Hi friends,
A question has been bugging me for quite some time now. I am sure that religion is only a man-made system and have enough proof to convince people. However whenever I try to convince people about the non-existence of God, I can not find any substantial proof. Discussions always come to the point of "What or who caused the Big-Bang??" or more generally what/who started everything. If I think of it terms of cause and effect, then there must be something in the very beginning who started everything. I need your help in finding proof of God's non-existence.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Something that doesn't exist will leave no physical evidence, meaning that you will find no direct material evidence that it doesn't exist either. The nature of reality is such that you can create just about any concept from whole-cloth, and as long as you define it in such a way that it is unfalsifiable, no one will ever prove it's nonexistence. The trick is, not believing in unfalsifiable claims is the default position, it is the burden of the people making said claims to provide direct material evidence for them. I can't prove to you that faeries do not exist anywhere in our physical universe, that wouldn't mean that it is either reasonable or rational to believe in them, and people who believe in gods are just as mistaken or delusional.
Something *physical* will leave no *physical* evidence if it does not exist. If something exists but is not physical, there can still be evidence for it. What evidence do you have that you love your wife?
If a god interacts with the universe in a physical manner, like manipulating matter, then there would STILL be physical evidence of its existence. So, the utter lack of such evidence is a fairly good indicator that said being isn't interacting with the universe in any tangible way, which calls into doubt every theistic description of said entity. Now on to "evidence" that I love my wife, perhaps the elevated levels of oxytocin in the bloodstream? Perhaps the fact that I would and HAVE risked life and limb for her? Maybe the fact that I treat her like a queen, and bend over backwards for her? The best evidence of emotion is behavior, ask any therapist. Thanks anyway, for the non sequitur, I enjoyed it.
"If a god interacts with the universe in a physical manner, like manipulating matter, then there would STILL be physical evidence of its existence. So, the utter lack of such evidence is a fairly good indicator that said being isn't interacting with the universe in any tangible way, which calls into doubt every theistic description of said entity."
This is not true. A theity could interact withe the physical universe by exercising its willpower to create change. Also, these arguments support a deity (a divine being which does not interact with the physical Universe, but merely created it), of which there would be no physical evidence for.
"Now on to "evidence" that I love my wife, perhaps the elevated levels of oxytocin in the bloodstream?"
High levels of oxytocin can and are also associated with the use of a wide range of drugs, thus it does not constitute as proof of love.
"Perhaps the fact that I would and HAVE risked life and limb for her?"
Anybody could have done that, thus it does not constitute as proof of your love for her.
"Maybe the fact that I treat her like a queen, and bend over backwards for her?"
Again. anybody could treat her that way, and they could not love her. You can treat somebody that way and not love them at the same time, so this does not constitute as proof for your love of your wife.
Shock of God - "This is not true. A theity could interact withe the physical universe by exercising its willpower to create change."
Right, and as Travis pointed out, that change is physical evidence.
True, the resulting change would be physical evidence that something took place, but I really don't expect some people to get such a simple or obvious concept. The density of some people makes me worry about the safety of our planets gravity level.
"This is not true. A theity could interact withe the physical universe by exercising its willpower to create change."
You want to explain the mechanics behind that? Because without a viable process or mechanism for changing will into reality we are pretty much forced to reject such a claim on its face, and without good evidence of such a process of mechanism, we would have no good reason to even consider it possible.
"Also, these arguments support a deity (a divine being which does not interact with the physical Universe, but merely created it), of which there would be no physical evidence for."
Which is a Deistic god, not a Theistic one, which is what I said.
"High levels of oxytocin can and are also associated with the use of a wide range of drugs, thus it does not constitute as proof of love."
If I could reasonably prove with a simple drug test that I wasn't under the influence of any of those drugs, it could be considered a piece of evidence pointing that direction, could it not?
"Anybody could have done that, thus it does not constitute as proof of your love for her."
Risk life and limb for her? I'd say most people only would do that for someone they cared about, unless it was their job or it was a small child. Again, another piece of evidence that I might care for my wife.
"Again. anybody could treat her that way, and they could not love her. You can treat somebody that way and not love them at the same time, so this does not constitute as proof for your love of your wife."
We also have the capacity to intentionally maim or kill people we don't even know, but that isn't the usual practice is it? It is far more probable and normal for us to treat people we care about well, and people we don't like poorly, and it is a well documented phenomena that most of humanity has in common. It is, yet another, piece of evidence pointing to the fact that I care about my wife.
Now, I know you aren't big on deciding what is MOST reasonable or probable based on available evidence, but that is the way we usually determine such things. Also, the claim that I care about my wife isn't that extraordinary or important to mankind, so it generally need not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as claims about supernatural entities or forces.
Great, please provide proof that the gods you believe in ""exercises its willpower to create change."" Thanks
Consider what it would look like if a Unicorn moved the whole of Paris to ten miles from New York city. There would be all sorts of visible effects, even if it took place instantaneously. Everything physical, from the solids and liquids, to even the light passing though both areas would be affected. Science would note these effects right away, and yet science has never seen anything like that. So either you have a very unskilled unicorn or unicorns do not exist.
The evidence for a god should be overwhelming, but there in fact is none at all. Everything suggested gets cut by Occam.
"What evidence do you have that you love your wife?"
This question is not pertinent. He doesn't need any evidence that he loves his wife although he might want evidence that his wife loves him. If he tells me that he loves his wife, I might be able to determine whether or not his statement is true on the basis of evidence that I obtain by observing the interactions between him and his wife.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
christians dont need to prove god exists, we dont have that burden if you dont want to come to god its upto you. not everyone accepted jesus even after all his miracles. i can prove their is a higher power, and i can also prove jesus existed and exists but you have to come the journey of faith with me. you will only see demons manifest at church, and miracles at church and also a proved change in your life when you go to church. you cannot see god without looking for him just like everything else. how do you want god to prove he exists realistically? you cannot compare fairies to god. god is there to call on and communicate with using faith and he left us his word fairies havent done either. besides everything that ive said above this message.
Actually, you do have the burden of proof. The one making a claim has the burden of proof, and you are making the claim a god exists. The fact that I reject your claim doesn't mean I claim the opposite (which I don't).
If I were to go on a "journey of faith" in order to see proof of your god, I would be presupposing his existence, which is a huge logical error. Who says I haven't looked for the Christian god? I was a Catholic for many years, and I didn't find him.
I’d agree with you on this one. The theist does have the burden of proof.
However to claim the negative, “There is no god” as true, allows itself to carry the burden of proof. Really, agnostics who say they don’t know either way are the only ones who don’t have any buden of proof.
Ugh! More of this faith talk. Faith is all you have. It is like wishful thinking. Something I do every week. I, "wish" I will win the lottery after I buy my ticket. I know it is just a chance though. Saying I will indeed win will not make it happen either.
Your god, is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. In other words he knows everything not only in the future, but also from the past. Therefore he knew that his most beautiful angel, Lucifer was going to turn away from him and take a third of heaven with him which is why according to your book, the reason we need jesus and have to spend our whole lives apologizing for being born!
If I had a child and decided to just throw him in a field to fend for himself and if somehow he was able to live and I ran into him later in life, would it not be irrational for me to want him to worship and love me, just because I gave him life?
You want some proof? Disease, extreme poverty, torture, murder, rapes, people suffering all over the planet, violence, injustice, etc., and your god sits by and does nothing because he put his only son on a piece of wood and killed him because he is in full control???
I used to curse your cloud man after I witnessed atrocities. I used to get mad and call him the fecal guy and I even started to worship that devil. Well I have news for you. I was angry. I am not a satanist, I am not a christian. I have compassion and empathy for other's and I still struggle for answers like we all do, but the very burden of proof is on the believer, and it cannot be just that we need to have faith.
Maybe it is Aliens that put us here!
The perspicuity of Travis' insights and explanations is unmatched; awe inspiring as usual. I would only like to add one thought. Gods do exist as an abstract some people choose to explain something that isn't really there. I'm thinking of the concept of a hole or a void. These things don't exist tangibly, they are descriptions of the absence of something. I don't know if it's a processing function of our brains or if it's a necessity of existence, but it seems that humans cannot gain an understanding of "nothing". To express nothing we fill it with something. However, holes and voids are more provable than gods, because they are defined by real, material things. A hole fills an absence of a section of real, material bucket; but god only fills an emptiness in human perception.
Here is proof that Christianity and other religions are superstitions.
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Other-Superstitions-Stephen-Gunn...
People often seem to forget that it is allowed to "not know".
I do not know how the universe and time-space came to be. And I do not pretend to know. To pretend to know, is exactly what religious apologists often do and that is just arrogant.
I am very certain that there is no god, as it is extremely unlikely. But I cannot know for sure.
I consider the Big Bang theory to be the currently best theory for how the universe came to be. But it might well be that new evidence is found, that will lead to changes in the theory or a completely new theory. I have absolutely no idea what "caused" the Big Bang, or IF it was caused at all. And I feel no need to know. I would find it interesting to know, but life will continue just fine without that knowledge.
It is impossible to prove that god does not exist.
But, it is not impossible to convince some people that their beliefs are false (although it probably wont be easy, since many seem desperate to believe).
Or maybe God created everything :)
Or... maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, and chose to reveal itself through Bobby Henderson.
Or... it was the alien race Elohim that created life on earth, and intentionally misinformed early humanity that they were angels, cherubim or gods.
Forget about the god-thing. It's enough to present religions as man made. It isn't much of a leap from there to working out the connection between man making up stuff like religions and extending it to gods as well. Sentient men will realize they are one in the same. Spiritually needy men will continue the pretentiousness of theism in the face of any evidence to the contrary.
There is no proof, but the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion of God. We simply don't know how it all started, maybe we never will. There are plenty of theories to pick from, but even using your cause and effect train of thought...if you are left with God did it, how do you stop there? What caused God? Circles, that train of thought gets you no where.
Some of us are not scientists. What happened before the big bang is still unknown and scientist are still working on it to solve that mystery. It is fine to say "I don't know," especially if you will just use it against an idea that cannot be proven true or false. I think it will just be in vain. Saying I don't know accepts limitation and our brain can only store so much but not everything, and at this time, I would not really care who will end up being the winner from your discussion or argument because actually there is no default position if no one has proven anything.
"It is better to have questions that you can't answer than to have answers that you can't question." - Max Tegmark
God made the big bang and it killed him.
Asking for proof of god's nonexistence is a malformed question, you can never prove the nonexistence of anything. Prove to me there is no fairy in my garden. As previously stated, the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. Saying that there is a god, is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
Define the fairy and we both can go to your garden to search.
Are you suggesting you can define things into existence?
"Define the fairy and we both can go to your garden to search."
OK, Try this:
A "fairy" is a misinterpreted observation of a katydid in flight.
A katydid looks like a tiny green person with wings; the large abdomen and back pair of legs hang down, supported by large gossamer wings. When they land, they vanish by blending in with the vegetation. I have "fairies" in my garden, I have seen them with my own eyes. I have even discovered them after they landed and found that they were katydids. I have picked them up, tossed them into the air, and found that they turned back into "fairies".
"...you can never prove the nonexistence of anything."
Actually, you can, but it doesn't apply in this context.
You can prove non-existence of a feature in a population if you can exhaustively examine every member of that population. I can prove that there is no black marble in a large jar of white marbles if I can open the jar. But you cannot prove non-existence by sampling; I cannot prove that there is no black marble in the jar if all I can see are white marbles and I cannot open the jar or otherwise disturb the positioning of the marbles in the jar. Neither can you prove the existence of a black marble in that same jar.
Since we cannot exhaustively examine the entire universe, we cannot prove that some arbitrary feature (such as "god") does not exist. We can only infer that the rest of the universe is most likely the same as the part of it that we actually can observe.
It seems that those who believe in "god" see "evidence" for this "god" thing everywhere, but they also seem to be working with a very loosey-goosey concept of evidence.
Christians tell you that the fulfilled prophecies in the NT are proof of god.
There might the source of the first thing to happen but god might not be the right term to use. it could be the initial energy or source that is unaware and lifeless.
Pages