121 replies to this topic

[mentatpsi]

I don't get how one could prove or disprove the concept. Being faithful to either extreme seems to be exactly that... faith. What of deism for instance, a creator god who holds no binding to the universe other than preordained laws which we observe every day (laws like gravity, magnetism, chemical interplays, and biological drives). Can you disprove such a concept? It can't be proven either... so what skeptical individual will hold his notions of some metaphysical world with such convictions... i can imagine that the only sensible solution to such metaphysical questions is nihilism... particularly agnosticism.

[BrandonKing]

Im Agnostic i believe Nothing is Impossible, Just Mathematically Improbable. that statement can be applied to nearly everything, especially God. Gods existance isnt impossible, just mathematically improbable. see? if u get in an argument about religion just use that and if it dont work revert to the mind games trick TheFountain suggested

[Custodiam]

I think the source of the problem is the definition of "God".

You can prove that the descriptions of the monotheist God are somewhat contradictory. I mean you can prove that in the metaphysical sense there cannot be an entity like this kind of God, because it's properties are contradicting each other (omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience etc.).

But you can still create a new God-definition, which cannot be dismissed.

Basically if you call the metaphysical cause or source of existence "God", it is impossible to prove that it is not existing.

But this "God" is basically the Kantian thing-in-itself or the Brahman in Indian (Hindu) religion, and not the christian God.

Edited by Custodiam, 08 October 2010 - 08:20 AM.

[Philosophicus]

It doesn't matter if there is a god or there isn't.. progressing is what matters <img src='http://www.imminst.o..._DIR#>/tung.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':p' />

Of course you're right, and we want to attract religious people to the Life extension mission, but I just wanted some ammunition to use when talking to my religious friends.

The best approach is to understand them and befriend with them rather than argue and betray their friendships.

no I'm friends with plenty of religious people. I just wanted a good argument so I know what I'm talking about if a discussion should come up.

Here is one helpful argument (I think) from buddhist philosophy, if there is god who created all of what we can see, then who created that god. How can one
decide on the level of hierarchy and that the entity most of the humans call God is at the top. Most logical explanation seems to be that there can be no end
to the hierarchies. This is similar to the idea of multiverse, a verse with infinite universes, of which ours is just an instance.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Read George H. Smith's 'Atheism: The Case Against God". God's attributes are nonsensical, the word means nothing, and by definition the supernatural does not exist. Materialism and non-contradiction are the only meaningful ontology (indeed, anything that was not based in materia and non-contradiction would not even count as reality, as Wittgenstein points out). God, and all that other magical, mystical crap, doesn't even require 'refutation', by opening his mouth and speaking the theist refutes himself.

[Connor MacLeod]

no I'm friends with plenty of religious people. I just wanted a good argument so I know what I'm talking about if a discussion should come up.

Do you want to keep these friends?

[Ark]

I have your answer, trying to disprove god exist is like trying to live without a shower.


It's a fools task at best.

[Elus]

1. You can't prove a negative. I.e. You cannot prove that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove I have an invisible, planet sized chainsaw that is untouchable.

2. Not being able to prove something doesn't mean you should believe in it. I.e. You cannot disprove that a giant purple zombie punched the earth to form the oceans billions of years ago because you can't go back in time to see the formation of the oceans. This does not mean you should hold the "purple zombie punch" hypothesis on equal grounds with the theory of plate tectonics, which is substantiated by considerable evidence.

3. You can disprove the concrete statements made in the bible. I.e. Bible says god created earth 6,000 years ago. Radioactive decay suggests otherwise.

4. Arguing with a religious person is like arguing with a brick wall. I don't suggest you try, but that is of course, a suggestion. Do what you will - I sometimes do it for kicks .

Edited by Elus, 18 November 2010 - 10:45 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Other than the fact that evolution is a scientific fact and that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps can anyone here give some concrete examples and possibly evidence of why there probably is not God? I can't think right now as it is late, but if anyone wants to give some good reasons why that would be great.

There are many arguments for the existence of God from evolution. The Catholic Church believes Evolution may be the way God created. Theistic evolution is believed by many. We also share a large part of our DNA with fruit flies. So? Nothing is so concrete as to provide certainty. You can’t be certain of anything.

Does that mean we know nothing? Scepticism, ironically, draws its life’s blood from claims to have a good deal of knowledge. For example, many Skeptics claim, “Since every possible option has not been explored, nothing can be said for certain.” That statement is itself a claim to knowledge! Scepticism is itself a claim to knowledge. Just because nothing can be certain does not mean nothing can be known. If this is so why talk about anything. Skeptics aren’t really skeptics.

So give up the idea of certain disproof of God. The best arguments I have found against the existence of God have to do with the problem of evil or suffering.

[chris w]

The best arguments I have found against the existence of God have to do with the problem of evil or suffering.

And you have resolved them - how ?

[revenant]

If one exists, does it know of human pian and fear? If so, it is not our God.

[shadowhawk]

The best arguments I have found against the existence of God have to do with the problem of evil or suffering.

And you have resolved them - how ?

The problem of evil is perhaps the most serious problem in the world. It exists and whether there is a God or not evil is there for us humans. It is also the one serious objection to the existence of God.

More people have abandoned their faith because of the problem of evil than for any other reason. It is certainly the greatest test of faith, the greatest temptation to unbelief. And it's not just an intellectual objection. We feel it. We live it. That's why the Book of Job is so powerful.

I am a Christian but I was raised an Atheist and this I am familiar with the issues on both sides. The topic asks for reasons against theism so I will try to represent why it is a problem to theists. . Evil as a problem for those who believe in God, comes in both an emotional and logical forms. Intellectually there are two versions of this problem: first, the logical problem of evil, and second, the probabilistic problem of evil.

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. What are they? Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil. The task of Atheism is to demonstrate what the inconsistencies are. Then attack the theist with them.

But can the Theist actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. Theists have the same burden of proof. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore the logical issue may not exist anymore. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible?

The probabilistic problem of evil. According to this version of the problem, the co-existence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it’s highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world is so great that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it’s improbable that God exists.

This is a much more powerful argument against God. In response to this version of the problem of evil three main points have been advanced:

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God’s wider framework. To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

2. The Christian faith for example, entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines?

a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. One reason that the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that if God exists, then His goal for human life is happiness in this world. God’s role is to provide comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view this is false. We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or those around him. Of course, whether God's purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure? All the members of my birth family are dead either through accident or untimely death. I have had my share of tragedy and suffering. I have been at times very angry at God. Yet without God there is no hope. In the end my faith has grown and my family is in a better place. The Atheist can point out there is no hope and everyone dies or point to some future hope of technology bringing us eternal life. Faith is involved in all choices.

b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is not surprised at the human evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. God does not interfere to stop it, but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing. The Atheist can argue that God should stay out of human business. (We are mad if He let’s us die)

c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Atheists can either argue this life is all there is or again insist technology will give us time and the power to go throughout the cosmos.

d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, “God is good to me,” simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good. You can argue against God by focusing upon suffering and blame God for things like the death of babies. Focus on this life and not on God saving Children in a future life. Only technology is sure, not God.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw on the existence of God.

3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable. Probabilities are relative to what background information you consider. For example, suppose Joe is a student at the University of Colorado. Now suppose that we are informed that 95% of University of Colorado students ski. Relative to this information it is highly probable that Joe skis. But then suppose we also learn that Joe is an amputee and that 95% of amputees at the University of Colorado do not ski. Suddenly the probability of Joe’s being a skier has diminished drastically!

Similarly, if all you consider for background information is the evil in the world, then it’s hardly surprising that God’s existence appears improbable relative to that. But that’s not the real question. The real question is whether God’s existence is improbable relative to the total evidence available. I’m persuaded that when you consider the total evidence, then God’s existence is quite probable. The Atheist should focus on just this life.

Paradoxically, evil actually serves to establish the existence of God. For if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist—as is evident from the reality of evil—, then it follows inescapably that God exists. Thus, although evil in one sense calls into question God’s existence, in a more fundamental sense it demonstrates God’s existence, since evil could not exist without God.

In summary, evil does not render improbable the existence of God; on the contrary, considering the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable. Thus, the intellectual problem of evil fails to overthrow God’s existence. Atheist’s can argue that Evil or things like morality do not exist but are just a part of nature, the way things are. Evil like God is an illusion.

There is still the emotional problem of evil which I have not addressed but for the Atheist may be powerful ground against the theist. If there is any interest we can discuss that.

[Kolos]

We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God

Well we know that God is cruel and enjoys our suffering but yes I know counterarguments for that; "God doesn't like it but to know him we must know hi's opposite that is evil" but some kinds of "evil" seriously limit human abilities to understand anything or make their own moral choices, serious mental diseases for adults and any possible cause of death for little children many of which don't even have a brain (for catholics even featus is a child) not so long ago children mortality rate was the highest so it's not an exception we can easily ignore, there might be more featus souls in heaven than people that actually lived in this world and faced all the hardships so if God want's us to understand why so many people don't even have a chance, most people on this planet are not even christians!

[Maosef]

To be honest its a pretty terrible argument to have, trust me I've tried. There is no evidence for the exsistence of god or for the antithesis so I would for the most part avoid debating the exsistence of a god if your looking for some good banter with friends.

I would also be conscious about militantly advocating your atheist or agnostic views(not an accusation), I use to be guilty (and proud) of this but on hindsight it was quite rude and disrespectful and I currently make an effort to abstain from it. Religion seems to be heading out the door hastily anyway and from a subjective standpoint the younger generations who make a claim to a religous faith tend to be lot less zealous that their previous generations, generally.

Edited by Maosef, 21 November 2010 - 02:28 PM.

[klatu]

Any argument that attempts to disprove the existence of God is intellectually dishonest and more accurately responding to the conception of God that history has provided via tradition and theology. These are the real targets. How about disproving and demolishing the entire theological history of mono-theism?

For that process has already started: What science, religion, Hawkins or Dawkins thought impossible has happened. History now has it's first fully demonstrable proof for faith. And coming from outside all existing religious conventions, clearly has 'tradition' in the cross hairs. Quoting from an online review:

"The first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged is now a reality. A teaching that delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence based truth embodied in experience. For the first time in history, however unexpected or unwelcome, the world must contend with a claim to new revealed truth, a moral wisdom not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief! "

If confirmed and there appears a growing concerted effort to test and authenticate this material, this will represent a paradigm change in the nature of faith and in the moral and intellectual potential of human nature itself;  untangling the greatest  questions of human existence: sustainability, consciousness, meaning, suffering, free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most profound problems of our age.

And if those who claim to be of an Enlightenment mind are unable to comprehend or appreciate this change in the historical faith paradigm, to one that conforms precisely to criteria subject to test and scrutiny, then their own 'claim' to rationality is no more than pretension and no better then those theological illusions they find so abhorrent.

A unexpected revolution appears to be under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

[Roxichu]

There is exactly as much evidence for God as there is for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If they need any more than that, then there is no hope and it's best to drop the subject.

Edited by Roxichu, 27 November 2010 - 05:11 PM.

[mike250]

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith is an excellent read on this subject and much better than anything written by the recent "new atheists" . Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist is another good read on the subject.

having said that, I am wary of those who promote an absence of religion, without stating what they intend to replace it with.

[shadowhawk]

There is exactly as much evidence for God as there is for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If they need any more than that, then there is no hope and it's best to drop the subject.

There is a Santa Claus, no tooth fairy, depends what you mean by Easter Binny and there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[N.T.M.]

Other than the fact that evolution is a scientific fact and that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps can anyone here give some concrete examples and possibly evidence of why there probably is not God? I can't think right now as it is late, but if anyone wants to give some good reasons why that would be great.

God is absolutely superfluous in every way, therefore there's no need for a god. And when you couple this with his massive complexity which demands an explanation (there isn't one), you simply arrive at the conclusion that it's ridiculously improbable.

[bigdumbdunderhead]

"I need some good arguments disproving the existence of God"

No you don't. God concerns you only inasmuch that it is your task as a transhumanist to become and surpass him.

Edited by bigdumbdunderhead, 01 December 2010 - 08:09 AM.

[NeuroGuy]

1. You can't prove a negative. I.e. You cannot prove that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove I have an invisible, planet sized chainsaw that is untouchable.

This is false. In order to prove a negative, all you need to do is show something to be self-refuting or contradictory; this is the case when one posits the Problem of Evil as proof that God does not exist (which is no longer considered a valid argument, as the logical version of the problem has long been refuted). This is an old thread, but I was skimming through it and just wanted to point that out.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 03 June 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[shadowhawk]

It doesn't matter if there is a god or there isn't.. progressing is what matters

Of course you're right, and we want to attract religious people to the Life extension mission, but I just wanted some ammunition to use when talking to my religious friends.

The best approach is to understand them and befriend with them rather than argue and betray their friendships.

no I'm friends with plenty of religious people. I just wanted a good argument so I know what I'm talking about if a discussion should come up.

Instead of being goaded into arguements where they end up losing sight of the point, nowdays I try to stick to just the main point and just say, "You dont know, you just dont know, you could be right, others could be right, but we just dont know. I hope theres a god, but Im not going to bank on it. Lets get ourselves some life extension so we can have more time to go and see if we can find answers to important questions like that."

Or like the succinct bumper sticker says, "Agnostic, I dont know and you dont either. "

That reminds me of another one that I thought was funny, and true, "Agnostic, an atheist who has lost their faith."

That's what I do already with religious people. But I was just interested in case I needed to.

You are asking a good question but the real issue is beyond winning a argument.

[shadowhawk]

You need arguments to prove Atheism and then you will prove there is no God.
First you need proof so you must collect data and evidence. Using only reason based on evidence, you must collect the evidence. You will need scientific evidence and you must explore all the possibilities. Remember, this is not about faith such as the theists use. (No evidence. is that right?} You need evidence there is no God to avoid faith.

You need to search everywhere. This is a problem because God may reside on a planet on the opposite side of the universe, in a little cave, out of sight. There may be a God, but you just don't know. God may be right in front of you but you can't see Him and your search methods are inadequate to the task. God may have revealed himself but how would you know? Need evidence and proof? How much do you have for atheism? More than theists do for God? Perhaps Atheism is a faith!

[johnross47]

As many posters have said, you can't prove that some god doesn't exist, any more than the believers can prove its existence. What you can do is knock over any fully specified particular god. Start by asking them to describe their god in detail; then show that it is nonsense, inconsistent, contradictory, unsupported by any valid proper evidence, whatever; it will certainly fail in some way. But, again as others have said, it may not help you to keep your friends; they will need to be tolerant people.

[NeuroGuy]

As many posters have said, you can't prove that some god doesn't exist, any more than the believers can prove its existence. What you can do is knock over any fully specified particular god. Start by asking them to describe their god in detail; then show that it is nonsense, inconsistent, contradictory, unsupported by any valid proper evidence, whatever; it will certainly fail in some way. But, again as others have said, it may not help you to keep your friends; they will need to be tolerant people.

I appreciate your posts johnross, but you contradicted yourself in this last one. You denied the possibility of proving that some god doesn't exist, and then went on to describe how to prove that some god doesn't exist, namely, by showing that a particular conception or belief is inherently contradictory. I also brought this very issue up about four posts back.

1. You can't prove a negative. I.e. You cannot prove that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove I have an invisible, planet sized chainsaw that is untouchable.

This is false. In order to prove a negative, all you need to do is show something to be self-refuting or contradictory; this is the case when one posits the Problem of Evil as proof that God does not exist (which is no longer considered a valid argument, as the logical version of the problem has long been refuted). This is an old thread, but I was skimming through it and just wanted to point that out.

To belabor the point: the maxim "you can't prove a universal negative" is itself inherently contradictory. If the maxim were true, there would at least be one example of a proven negative.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 22 June 2013 - 11:25 PM.

[maxwatt]

Thank god I'm an atheist.

[Elus]

I suppose god is a logical impossibility, so one may be able to prove his non-existence by asserting he is an inherent contradiction, and inherent contradictions do not exist in the real world.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
3. From (2), God is not omnipotent.
4. (1) and (3) contradict.
5. From (4), God is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.

Edited by Elus, 23 June 2013 - 06:56 PM.

[johnross47]

As many posters have said, you can't prove that some god doesn't exist, any more than the believers can prove its existence. What you can do is knock over any fully specified particular god. Start by asking them to describe their god in detail; then show that it is nonsense, inconsistent, contradictory, unsupported by any valid proper evidence, whatever; it will certainly fail in some way. But, again as others have said, it may not help you to keep your friends; they will need to be tolerant people.

I appreciate your posts johnross, but you contradicted yourself in this last one. You denied the possibility of proving that some god doesn't exist, and then went on to describe how to prove that some god doesn't exist, namely, by showing that a particular conception or belief is inherently contradictory. I also brought this very issue up about four posts back.

1. You can't prove a negative. I.e. You cannot prove that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove I have an invisible, planet sized chainsaw that is untouchable.

This is false. In order to prove a negative, all you need to do is show something to be self-refuting or contradictory; this is the case when one posits the Problem of Evil as proof that God does not exist (which is no longer considered a valid argument, as the logical version of the problem has long been refuted). This is an old thread, but I was skimming through it and just wanted to point that out.

To belabor the point: the maxim "you can't prove a universal negative" is itself inherently contradictory. If the maxim were true, there would at least be one example of a proven negative.

I may have been sloppy in my wording.......what I mean is that you can't prove that there is no god anywhere, because you can't look everywhere and you probably don't/can't know all the possible definitions of gods that people might invent, but when somebody comes up with a specific god in a specific place it has historically always been possible to demolish them. Some people (believers) will obviously disagree.

[solarfingers]

If you could disprove God scientifically then that would be something. You will always run into the problem of the chicken before the egg and so it's just as likely God exists as he doesn't. The only proof is found in a person's own heart and reason. How can I argue if someone else says they experience God? That's not an objective experience. Of course if the bush is on fire and we can all see it at the same time, hearing a thunderous voice telling us to take off our shoes we would all be looking for the speakers. But, there are a few who would be taking off their shoes.

[solarfingers]

I suppose god is a logical impossibility, so one may be able to prove his non-existence by asserting he is an inherent contradiction, and inherent contradictions do not exist in the real world.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
3. From (2), God is not omnipotent.
4. (1) and (3) contradict.
5. From (4), God is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.

You are supposing a circular argument which I believe most who study philosophy of religion would consider to be an invalid type of argument.

If God is omnipotent he would not create a stone he could not lift. You created the contradiction.