There is no god or gods!

[IATIA]

Yep! I said it again.

Before you jump in and say "Prove it!", please elaborate on what possible proof there could be for the non-existence of any god or gods.

I cannot go to heaven and say "See, there is no god". The theists have not even come up with a sensible definition of what a god is that we could disprove.

So again I say. There is no god.

[jonb]

I have found the Abrahamists are a bit like I am with keys, when you really need to find them they are not where you thought you left them, but I have occasionally found tangible evidence of my keys existence, at that point I admit my comparison fails.

[Pokemon]

I highly doubt that unless the OP is not familar with the term atheist forum that this poll is ingenous. I would ask why is it placed in philosophy as well?

[Erinome]

I said no, but if I had been allowed to pick two, I would've picked "No", and "I don't care".

[TaraJo]

I guess, technically, it's possible a supernatural being could exist. I simply haven't seen any credible evidence to back that up. However, from a logical point of view, it's damn hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. That being the case, no, I guess I can't logically believe that there is absolutely no possible way for any god to exist.

When I'm saying a god could exist, though, I'm going to say it would be more a deist god than anything. I could see a god who created the universe and all the matter and the laws of physics and everything and then simply let whatever happens happen. A hands off god who doesn't intervene in every day life.... or in life at all, really.

And the thing is, the pretty much defeats the idea of every 'known' god out there. Christian god is a god who intervenes quite a bit; so is the Muslim god and even the Jewish god.

[IATIA]

I highly doubt that unless the OP is not familar with the term atheist forum that this poll is ingenous.

My bold. I am quite good with definitions of even exotic words (thanks Mom), but even with an internet search, this one escapes me.

If you meant 'ingenious', the poll was not intended as such. It was intended as an overview of the members. I did not really expect much in the way of posting, but I had expected more response to the post. Hey, c'est la vie.

I would ask why is it placed in philosophy as well?

It seemed the best fit. It is not a science question and in the strictest sense not really a religious statement or question. As the original post was a query to form or structure of defense or necessity, it seemed that philosophy was more appropriate. i did not think it a miscellaneous post nor a post specifically about the existence of god which left out the atheist forum or the off topic area.

In this post, I am not interested in discussing the existence of god, but rather why stating that there is no god should be considered a positive claim.

As the poll shows at the time of this post, there are 8 persons that have made this positive claim. I left it private for a more honest response without one having to defend this 'positive claim'.

As I said in the OP, I have made this claim in other posts and was immediately confronted by the atheists.I felt it inappropriate to hijack the thread to follow up and was also interested in the thread as it was and I had never followed up on this particular issue.

I particular, I was interested in the post more that responses because I do understand the difficulties involved. I forget the names of the specific posters that were adamant that I was expected to defend my claim. It has always seemed to me that if there truly were a god, it should be a simple matter to prove it's existence.

I could engage in pages and pages of lack of evidence is proof of nothing, cannot prove a negative , yes you can ... no you can't ... yes ... no, etc, but that does not address the issue of why we are required to defend this position.

Remember, this is addressed toward atheist and not at the deluded. I know why we have to defend our position with them, albeit the same scenario, they cannot defend their position and so attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Was this response adequate?

[Ryantology]

I feel safe in saying that Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny and Super Mario do not exist.

I see no reason to give exceptions to other fictional characters.

[Dranu]

You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

To prove something's non-existence can be rather simple (despite this wild claim that says proving the negative is impossible). You prove its impossibility. For instance, I can prove, with near certainty, there is no elephant in my house because it is impossible given the space available and what otherwise exists therein.

Unfortunately, God cannot be shown impossible. Something is only impossible if its existence is contradictory with something. Contradictions exist because of the conflict of limits (e.g. an elephant's physical existence entails it is limited spaciotemporally and can be contradicted by the existence of some other physical thing in its place). God (of the philosophers), by definition is the I AM or the infinite being. Infinite means to lack limits, therefore God cannot admit of contradiction, and therefore is necessarily possible.

[Darkstar]

You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

To prove something's non-existence can be rather simple (despite this wild claim that says proving the negative is impossible). You prove its impossibility. For instance, I can prove, with near certainty, there is no elephant in my house because it is impossible given the space available and what otherwise exists therein.

Unfortunately, God cannot be shown impossible. Something is only impossible if its existence is contradictory with something. Contradictions exist because of the conflict of limits (e.g. an elephant's physical existence entails it is limited spaciotemporally and can be contradicted by the existence of some other physical thing in its place). God (of the philosophers), by definition is the I AM or the infinite being. Infinite means to lack limits, therefore God cannot admit of contradiction, and therefore is necessarily possible.

Bolding mine. Becuase you can't disprove something does not make it true. How do you know that it wasn't a magical invisible elephant that was really small? Sure, there is no proof, but you can't prove that the elephant isn't there any more than you can prove that a dowsing rod doesn't work. The whole reason that god was defined as infinite was so that he couldn't be disproven. If they had made the mistake of saying that, for instance, he answered prayers, then we could do a test to see if...oh, wait they did that... never mind

[Dranu]

Becuase you can't disprove something does not make it true.

Agreed. But if you have proof that it cannot be false....

How do you know that it wasn't a magical invisible elephant that was really small? Sure, there is no proof, but you can't prove that the elephant isn't there any more than you can prove that a dowsing rod doesn't work.

I was talking about an elephant (you know the flesh and blood, nearly 1 pound, massive nosey creature). I'll consent I cannot disprove this other creature you talk about given the evidence I have available (depending on how you define it).

Unlike God, however, I cannot prove such a fairy-elephant is imossible to disprove either.

The whole reason that god was defined as infinite was so that he couldn't be disproven.

Good, so you agree with me that the OP's question is asking for something impossible right?

Now I will add there is certain proof God exists, but thats off-topic obviously.