Can you prove God's non-existence(question only for atheists,if possible)?

  1. First of all,I apologize to moderators,because I didn't know where to put this thread,maybe in General Philosophy forum...
    I put it in the Scepticism forum,because I would like to hear what arguments sceptics have against God's existence.

    What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?
    I,personally,am an atheist.The real problem is when you look at it the universe seem to be like an organism-ameba that is expanding,but that doesn't prove the existence of God.My arguments are that if God existed he should have laws and the balance that support his existence.But no blance lasts for ever.Everything would fall apart-including God.So,basically even God shouldn't be eternal.
    Many people-believers think that God is pure energy and that's why he is eternal-but they simply forget one crucial thing.Although energy can't be created/destroyed,it has its forms.God than would be an form of energy,and since no form of energy is eternal-everything that exists is made of zillions of forms of energy.
    What are your opinions?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. James R

    James R 562
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No. God is constructed in such a way to avoid having his or her non-existence proved.

    But God is supposed to be all powerful. He or she creates the laws, and the time for eternity to exist in.

    It seems God isn't energy, if he or she exists.
     
  4. The problem with God paradox that he,she,it can't be eternal.Sooner or later everything has to end.The only problem if God existed he would show to humans and say you will obey me or something like that.It's all pšroduct of evolution,nothing more.No God wants to be invisible.
    You said God creates laws,but how can he exist if his non-corporeal entity is not made of laws.Universe exists because of the laws,no laws no universe,everything would become-what people use to call nothingness.To do something God needs energy.
    I bet in exactly 100$ dollars that God doesn't exist,after all he doesn't exist in me since I don't need him at all.
     
  5. What I meant to say(to correct myself) it's all product of evolution,nothing more.
     
  6. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I think it's impossible to prove the existence of some vague divinity somewhere. But the Christian God, and still more the Christian religion, that we can make a plausible case against. But if you don't want to be convinced, you won't be.
     
  7. You cannot prove nor disprove it atm. Everything is a theory.
     
  8. arildno

    arildno 12,015
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    God's existence cannot be disproved, but the question about his existence can be dismissed.
     
  9. You can certainly say that God's existence is inconsistent with the most fundemental laws of science. If God is omnipotent, then [non-gender specific] He may, if He deems necessary, flick our piddling planet out of orbit into the depths of space, thereby causing a phenomenon in the universe that disobeys the conservations laws of both momentum and energy. But seeing as no-one has put forward a logical theory that concludes that God exists, there's not a lot that can be disproved. Ultimately, God isn't a theory.
     
  10. arildno

    arildno 12,015
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    And why should the Judeo-Christian god conception be the only one which one should consider, or even the most rational god conception?

    In my view, god conceptions along the lines of Cthulhu, Thor and Odin are a lot more sensible ideas
     
  11. atheism's abit daft though isnt it.
     
  12. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Not as daft as the typical religion. Unobservable miracles and magical kingdoms located nowhere anyone can find.
     
  13. Not exactly, but you can, if you look into psychology and neurology, discover a string of common human brain glitches that are probably the origin of our concept of a non-corporeal entity, be it a god, spirit, or ghost.

    I would go into this further, but mentions of this here in the past have nearly precipitated head explosions on the part of people carrying latent "spiritual" inclinations.
     
  14. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Why? Current theory holds that the universe will never end. Beyond that though, if God created the Universe, then he created time. Therefore, he exists "outside" of time. So the concept of "beginning" and "end" are meaningless when applied to a god.
    Again, why? Perhaps God is the voyeur type? These assumptions are not provable (or disprovable, of course).
    If God created the universe, he doesn't (necessarily) live in it and therefore its laws do not apply to him.

    Ultimately, James's response is pretty much it - there is always a way out of a logical conundrum with God. After all - he is omnipotent!
     
  15. Probably not, still pretty daft though :rofl:
     
  16. Hmm yeah i think ive been part of a few of those kinds of threads before, people can believe what ever they like quite frankly, you can read all the evidence either way. However i still cant help but cringe alittle when people refer to people having enlightened experiences as having 'glitches' or 'malfunctions' the implication being that somethings gone wrong, the brain's made an error. :uhh:
     
  17. Depends greatly on what you mean by "enlightened". I don't think that seeing a "ghost" and suddenly believing there must be life after death constitutes "enlightenment". I discussed this on paranormal websites with people who've seen "ghosts" who are never-the-less very pushy, angry and closed minded. I wouldn't call someone like that "enlightened".
     
  18. That is not considered 'enlightenment' in any religion.

    It is however, becoming aware of another part of reality (that may or may not exist). In that sense, it is a sort of enlightenment. Similarly, the discovery that the earth wasnt flat, must have felt pretty enlightening to some people back then. Yet, if a bunch of people nowadays claim the world is flat and an argument arises with the round-earth group, then both groups are likely to get angry.

    But if for instance u would try to piss off Jezus or Ghandi or whatever enlightened persons happened to have existed, i suspect it wouldnt work, even if they had been alive :wink:

    (Btw i wasnt trying to compare atheists with people who think the earth is flat, i was just trying to show a scenario in which one group discovered a new aspect of reality that the others are unaware of.)
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2005
  19. Yeah thats fair, i wouldnt call that enlightened either, i was refering more to experiences of a collective consciousness, which i frequently hear people catagorise as some kind of malfunction of brain and nothing more.
     
  20. We can't truely prove that God doesn't exist; however, we can't prove whether or not the world will end tommorow, but I say it will not. Certainty is rare and perhaps impossible, but decisions have to be made. Logically, it is more efficient for humanity to not believe in God than to believe in him - evidence for this fact is presented throughout the history of time.

    Socrates, in his own way, adopted the philosophy that certainty is nonexistent. He said that the more wisdom one acquired the more he'd realize how little the knew - an interesting and logical belief. However, Socrates didn't always take action, and he was killed. Socrates' death demonstrates the reality that action is required even if a person isn't 100% sure. Uncertainity is unbeneficial to humanity when it comes to the issue of God. The existence of God is irrelevant; however, if one has to make a stance, they should vehemently claim his non-existence.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  21. I'm not sure what sort of thing you mean when you say "experiences of a collective consciousness." Whatever it is you mean, it may well have some basis in fact, but, like everything else, not be exactly what people assume it is.

    Personally, I'm very open minded to the possibility that something like telepathy exists. I can't present any actual instance where its existence is unquestionable, though, and I can't present anything more than speculation about how it might take place.

    Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that it does exists. It wouldn't automatically mean it is not the result of some kind of pathology. Autistc-Savants can do stupendous mathematical calculations in their head very rapidly. Their answers are correct. It would be wrong to say that there is something unauthentic about their ability to calculate. However, that ability is the indirect result of the pathology that prevents them from utilizing many other parts of the brain. If telepathy is possible, it might only spontaneously develop in people with the right pre-existing pathology.

    It can also be, that what seems like telepathy, is actually a very different talent masquerading as telepathy. If we were able to take a person and supercharge their ability to read body language, tone of voice, choice of words, or facial expression to the level of ability the Savant has with calculation, the result might well be indistinguishable from telepathy. Yet, there would be large numbers of people who, confronted with such a talent, wouldn't even think to ask themselves if something other than authentic telepathy were at work.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook
Similar discussions for: Can you prove God's non-existence(question only for atheists,if possible)?
Loading...