Proof that god does not exist

[henryp]

Humans frequently believe several things before getting it right. If I were making the case, I'd say the belief in a higher power was inherent/intuitive, and that as more information rolled in, and my particular God made himself known, the truth was revealed.

Like early astronomers having some notion of what was going on up in the skies, but they went through a lot of misses before they correctly mapped out the Solar System. You wouldn't claim early failures at mapping the planets had any influence on the correctness of the final mapping.

---

As for the difference between God and a unicorn, there are reasons to believe God exists. In particular, there are a lot of make believe things that people want to believe are real that at least sort of make sense with a God in play. On top of filling in some scientific gaps while it still can.

If you read a thread where the Non-free will people get into it with the Free-will people, there are a lot of similarities. People believe in Free Will because it is necessary to make their version of reality a possibility.

[ignoramus]

I have this

It's between these two

A. god exists and he doesn't give a shit about anyone

B. god doesn't exist

Any god(s) for that matter do not exist because the likely hood of any god existing is 0.
There is no evidence for any god(s) to exist.

You may be atheist my friend, but your arguments are just as fallacious as the theists.

Binary thinking, "science" of the gaps, etc.

[dyresand]

I have this

It's between these two

A. god exists and he doesn't give a shit about anyone

B. god doesn't exist

Any god(s) for that matter do not exist because the likely hood of any god existing is 0.
There is no evidence for any god(s) to exist.

You may be atheist my friend, but your arguments are just as fallacious as the theists.

Binary thinking, "science" of the gaps, etc.

yeah i just realized my error

[robvalue]

I'm more concerned with what it's even meant to be. Since everyone has their own idea, either everyone is getting it partly/very wrong, or there is no such thing to begin with.

I've never heard a definition that is testable, or any criteria which distinguishes a god from an arbitrarily powerful alien. Until there is one, it seems like a meaningless term to me.

If it's just "An intelligent being responsible for the creation of our reality", which is the nearest thing to a sensible definition I can think of, then it would include a guy at his computer. This insistence on giving the guy all these weird attributes just clouds the issue. He can easily be all powerful regarding his simulation, without having any particular special powers in his own reality. The fact he is even running the simulation makes it seem unlikely he knows everything about it and all the possibilities it could produce; although he could call up readouts at any point that has been reached easily enough.

Theists don't tend to like this definition, because it quite obviously leads to exactly the same question they are trying to answer. But just saying a bunch of weird stuff about this guy doesn't make it so, or make it possible it could be so.

[ignoramus]

Rob, you need to add the dressing to the salad and it will make a little bit more sense.
When describing God, you must:

1) speaks lots of woo things about him
2) be in awe of his majestic mysteriousness
3) Not pretend that you are worthy to be able to describe something so perfect and divine
4) have that passionate albeit glazed look in your eyes when talking
5) not be within 100 feet of any science books

[Wyrd of Gawd]

No one has to prove that creatures such as gods do not exist or exist.  It's up to such creatures to prove that they do exist.  As of this very second in Earth time not one such creature has proven its existence.  When Jesus was flapping his jaws about how special he was his brothers told him to put up or STFU.  John 7:1-5  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...JV;MEV;TLB

If the Jesus character was still wiggling on the cross in plain sight 24/7/365 for the past 2,000 years there might not be any skeptics anywhere.  But he disappeared, like a fart in a hurricane never to be seen.  

If Zeus was walking around with an armful of lightning bolts he would be a credible god candidate.  But he's nowhere to be seen.

There is no celestial deity of any kind in this solar system.  All deities are imaginary and only exist in the minds of superstitious twits.  Everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen has already happened before.

[robvalue]

I'm always suspicious when someone tells me God is unknowable, then lists several things they know about him.

And what's this obsession with him being "good"? All we have to go by is an almost entirely empty universe that's lethal to us, and our design, which is terrible. That's a far cry from "good", in any sense.

[Mr.wizard]

I can prove many things do not exist by merely stating they do not exist.

I.E., Unicorns, leprechauns, elves, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, The Boogie Man, Bigfoot, the Easter Bunny.

Shall I go on?

That's not proof, that's just stating there is no proof.

You do not have evidence that god does not exist. You simply have no evidence that he does.


However, stating that there is no evidence, is not evidence in itself.

That's not entirely true, it would depend on how the god in question is defined. If it is a god that manifests within reality then it should be testable and if we are able to test these manifestations and find no evidence of a god, then evidence of it's absence would count as evidence.

The Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, Boogie man, Big Foot are all perfect examples because they are claimed to manifest in reality in specific ways that we can test. The evidence of their absence is evidence against their existence.

[Whateverist]

Man has a propensity toward imagination.

When man was most primitive, back when he was new to the world, he was looking around and wondering how he came into being.  He created his creators, yes plural because polytheism was in existence before monotheism.

Personally I doubt that idle wondering regarding origins was the reason for god creation.  Think of all the totem worship in primitive societies.  Whether to hunt an animal or avoid being hunted by it, people have put themselves in the mind of the other animal for eons.  The mind seems elastic enough to serve this function.  Propitiation is all about maintaining a good relation with the 'other'.  It probably served a useful function in that it allowed early humans to focus on the motives of the 'other' and anticipate better.  Gods arise through addressing the 'other' in nature and in inanimate things.  Perhaps somewhere along the line someone realized the rubes can be manipulated this way.  But the 'institution' of gods was already in play naturally.

[Kingpin]

just not proof.

No proof of god particle is proof of no god particle.

Phrased it different for you.  Shhhh, don't tell Quantum.

No evidence of something existing, is not proof of its non-existence.  Legal battles every day make decisions with flimsy evidence.  There are logical arguments and reasonable assumptions that can be extrapolated to lead to a belief of something.  

I'm sure you don't honestly believe that if you are called to jury duty for a murder trial, you would demand to see a video of the accused performing the act before rendering a guilty verdict, right?