, I'm afraid it is a very valid question. Negatives are proven everyday. It is a meaningful and very valid question, just one that most are not comfortable trying to answer, simply due to the fact that this particular "negative" can't be proven objectively. Just like its antithesis can't be objectively proven.



Of God and Mammon, one can be proven. And why should the question be phrased in an easier, more "palatable" fashion? I find that lopsidedly idiosyncratic, and catering, to the humanistic perspective.



Very easy for an Atheist to ask for proof of God, and the world doesn't bat an eye. Have someone else ask for the proof of no God, and the world gets a little hot under the collar, squeamish in the seat...so to speak.



No, my question is valid as stated. Show proof that there is no God.

v/r

Q

[earl]

"proof" for existence or non-existence is an impossibility given that all "data" relate to delimited, specified "forms," and as those writers of old and new of an apophatic bent rightly point out that the force called "God," is largely ineffable. Like St. Francis of Asissi said, "what we're looking for is what is looking;" the eye cannot see itself. I do agree with a comment Vajradhara made on some thread around here, that we can determine the effect on our "mindstream" from the belief we hold; or put another way, as the old saying goes, "we become what we worship." A materialist, be they theistic or atheistic, will look for their treasure in coin that is worthless. If we worship a God of fear, judgment, and damnation, we become either cowered fearful individuals or judgmental fear-mongers. In a way, then, perhaps it is more useful to ask what "God" do we worship? Take care, Earl

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, my question is valid as stated. Show proof that there is no God.

With all respect, I guess I stand by my objections as well. Perhaps some exceptions exist, I don't know, but in general the demand to "prove a negative" is a bit of sophistry.

Consider standard courtroom procedure. The state makes a charge; it claims the existence of a certain definite event and the involvement of a particular person or persons. The job of the defendent is not to prove a negative but to discredit or undermine the evidence; that is, to prove that the evidence doesn't exist. So it's always a question of proving or disproving a positive assertion. By contrast, the question you're proposing is equivalent to the police pulling someone off the street, saying, "Prove you DIDN'T commit this Murder!"

As well, I would also repeat that speaking of "God" without offering any parameters just isn't meaningful. You've started this thread in the general "Belief and Spirituality" forum, so how do we know what sort of God you're talking about? To assume, for example, that it must be the Christian conception is to ignore the fact that there are other views.

(At the very least, as the Indian tradition would have it, are you taking about God with attributes or without?)

Anyway, don't mean to get shrill or anything. It's just a matter of agreeing on the ground rules.

Cheers.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by earl

"proof" for existence or non-existence is an impossibility given that all "data" relate to delimited, specified "forms," and as those writers of old and new of an apophatic bent rightly point out that the force called "God," is largely ineffable. Like St. Francis of Asissi said, "what we're looking for is what is looking;" the eye cannot see itself. I do agree with a comment Vajradhara made on some thread around here, that we can determine the effect on our "mindstream" from the belief we hold; or put another way, as the old saying goes, "we become what we worship." A materialist, be they theistic or atheistic, will look for their treasure in coin that is worthless. If we worship a God of fear, judgment, and damnation, we become either cowered fearful individuals or judgmental fear-mongers. In a way, then, perhaps it is more useful to ask what "God" do we worship? Take care, Earl

I appreciate your point. We are not, however "God" in any sense of the word. Regardless of how we may feel, the proof is we are fallible beings. God is not supposed to be that. Perhaps then God is an "ideal"? That would imply humanistic perspectives (to aspire to an ideal created in the mind).

Even the most gifted of us, make mistakes. "GOD" does not.

So, back to square one. Prove God does not exist.

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by earl

A materialist, be they theistic or atheistic, will look for their treasure in coin that is worthless.

Thanks for this point in particular, Earl, which I don't think is made often enough. Rather than being stuck on verbal formulas we really need to observe how people are living and acting.

Cheers.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Thanks for this point in particular, Earl, which I don't think is made often enough. Rather than being stuck on verbal formulas we really need to observe how people are living and acting.

Cheers.

No, that isn't the point of this thread. That is what is called beating around the bush.

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, that isn't the point of this thread. That is what is called beating around the bush.

I agree. That was just an aside to Earl.

But speaking of beating around the bush, what about my main objectives? Leaving aside the framing of the question, I believe you're beating around the bush by not specifying what conception of God you're talking about.

If you're talking about God "without attributes", or as Earl prefers God in the "apophatic" sense, then proofs in any sense are beside the point. If you're talking about God "with attributes", such as the Christian God, you should say so. In that case, people would have something to talk about, and evidence to provide on both sides. After all, Christianity makes very specific claims about incarnation and the role of the body of Christ through history, etc., which are not the same as Islam, for example, and so open to examination.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I agree. That was just an aside to Earl.

But speaking of beating around the bush, what about my main objectives? Leaving aside the framing of the question, I believe you're beating around the bush by not specifying what conception of God you're talking about.

If you're talking about God "without attributes", or as Earl prefers God in the "apophatic" sense, then proofs in any sense are beside the point. If you're talking about God "with attributes", such as the Christian God, you should say so. In that case, people would have something to talk about, and evidence to provide on both sides. After all, Christianity makes very specific claims about incarnation and the role of the body of Christ through history, etc., which are not the same as Islam, for example, and so open to examination.

Is this so hard? I'm talking about that which is so far beyond us, yet we each "know" exists. Yet there are those of us that say "it" does not exist. So, simply put, prove "God" does not exist. No parameters, no specifications, no exceptions to the rule. Prove God does not exist.

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Is this so hard? I'm talking about that which is so far beyond us, yet we each "know" exists. Yet there are those of us that say "it" does not exist. So, simply put, prove "God" does not exist. No parameters, no specifications, no exceptions to the rule. Prove God does not exist.

Again, it comes down to a little more precision. What you're expressing here is a kind of intuition that is so general that it could be applied to everyone from the most orthodox, to a deist, a scientst, a bonafide secularist, to anyone with any imagination who is thrilled by the sight of the Milky Way. I'm sure you understand that until you start spelling out preciesely what "God" you're talking about - which you're starting to do here - the rest of us can only guess.

I think only a ridiculously small proportion of humanity - who are probably depressed or upset for some reason - never feels sheer awe in the face of existence and its overwhelming scale & ineffability. If this is what you're articulating as "God", then where is the debate?

On the other hand if you're making more detailed claims about God, especially when it comes to specific interventions in human affairs, then you should say so.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Again, it comes down to a little more precision. What you're expressing here is a kind of intuition that is so general that it could be applied to everyone from the most orthodox, to a deist, a scientst, a bonafide secularist, to anyone with any imagination who is thrilled by the sight of the Milky Way. I'm sure you understand that until you start spelling out preciesely what "God" you're talking about - which you're starting to do here - the rest of us can only guess.

I think only a ridiculously small proportion of humanity - who are probably depressed or upset for some reason - never feels sheer awe in the face of existence and its overwhelming scale & ineffability. If this is what you're articulating as "God", then where is the debate?

On the other hand if you're making more detailed claims about God, especially when it comes to specific interventions in human affairs, then you should say so.

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....

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Again, it comes down to a little more precision. What you're expressing here is a kind of intuition that is so general that it could be applied to everyone from the most orthodox, to a deist, a scientst, a bonafide secularist, to anyone with any imagination who is thrilled by the sight of the Milky Way. I'm sure you understand that until you start spelling out preciesely what "God" you're talking about - which you're starting to do here - the rest of us can only guess.

I think only a ridiculously small proportion of humanity - who are probably depressed or upset for some reason - never feels sheer awe in the face of existence and its overwhelming scale & ineffability. If this is what you're articulating as "God", then where is the debate?

On the other hand if you're making more detailed claims about God, especially when it comes to specific interventions in human affairs, then you should say so.

eh?
what does precision, intuition & intervention have to do with it? that is like saying we never found the murder weapon so it does not exist.

speaking for myself as a Bible believer, that means ONE God, monotheism- the same God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. The same God of Jesus.

is that precise enough or are you going to keep beating around the bush. YES, the bush where God intervened with Moses & the bush where God intervened with Abraham.
Prove He does not exist.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bandit

eh?
what does precision, intuition & intervention have to do with it? that is like saying we never found the murder weapon so it does not exist.

speaking for myself as a Bible believer, that means ONE God, monotheism- the same God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. The same God of Jesus.

is that precise enough or are you going to keep beating around the bush. YES, the bush where God intervened with Moses & the bush where God intervened with Abraham.
Prove He does not exist.

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