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

[No-where-man]

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?

 

[James R]

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?

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

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.

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

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?

It seems God isn't energy, if he or she exists.

 

[No-where-man]

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.

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.

 

[No-where-man]

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.

What I meant to say(to correct myself) it's all product of evolution,nothing more.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[eNathan]

You cannot prove nor disprove it atm. Everything is a theory.

 

[arildno]

God's existence cannot be disproved, but the question about his existence can be dismissed.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

You can certainly say that God's existence is inconsistent with the most fundamental 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.

 

[arildno]

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

 

[Overdose]

atheism's abit daft though isn't it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

atheism's abit daft though isn't it.

Not as daft as the typical religion. Unobservable miracles and magical kingdoms located nowhere anyone can find.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?

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.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with God paradox that he,she,it can't be eternal.Sooner or later everything has to end.

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.

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.

Again, why? Perhaps God is the voyeur type? These assumptions are not provable (or disprovable, of course).

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.

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!

 

[Overdose]

Not as daft as the typical religion. Unobservable miracles and magical kingdoms located nowhere anyone can find.

Probably not, still pretty daft though

 

[Overdose]

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.

Hmm yeah i think I've 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 can't 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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...However i still can't help but cringe alittle when people refer to people having enlightened experiences...

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".

 

[PIT2]

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".

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 wouldn't work, even if they had been alive

(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.)

 

[Overdose]

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".

Yeah that's fair, i wouldn't call that enlightened either, i was referring more to experiences of a collective consciousness, which i frequently hear people catagorise as some kind of malfunction of brain and nothing more.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

We can't truly 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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yeah that's fair, i wouldn't call that enlightened either, i was referring more to experiences of a collective consciousness, which i frequently hear people catagorise as some kind of malfunction of brain and nothing more.

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.

 

[Grogs]

I'd like to address the original question posed in this thread, 'Can you prove God doesn't exist?' My answer is NO. Let me explain why:

First, religion is based on faith. By definition, faith is believing in something you can't see or prove. You just know, deep down in your heart, that it's there. I don't know what the statistics are, but I'd be pretty certain 90+% (maybe 99+%?) of people have the same religion as their parents and/or community. They were brought up believing in a certain thing, it wasn't some conscious rational decision. If a person's choice of religion wasn't a conscious decision based on logic and reasoning, he/she can't be expected to give up that religion based on a similar argument.

Second, as human beings we all have preconceived beliefs that we carry around with us. That being the case, we tend to interpret evidence based on those beliefs. We tend to focus on aspects that support those beliefs and accept what supports them and downplay or ignore what doesn't. One of the (maybe the hardest) goals of scientific research is to develop experiments so that our beliefs don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In religion, that's almost impossible, since there are few (if any) testable results. Even if there were, the validity of those results ultimately would be based on your beliefs.

 

[Overdose]

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.

When i say collective consciousness i mean a kind of hyper awareness, a feeling of eternal knowledge and of everything being connected.
Ive exeprienced it first hand and know of other people that have too. I've only achieved this through meditation and a combination of drugs however, but there are people who get flashes of this same experience in their everyday life. I've heard doctors refer to naturally occurring experiences such as these as malfunctions of the brain. illusions, etc.
Of course experiences like these are no doubt mediated by chemical imbalances in the brain (caused naturally or otherwise) that would lie outside of normal brain functioning. But we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that because these experiences are uncommon and are outside of the normal way we useally interpret our surroundings that these occurances MUST be malfunctions or glitches. Thats pretty simple minded reasoning that isn't going to get you anywhere, worst still due to the poorly understood nature of these exepriences the conclusion is offen reached that these experiences must surely be illusions.

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.

Im pretty much in agreement with what youve said, I've had people read my mind first hand and i do think it could very well be the subconscious picking up of tiny facial movements that can be converted into thoughts and feelings in the mind of the psychic. I also lean towards this idea because I've seen the same people atempt to read the minds of people without being able to see them and fail miserably.
However i do think the phenomena of seeing the future is very real, although this is seen as being the same as telepathy i actually think its quite different. Again this is something I've experienced first hand, and I am personally satisfied that I've seen the future with a degree of detail that it wasnt just a coincidence or my mind reading too much into it. Of course i wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it! people have to seek out their own evidence be it first hand or secondary.
How human beings are able to do this i really don't know, although i think the 'why' might be more simple. In the past i researched this phenomena quite extensively and i found that the average person has a vision or knowledge of a future event useally when they are in danger of being killed or injured: for most people this is when they are most likely to see a future event.

I think this is simply the human mind breaking the rules of its regular perception of time in moments of danger as an evolutionary advantage.
Just speculation of course, but an explanation worth considering i think

 

[zoobyshoe]

But we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that because these experiences are uncommon and are outside of the normal way we useally interpret our surroundings that these occurances MUST be malfunctions or glitches.

They wouldn't be called pathologies on the basis of being uncommon, but on the basis of whether or not they have their origin in something that would ultimatly be harmful to the brain. It may feel fantastic to be in that state of mind, but is there any cost? How long could a person stay that way and survive? Questions like that.

Thats pretty simple minded reasoning that isn't going to get you anywhere, worst still due to the poorly understood nature of these exepriences the conclusion is offen reached that these experiences must surely be illusions.

The particular experience you describe is, in fact, encountered as a simple partial seizure. Dostoevsky had this kind of seizure. He knew it was a seizure, and yet he said it was so wonderful that he wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. So, what can I say. Chances are, the particular thing you described is an illusion. I think if I had such an illusion I would not be willing to give it up either.

However i do think the phenomena of seeing the future is very real, although this is seen as being the same as telepathy i actually think its quite different. Again this is something I've experienced first hand, and I am personally satisfied that I've seen the future with a degree of detail that it wasnt just a coincidence or my mind reading too much into it.

Seeing the future played out in front of you like a movie isn't explained by any pathology I know of. I am very open minded about this as an authentic psychic phenomenon. I have no idea how it could happen. Does it mean the future already exists? Or just that we can extrapolate what is going to happen with total accuracy? I don't know.

 

[PIT2]

The particular experience you describe is, in fact, encountered as a simple partial seizure. Dostoevsky had this kind of seizure. He knew it was a seizure, and yet he said it was so wonderful that he wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. So, what can I say. Chances are, the particular thing you described is an illusion. I think if I had such an illusion I would not be willing to give it up either.

This was the experience he was talking about:

When i say collective consciousness i mean a kind of hyper awareness, a feeling of eternal knowledge and of everything being connected.

If this Dostoevsky had this experience, how did he know it was a seizure?

And furthermore, people who meditate have similar experiences. Can meditation cause these kind of seizures in people?

Also i know of a case where an astronaut(Ed Mitchell) had such an experience while he was in space. Heres a quote from a book (The Field) where i read it in:

It was then, while staring out of the window, that Ed experienced the strangest feeling he would ever have: a feeling of connectedness, as if all the planets and all the people of all time were attached by some invisible web. He could hardly breathe from the majesty of the moment. Although he continued to turn knobs and press buttons, he felt distanced from his body, as though someone else were doing the navigating.

There seemed to be an enormous force field here, connecting all people, their intentions and thoughts, and every animate and inanimate form of matter for all time. Anything he did or thought would influence the rest of the cosmos, and every occurrance in the cosmos would have a similare effect on him. Time was just an artificial construct. Everything he'd been taught about the universe and seperateness of people and things felt wrong. There were no accidents or individual intentions. The natural intelligence that had gone on for billions of years, that had forged the very molecules of his being, was also responsible for his own present journey. This wasn't something he was simply comprehending in his mind, but an overwhelmingly visceral feeling, as though he were physically extending out of the window to the very furthest reaches of the cosmos.

As u can read, he was still doing whatever he was doing before(pressing buttons and turning knobs), so the seizure doesn't seem to affect that.
Also, this experience sounds amazing, and it makes one wonder if this described feeling of how the universe 'works' is actually true. Is the universe one whole, or are we all seperate?

And finally, I am no expert on seizures, but i think NASA would screen their astronauts for any possible malfunction of the brain.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If this Dostoevsky had this experience, how did he know it was a seizure?

It was the aura that preceeded his secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures. The "aura" is what a simple partial seizure is called when it proceeds a more severe seizure. When it doesn't it is just called a simple partial.

And furthermore, people who meditate have similar experiences. Can meditation cause these kind of seizures in people?

Nothing I know of indicates that it couldn't.

As u can read, he was still doing whatever he was doing before(pressing buttons and turning knobs), so the seizure doesn't seem to affect that.

A simple partial seizure involves no defect of consciousness whatever. He could turn knobs, sure. I am more inclined to think the astronaut's experience was the super-exitement of realizing where he was, and what an amazing, unique experience he was having.

And finally, I am no expert on seizures, but i think NASA would screen their astronauts for any possible malfunction of the brain.

I'm sure they do. Thing is, EEG's aren't 100% reliable. One noted neurologist, Devinsky, released a study that showed only about 21% of simple partial seizures can be picked up by a surface EEG. They aren't severe enough, and if they aren't close to the surface the electrodes won't pick them up. Using implanted depth electrodes on surgery candidates they've picked up seizure activity that didn't register on surface electrodes. However, I think that astronaut was just really exited to be out there.

 

[PIT2]

It was the aura that preceeded his secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures. The "aura" is what a simple partial seizure is called when it proceeds a more severe seizure. When it doesn't it is just called a simple partial.

Is that the only indication that links these kinds of experiences to seizures?

Nothing I know of indicates that it couldn't.

Is their any evidence that meditation does cause seizures?

A simple partial seizure involves no defect of consciousness whatever. He could turn knobs, sure. I am more inclined to think the astronaut's experience was the super-exitement of realizing where he was, and what an amazing, unique experience he was having.

So in this case, it wasnt a seizure but excitement. Apparently then, normal brain function can also cause these experience without seizures.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is that the only indication that links these kinds of experiences to seizures?

You mean is Dostoevsky the only person who had this kind of simple partial? No. It is not a common type of simple partial, but others have had it.

Is their any evidence that meditation does cause seizures?

Some beginners experience hallucinations. The roshi generally knows what to suggest to stop them. These may be simple partials.

So in this case, it wasnt a seizure but excitement.

Actually, what I said was "I'm inclined to think..."

Apparently then, normal brain function can also cause these experience without seizures.

Or, it could have been a manic episode.

 

[Chronos]

I'm still working on quantum gravity. Have you tried a string board?

 

[C1ay]

Why? If I don't believe in God why would I bother to spend my time proving he doesn't exist. If you claim he does exist then the burden is yours to prove it. You couldn't just claim that apples are blue and pass on to those that don't believe it to prove it false, it would be your burden to prove your claim. Now, if you could actually produce some evidence it might become someone's burden to disprove that specific evidence. On the subject of God I have seen no such evidence. BTW, do you believe in a sun god just because the sun comes up?

 

[Overdose]

They wouldn't be called pathologies on the basis of being uncommon, but on the basis of whether or not they have their origin in something that would ultimatly be harmful to the brain. It may feel fantastic to be in that state of mind, but is there any cost? How long could a person stay that way and survive? Questions like that.

Thats a fair comment, yes these experiences can be damaging in a sense in regards to your day to day survival. It would have to come down to the individual to decide if these experiences were a hinderance or a help, and to see a doctor if it was the former.

The particular experience you describe is, in fact, encountered as a simple partial seizure. Dostoevsky had this kind of seizure. He knew it was a seizure, and yet he said it was so wonderful that he wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. So, what can I say. Chances are, the particular thing you described is an illusion. I think if I had such an illusion I would not be willing to give it up either.

Not entirely, it can come in many forms, you certainly don't have to be having a seizure to experience something like this.
I don't see your reasoning for it being more likely an illusion btw, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Seeing the future played out in front of you like a movie isn't explained by any pathology I know of. I am very open minded about this as an authentic psychic phenomenon. I have no idea how it could happen. Does it mean the future already exists? Or just that we can extrapolate what is going to happen with total accuracy? I don't know.

I don't know either to be honest, and it wouldn't be explained by any pathology because the majority of people would rather these things didnt happen, and if they do; the urge is generally to call it all coincidence useally without even having the facts to hand. And as with any other experience which is deemed inappropriate and too outside of our normal frame of reference there's probably an even greater urge to call it an illusion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not entirely, it can come in many forms, you certainly don't have to be having a seizure to experience something like this.
I don't see your reasoning for it being more likely an illusion btw, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

My logic is that if a known pathology causes the same illusion, then it isn't unreasonable to first suspect the known cause. You seemed to be saying there was no justification for suspecting it could be an illusion. There is, actually, a decent reason for suspecting that.

I don't know either to be honest, and it wouldn't be explained by any pathology because the majority of people would rather these things didnt happen, and if they do; the urge is generally to call it all coincidence useally without even having the facts to hand. And as with any other experience which is deemed inappropriate and too outside of our normal frame of reference there's probably an even greater urge to call it an illusion.

This, for me, is where I have to stick to "I don't know". The urge to call it something has to be resisted. There aren't enough good leads.

 

[PIT2]

Some beginners experience hallucinations. The roshi generally knows what to suggest to stop them. These may be simple partials.

The fact that meditation can cause these experiences and that people can induce these experiences on themselves at will, is an idication that it is not merely a seizure-caused-hallucination(it can be a hallucination though). Unless of course, it has been shown that meditation can cause seizures, but I am not aware that this is the case.

1. I have also read some accounts of people that walk around with these experiences for long periods(hours/days/months). How long do seizures generally last?

2. Also, what are the actual symptoms of seizures? Surely, hallucinations alone are not the only symptom (the case which u described (Dostoevsky) for instance, also saw an aura).

3. Also, many people who experience these things without meditation, only experience them once. Is there some kind of disease that causes once-in-a-lifetime seizures?

4. And finally, these kind of experiences can be life-changing events for the experiencer. Do seizures cause permanent braindamage?

Just curious

 

[owl3951]

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?

First, I am not qualified to contribute to this thread, but I am following it with interest. I was wondering if. perhaps, it might help atheists to respond if you made a little more clear what you mean by "prove."

If you mean "prove with absolute certainty for every person who has every lived or who will ever be born" then, of course, you have set an impossible task. There are people who reject that Apollo missions landed on the moon, that appropriate blood transfusions make sense, and on and on.

If you mean "prove to you, personally" it may be that others do not know enough about you, and what you have already studied, to assist as fully as possible. If you are looking for help in discussions with acquaintances who are believers, it is probably better to refer them to some thousands of years of philosophical investigations on the nature of proof, reality, knowledge, God, soul, the nature of man, and so forth. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. If, in fact, this is the motivation behind your inquiry, then C1ay's resonse is the most lucid and cogent.

If you mean "prove as we believe certain scientific theories, such as Relativity, Evolution, Genetics, etc., to be 'proved'" it would first be better to ensure we all know what we mean by these theorems are proved. We run into the same problems here as we do in the prior three paragraphs.

However, if you mean "there is this idea, and it appears consistent with what we observe, and we do not have enough meaningful, contrary observations to deny the idea, and the idea exlains a lot of other things we can observe, and the idea correlates to other branches of knowledge as well, and the ideas further development is consistent with itself" then it is possible others can assist.

There is a difficulty, well-discussed in all manner of philosophy, religion, etc. It is much harder--in fact, almost impossible--to prove a negative than a positive. Consequently, by the very nature of proof, it would, from the start, be harder to disprove the existence of God than to prove God's existence. It is our nature to work with what is, most of the time, and not with the absence of what is. We commonly discuss how many lumens are given by a light source. We do not, typically, discuss how many "darkens" are given by a non-light source. It seems to have to do with both the nature of people and with the relative "easiness" of examing what is.

Given that this thread is predicated, then, on the admittedly harder flip side of the coin, I watch with interest. So far, while some specifics of the religiosity experience have been discussed, there has not yet developed a broad basis for proof according to the way scientific proofs are established.

 

[gravenewworld]

"If this sentence is true, then God exists."

If you do the logic behind this sentence you must conclude that god exists...

 

[polyb]

I recently cames across a website called 'The Gospel Writers' on the subject of how to detoxify from institutionalized religions. It is a very interesting read and presents a pretty good arguement. Here is an synopsis of the intro:

There is only one way to prove to you that a god does not exist.
And that is, to prove to you why one does.

Enter the villains:
the Kingships, the Priests, & the Ruling Class ...
(c.6,500 BCE)
...

With profits, wealth, and power over people in mind, a very small group exploited our need to believe, and our intuitive sense that we were not alone, a long time ago. They continue to exploit it today. By understanding the original agenda, and the exploitation tools used to support that agenda, you will be able to understand why we are who we are today; and why world peace seems so difficult to achieve.

They had taken the awe and the majesty of what we had intuitively felt inside, and manipulated it, corrupted it, concealed it, and returned it to us as a tool to be used against us.

...

http://www.thegospelwriters.com/detox0.html

The page referenced gives you three options to choose from, depending on your dispositiuon! I hope you find it as interesting as I have. Enjoy!

 

[zoobyshoe]

The fact that meditation can cause these experiences and that people can induce these experiences on themselves at will, is an idication that it is not merely a seizure-caused-hallucination(it can be a hallucination though). Unless of course, it has been shown that meditation can cause seizures, but I am not aware that this is the case.

When meditators hallucinate, according to the book I read, the problem can be corrected by correcting their breathing. They have generally, it was suggested, fallen into the habit of not breathing deeply enough. That being the case, it is not unreasonable to suspect a simple partial seizure as the cause of the hallucination because lack of oxygen to the brain is a common precipitant of seizures. So, I don't think your assertion, that the fact it comes out of meditation indicates it is probably not a seizure, is warranted. You can't rule any reasonable neurological explanation out on the basis of it being meditation.

The second chapter of that book I reccomended to you elsewhere; "An Anthropologist On Mars" by Oliver Sacks, is called "The Last Hippie." It is the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good that I've ever seen. Briefly, it tells the story of a guy who joins a meditation group and seems to find enlightenment almost instantly, becoming an extremely happy, mellow, cheerful, lovable person. The others look to him as an example of how successful meditation can be. He becomes mellower and mellower, filled with equanimity. Nothing seems to bother him, he accepts everything good or unpleasant with the same unpeterbable peace of mind. He stops bathing, and shaving, and washing his clothes. Eventually he stops doing just about anything. Finally, the others suspect something is wrong. They take him to the doctor. Turns out he has a big tumor in one of his frontal lobes. They could have caught it months earlier, but everyone assumed, if it comes out of meditation it must be a good thing.

It's a cautionary tale, that's all: don't fault anyone for first suspecting neurological pathologies. Stuff happens.

I'll get to the rest of your questions later.

 

[PIT2]

That being the case, it is not unreasonable to suspect a simple partial seizure as the cause of the hallucination because lack of oxygen to the brain is a common precipitant of seizures.

U might suspect this, but i was merely wondering if there is any science behind this suspicion. For instance any research that indicates meditation can indeed cause seizures, or even that breathing techniques can cause seizures. I suspect if these were the case, meditation would be banned by now.

The second chapter of that book I reccomended to you elsewhere; "An Anthropologist On Mars" by Oliver Sacks, is called "The Last Hippie." It is the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good that I've ever seen. Briefly, it tells the story of a guy who joins a meditation group and seems to find enlightenment almost instantly, becoming an extremely happy, mellow, cheerful, lovable person.

...

They take him to the doctor. Turns out he has a big tumor in one of his frontal lobes.

I do not think this example is relevant. U talk about it being "the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good".

Well first of all, of course not everything that comes out of meditation will be good. (there must be some bad side effects )

Secondly, the fact that this guy developed a brain-tumor, cannot be seen as a result of the meditation itself, neither can the fact that it was discovered too late.

Thirdly, the link between braintumor and the sensation of enlightenment cannot solidly be demonstrated by this case. I am sure there have been people that meditated while having a migraine, a headache, an ear-infection, or a broken leg for that matter.

 

[Overdose]

My logic is that if a known pathology causes the same illusion, then it isn't unreasonable to first suspect the known cause.

Well, not to be rude but there is no logic atall to what youre saying here,
there is no reason to believe that the known patholagy (in this case a seizure) must be an illusion. Therefore youre using one lack of/or bad reasoning to justify another. And still without actually giving a real reason to why you suspect these experiences must be illusions in the first place.

You seemed to be saying there was no justification for suspecting it could be an illusion. There is, actually, a decent reason for suspecting that.

Im not saying there is no justification whatsoever for comming to that conclusion, rather I am saying if that's the conclusion someone wants to arrive at they should at least have some kind of reason, rather than just making it a vauge assumption.

This, for me, is where I have to stick to "I don't know". The urge to call it something has to be resisted. There aren't enough good leads.

But you feel comfortable enough to label experiences of a collective consciousness 'illusions', why not stick with 'i don't know' in that instance as well?

 

[Overdose]

i think we've gone a bit off topic in this thread...woops : p

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, not to be rude but there is no logic atall to what youre saying here,
there is no reason to believe that the known patholagy (in this case a seizure) must be an illusion.

No reason to be absolutly certain, yes, you are correct. But what I keep trying to point out is that you are the one who cringes at the suggestion it is an illusion with no proof to show me that it isn't an illusion. I am not trying to convince you it is an illusion. I just can't understand why you are so convinced about it that you would cringe at the suggestion it isn't what you assumed.

Many illusions and hallucinations are found in simple partial seizures. When the seizure activity hits the various parts of the brain where the senses are controlled, all kinds of sensory illusions and hallucinations result. People see, feel, taste, hear, and smell all kinds of things that aren't there. When it hits the parts of the brain where emotions are contolled, all kinds of superstrong emotions result. People have rage atacks, some are overcome with intense fear, some become giddy and begin to laugh uncontrollably, some begin to cry uncontrollably. Most of them, you'd have no problem accepting as illusions. You are asking me to put brackets around this one, and, just on your sayso, put into a completely different category: this one is without any illusory content. Maybe it is. Could be. I'm open minded. I just don't find the assertion that my train of thought has no logic whatever behind it to be warranted.

 

[No-where-man]

You cannot prove nor disprove it atm. Everything is a theory.

If everything is a theory,than we wouldn't possesses tehcnology we have today,we would still in stone age.
If theory works in practice it's no longer theory-it's a proven fact.What I said about energy and its forms is a proven fact.

 

[James R]

No-where-man:

The problem with God paradox that he,she,it can't be eternal.

Most religions say the exact opposite.

Sooner or later everything has to end.

Maybe God is the exception to that rule.

Anyway, I bet there are photons still around that existed at the beginning of the universe, so there's at least one example of something which has existed for as long as the universe itself, and might well exist until the universe ends (if it ever does). Why not God, too?

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.

Who are you to say what God wants? Did you ever hear that God works in mysterious ways?

You said God creates laws,but how can he exist if his non-corporeal entity is not made of laws.

Maybe he is beyond the laws which govern matter and energy. After all, if he is all-powerful, then he can pretty much do what he wants, right?

Universe exists because of the laws,no laws no universe,everything would become-what people use to call nothingness.

And, so the argument goes, the laws exist because of God. No God, no laws. No laws no universe. See?

To do something God needs energy.

Why?

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.

All you're saying here is that you don't believe in God. But maybe God exists and doesn't care that you don't believe in him. Your non-belief, by itself, proves nothing.

What I meant to say(to correct myself) it's all product of evolution,nothing more.

Maybe God created evolution.

 

[No-where-man]

First, I am not qualified to contribute to this thread, but I am following it with interest. I was wondering if. perhaps, it might help atheists to respond if you made a little more clear what you mean by "prove."

If you mean "prove with absolute certainty for every person who has every lived or who will ever be born" then, of course, you have set an impossible task. There are people who reject that Apollo missions landed on the moon, that appropriate blood transfusions make sense, and on and on.

If you mean "prove to you, personally" it may be that others do not know enough about you, and what you have already studied, to assist as fully as possible. If you are looking for help in discussions with acquaintances who are believers, it is probably better to refer them to some thousands of years of philosophical investigations on the nature of proof, reality, knowledge, God, soul, the nature of man, and so forth. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. If, in fact, this is the motivation behind your inquiry, then C1ay's resonse is the most lucid and cogent.

If you mean "prove as we believe certain scientific theories, such as Relativity, Evolution, Genetics, etc., to be 'proved'" it would first be better to ensure we all know what we mean by these theorems are proved. We run into the same problems here as we do in the prior three paragraphs.

However, if you mean "there is this idea, and it appears consistent with what we observe, and we do not have enough meaningful, contrary observations to deny the idea, and the idea exlains a lot of other things we can observe, and the idea correlates to other branches of knowledge as well, and the ideas further development is consistent with itself" then it is possible others can assist.

There is a difficulty, well-discussed in all manner of philosophy, religion, etc. It is much harder--in fact, almost impossible--to prove a negative than a positive. Consequently, by the very nature of proof, it would, from the start, be harder to disprove the existence of God than to prove God's existence. It is our nature to work with what is, most of the time, and not with the absence of what is. We commonly discuss how many lumens are given by a light source. We do not, typically, discuss how many "darkens" are given by a non-light source. It seems to have to do with both the nature of people and with the relative "easiness" of examing what is.

Given that this thread is predicated, then, on the admittedly harder flip side of the coin, I watch with interest. So far, while some specifics of the religiosity experience have been discussed, there has not yet developed a broad basis for proof according to the way scientific proofs are established.

But no God-it doesn't matter good or evil would want to stay invisible if 95% of the world population if everybody is hailing his name.
This is all auto-suggestion,much like you can believe ghosts exist.Here is how:Psychologists have made an very interesting experiment.They asked one group of people to go into the house that was cursed(but of course it wasn't cursed at all,but SCIENTISTS SAID TO THIS FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE that house IS CURSED).This first group of people believed to scientists saw ghosts and felt them all over and inside the supposedly cursed house-it's a funny thing that scientists have detected various magnetic fields in that moment connected with people's brains,since brain's activity of each of the men and women was active when they started to "see" ghosts.

To the other,second group of people was told that there are no ghosts,and and this second group of people didn't see any ghost-and there were no magnetic fields.So,you see this a definite proof how people are naive.First they believed winds and mountains are gods,aswell as seas and oceans-but they were wrong-if humans could have discovered the entire universe and well beyond(but in reality neither will ever be possible) they will find no God.
God created universe without leaving any evidence?
That's not God.

These 2 groups of people proved that ghosts exist because they want,as well as God/Gods exist because people want to-God/Gods do exist because people want to see God/Gods.Trust me,I have tested it on myself believe in something you'll see something(although isn' there),don't believe in something you wouldn't see anything.Man creates his own God/Gods,because peoples' brains are very powerful natural tools.

 

[No-where-man]

No-where-man:



Most religions say the exact opposite.

No-where-man:You believe to all religions say.They only say in what they believe.When the believe and see their God.That's auto-suggestion.Man is very easy to be manipulated.

Maybe God is the exception to that rule.

No-where-man:None lives forever.Death is the strongest thing.God can live 10^1000...000..000..000...000...000...000000...000 millleniums,but eventually he will die.Nobody can have infinite amounts energy reserves.

Anyway, I bet there are photons still around that existed at the beginning of the universe, so there's at least one example of something which has existed for as long as the universe itself, and might well exist until the universe ends (if it ever does). Why not God, too?

No-where-man:Your argument doesn't prove anything.Every,just about every God wouldn't want to stay invisible and untouchable at all,he would be happy if everyone is hailing his name and he would show himself to us.That's the basic point of all of it.What you're saying can't be said for God's existence.If you were born in the ages when people think mere wind is a god,or a mountain,or clouds you would believe or be agnostic.But everywhere where science penetrates there is less and less place for the neccesity of God's existence.More and more science penetrates there is less place for gods and wonderings,but that opens another question-does science and technology make us happier and healthier?I'd say,the answer is the opposite.
After all,in the latest statistics 95% of all of the world's scientists say that God doesn't exist at all.




Who are you to say what God wants? Did you ever hear that God works in mysterious ways?

No-where-man:I explained above-every,just about every God wouldn't want to stay invisible and untouchable at all,he would be happy if everyone is hailing his name and he would show himself to us.Your point of God working in mysterious ways is religious point,I don't buy,I'm purely talking about God's existence from logic and science.

Maybe he is beyond the laws which govern matter and energy. After all, if he is all-powerful, then he can pretty much do what he wants, right?

No-where-man:Let's say he is beyond matter and energy,but that opens up a new question where does he live-none can really be infinite.If there was an infinite God-that would require infinite amounts of useful energy-which is totally impossible.

And, so the argument goes, the laws exist because of God. No God, no laws. No laws no universe. See?



Why?

No-where-man:Give me,one just one example where something exists if there are no rules/laws-everything including the entire universe,every living being tends to achieve an balance.Once balance is disrupted everything ends.For God to exist,he couldn't be able to do whatever he wants to do,but to comply to laws,and these laws don't have to be laws of matter and energy at all.If the supposed God is coming from the higher dimension-there are different laws of physics.


All you're saying here is that you don't believe in God. But maybe God exists and doesn't care that you don't believe in him. Your non-belief, by itself, proves nothing.

No-where-man:It proves to everyone God's non-existence,not to just me.Here is why(from the below):
This is all auto-suggestion,much like you can believe ghosts exist.Here is how:Psychologists have made an very interesting experiment.They asked one group of people to go into the house that was cursed(but of course it wasn't cursed at all,but SCIENTISTS SAID TO THIS FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE that house IS CURSED).This first group of people believed to scientists saw ghosts and felt them all over and inside the supposedly cursed house-it's a funny thing that scientists have detected various magnetic fields in that moment connected with people's brains,since brain's activity of each of the men and women was active when they started to "see" ghosts.

To the other,second group of people was told that there are no ghosts,and and this second group of people didn't see any ghost-and there were no magnetic fields.So,you see this a definite proof how people are naive.First they believed winds and mountains are gods,aswell as seas and oceans-but they were wrong-if humans could have discovered the entire universe and well beyond(but in reality neither will ever be possible) they will find no God.
God created universe without leaving any evidence?
That's not God.

These 2 groups of people proved that ghosts exist because they want,as well as God/Gods exist because people want to-God/Gods do exist because people want to see God/Gods.Trust me,I have tested it on myself believe in something you'll see something(although it isn't there),don't believe in something you wouldn't see anything.Man creates his own God/Gods,because peoples' brains are very powerful natural tools.

Maybe God created evolution.

No-where-man:That's abiogenesis,nothing more.I'll answer next week,or the week after,I'll see how much time I would have.
Cheers!

 

[Entropy]

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?

Well, if you want to here the Biblical answer for this, proof of God is all around you. Meaning that the fact that anything exists proves there is a God. Personally, that's why I know there is a God. From what I can deduce it seems impossible for physical laws to come out of nothingness. When I mean nothingness, I mean nothingness. Not empty space, a timeless, spaceless, nether. No flucuations, no quantum foam. The concept of the universe always existing doesn't wash with me either. Because time isn't all encompassing. Time is just another dimension, just interpeted differently. The only things that makes sense to me is an omipotent being not bound by any laws or restrictions that could have made our universe and set its laws.

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.

Of coarse, because you know exactly what an all-knowing, infinitely intelligent being would want, seeing how your finite IQ is so close to God's infinite IQ.

That's abiogenesis,nothing more.

No, abiogenesis is the "evolution" of non-living matter to living matter. Abiogenesis isn't the creation of evolution, just evolution for living matter.

 

[theCandyman]

Intresting thread.

If we understood God, that would not exactly made Him God now, would it? It seems the whole idea behind God is that He is infinite, and in effect, incomprehensible.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't see why. If God wrote a book explaining everything about himself and referring to himself as God, which he can do seeing as he is omnipotent, then if by discovering this information he ceased to be God, then the understanding would transpire to be wrong and we'd know nothing about God. That's a paradox!

 

[Overdose]

No reason to be absolutly certain, yes, you are correct. But what I keep trying to point out is that you are the one who cringes at the suggestion it is an illusion with no proof to show me that it isn't an illusion. I am not trying to convince you it is an illusion. I just can't understand why you are so convinced about it that you would cringe at the suggestion it isn't what you assumed.

Well, I've experienced an expansion of my consciousness first-hand so its not something i base on assumption, its hard to explain how i knew it wasnt an illusion, the nearest thing i could compare it to is being in love, if you are in love you don't question it, you just know it.
To put it prehaps in a different way, to question the validity of my experience would be about as absurd as asking myself if the conversation i just had with a friend really happened. Thats how rooted in reality the experience was.

Now if you believe that an experience like this might be illusionary i have no problem with that, if i didnt have first hand knowledge in this instance i would probably be open to the same conclusion too.
The thing that I am really opposed to however is people people classifying such experiences in an off-hand manner as glitches/malfunctions and offen in the process robbing them of any meaning or worth. If such an extreme position is going to be taken then i at least want to know why, even if i don't agree with the reasoning given.

Many illusions and hallucinations are found in simple partial seizures. When the seizure activity hits the various parts of the brain where the senses are controlled, all kinds of sensory illusions and hallucinations result. People see, feel, taste, hear, and smell all kinds of things that aren't there. When it hits the parts of the brain where emotions are contolled, all kinds of superstrong emotions result. People have rage atacks, some are overcome with intense fear, some become giddy and begin to laugh uncontrollably, some begin to cry uncontrollably. Most of them, you'd have no problem accepting as illusions. You are asking me to put brackets around this one, and, just on your sayso, put into a completely different category: this one is without any illusory content. Maybe it is. Could be. I'm open minded. I just don't find the assertion that my train of thought has no logic whatever behind it to be warranted.

Well i wouldn't ask you to take anything on my sayso, and i think my posts in this thread consistantly show that. I can see now from talking abit more that the certainly i read into your previous posts was actually just a possibility of quite a few you are willing to entertain, which again is a position i can identify with had i not experienced this first hand.

 

[NT4.0]

A very interesting question. As it seems to me, however, it is wrongly stated. In scientific approach, first we discover something, then we define it. Here it is vice versa -- we have defined God and are trying to discover it. Looks more like cheating, i.e. trying to find the pieces of reality that somehow correspond to your hypothesis, and therefore stating your hypothesis to be right.

My proof to God's non-existence would be that if we don't have enough grounds to state the fact, then we may not state it -- thus it does not even need being disproven. A simple example would be saying that in the Galaxy X on the planet Y which is the 5th in the solar system of the star Z, on its north pole there is a big chocolate bunny. This statement is impossible to disprove, but as we don't have any reason to state it, we may not do it. Just simple logic.

Also -- the idea of God comes from religious beliefs which were primarily used for describing the outside world (i.e. the origin of the nature events like rain or the blue sky); naturally, the people extrapolated the social hierarchy onto the natural world -- like, if there should be King of the state, there should be God of the world. As religion gives a completely wrong and perverse description of reality, there is a very high probability of the idea of God being same wrong.

 

[Jameson]

I would say the concept of God is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove it wrong to someone who says that God is outside of my ability to comprehend. The concept of God is full of paradox's, which normally might lead one to say this concept is false but some say otherwise. I think for most people who believe in God, a proof is not important, as it is faith that is crucial for this belief. Others luckily take a more thoughtful approach and we find ourselves debating in forums such as this.

My question is: Why should I have to prove God doesn't exist? You're the one who claimed He does. Normally when one states that something exists it is not a proof to simply say "You can't prove it doesn't!" So my next statement is -

Prove God does exist.

Jameson