How to prove God does not exist.

[HowardHill]

It is often said that you cannot prove God does not exist, because you cannot prove a negative.  Since we know God does not exist, because the idea is insane, we certainly ought to believe we can prove God does not exist.  In fact the solution to this conundrum is simple, once you know how. 

 We prove God does not exist, by showing what God is.

 This approach stems from the nature of language, which generates ideas that often prove fanciful, but are prompted by experience.  Proving things do not exist is a routine feature of science, only science is not presented in this negative light.  Nonetheless, when science does prove certain things it is liable to disprove ideas that had previously existed.

 The idea of God is undoubtedly the most important idea in existence in our world, and the associated knowledge, religion, is likewise of supreme importance.  It is still complete and utter rot, but the typical atheistic line dismissing religion as rot, gets us nowhere.  If instead we recognise the eternal importance of religion, and ask why ?  Then we begin to move in the direction of finding an answer, and thus proving God does not exist, by showing what God is.  That is to say, by discovering what it is in reality that does exist, that is as important to us as God is said to be, by those who support this idea.

[M.2]

Why did you choose to make this your very first post? Is it something important to you, or to your milieu?

Just curious where you are coming from so that we can understand your language better. As you say, much of this topic is rooted in language and culture. 

[Gnostic Bishop]

HowardHill

Let's look at language then.

God, regardless of what attributes are assigned to him or her, ends in being an ideal entity that can only exist in the mind of an individual.

That mental construct is what is believed to be true as it is the only real thing that a person can believe in since there is no physical manifestation of a God.

God then can only be defined as a persons mental construct. That is why Gnostic Christianity urges us to go within ourselves to find the only God we can ever know.

Are we on the same page?

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

 

[Jsbrads]

The universe was created.

Let me know how when you figure it out.

[Gnostic Bishop]

14 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

The universe was created.

Let me know how when you figure it out.

Since you cannot know, I will go with my best guess, knowing you cannot refute it.

BBBBB Bang.

You might want to try for a more adult way of communicating.

Mature discourse is what I come to this place for.

Regards

DL  

 

[Jsbrads]

What caused the Big Bang?

sorry if I use Twitter sarcasm sometimes, unintended. 

[Gnostic Bishop]

10 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

What caused the Big Bang?

sorry if I use Twitter sarcasm sometimes, unintended. 

Both science and religions are now admitting that what the conditions were before the Big Bang cannot be known and both have ended with a God of the Gaps.

As a Gnostic Christian, I have no supernatural beliefs and at present do not see science as having the answer you want.

Even if we thought we could know, unless we can replicate it, we cannot ever prove it.

At present science has about 5 theories with the math that proves all the theories to be valid so pick your brane or favotite super string theory and run with it.

Regards

DL

 

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

10 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

What caused the Big Bang?

sorry if I use Twitter sarcasm sometimes, unintended. 

No problem my friend. We all have to get used to our various styles.

This link might just be as correct as all the other theories.

Regards

DL

 

[Jsbrads]

The difference couldn't be more stark.

we both believe in cause and effect

atheists just believe the cause is accidental and lucky for us

and theists believe it was intentional and not dumb luck

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎03‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:22 AM, Jsbrads said:

The difference couldn't be more stark.

we both believe in cause and effect

atheists just believe the cause is accidental and lucky for us

and theists believe it was intentional and not dumb luck

I am not an atheist. I am a Gnostic Christian.

Regards

DL

[neeeel]

On 9/28/2017 at 5:46 AM, Jsbrads said:

The universe was created.

 

How do you know?

[Mel_NAP]

On 10/12/2017 at 4:01 AM, neeeel said:

How do you know?

This. 

 

Whether or not God is disprovable is dependent on what God is being purported. Even within Christianity there is great variation. Some Gods are non-falsifiable. Some Gods are self-contridictiory. Antidotally, since most of the theists I've come across are determined to stick to a loving God, the more non-falsifiable their God is the less interested I am in disproving it. 

 

[Jsbrads]

On 10/12/2017 at 1:01 AM, neeeel said:

How do you know?

Good question. The current level on science is fairly comfortable with the universe being created. And religion made the exact same claim first.

note: the above does not talk about how the universe was created. 

[neeeel]

6 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

Good question. The current level on science is fairly comfortable with the universe being created. And religion made the exact same claim first.

note: the above does not talk about how the universe was created. 

Science says the universe was created? I dont think thats correct. Maybe its to do with what you mean by created? Created generally means a creator, no?

[ofd]

The current level of science is comfortable in saying that we don't know and that perhaps we'll never know how the universe came into being.

[EUbrainwashing]

Everything we understand is seen to operate in a predictable rational manner: is natural.

Everything we do not understand will also be found to be natural.

Everything must have either a point of origin or be infinite.

Everything that is not infinite must originate through a natural process, a natural system.

This natural system, from which everything originates, must be infinite. 

'Everything' includes the present universe and whatever caused it.


Logically: all things flow from an infinite natural source (even one outside of the bounds of time and science as we vaguely understand them to be).  This source must be consistent in producing a variety of causes and those causes produce consistent effects.

Nothing can be 'supernatural' for, if it exists, it must be natural albeit just outside of our ability to understand or conceptualise (which would include: a concious, omnipotent, all seeing, perpetual, mechanism of creation that has a rational far beyond our comprehension and of which there is no evidence except, supposedly, the existence of the natural systems of the physical universe including life).
 

Edited January 29, 2018 by EUbrainwashing
to read better

[Jsbrads]

Logically God can be that infinite natural source. Also “infinite natural” may be a contradiction.

Also if the universe was created (by a thinking rational God or by the accidental collision of two “things” outside our universe) all of that outer things or being is supernatural.

[Donnadogsoth]

The argument I've used for a while now is that nothing that changes can be aeternal, by definition.  Things that change, change.  Things that are aeternal, do not.  Since the universe changes, it cannot be aeternal and therefore cannot have existed forever, and therefore must flow from a true aeternal creator.

No one has wiggled out of this other than by saying "nah-ah!" but I'll do you all a favour and wiggle out of it myself: suppose change is really just a matter of perspective, that our consciousness allows us to see contrasts in succeeding units of spacetime, when in reality, at the highest reality, there is no change.  Everything that has been, is, or ever will be already exists all at once, and so is part of this aeternal aspect of the universe.  No supernatural aeternal creator necessary.

There, I've shot myself in the theological foot.  Happy?  Or have I made a logical error?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The argument I've used for a while now is that nothing that changes can be aeternal, by definition.  Things that change, change.  Things that are aeternal, do not.  Since the universe changes, it cannot be aeternal and therefore cannot have existed forever, and therefore must flow from a true aeternal creator.

No one has wiggled out of this other than by saying "nah-ah!" but I'll do you all a favour and wiggle out of it myself: suppose change is really just a matter of perspective, that our consciousness allows us to see contrasts in succeeding units of spacetime, when in reality, at the highest reality, there is no change.  Everything that has been, is, or ever will be already exists all at once, and so is part of this aeternal aspect of the universe.  No supernatural aeternal creator necessary.

There, I've shot myself in the theological foot.  Happy?  Or have I made a logical error?

The most obvious logical gap is "how does zooming out from the here and now suddenly make every eternal (and why do you spell it the obsolete way)?" and "how does something that change by definition not also eternal? What do you mean by 'eternal'? Theoretically if someone lived forever they would by definition be 'eternal' but they could also change."

Therefore if something can be both eternal and changing, then the fact the world is ever-changing cannot be used as evidence nor proof of a creator. 

Though frankly I don't give a damn as to the origin of the universe because "muh finite universe" and "muh eternal universe" is not an argument against Christianity, morality, or anything of real substance. 

[RichardY]

How to prove God does not exist?

Eliminate belief in everything, including yourself.

[Donnadogsoth]

20 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

The most obvious logical gap is "how does zooming out from the here and now suddenly make every eternal (and why do you spell it the obsolete way)?" and "how does something that change by definition not also eternal? What do you mean by 'eternal'? Theoretically if someone lived forever they would by definition be 'eternal' but they could also change."

Therefore if something can be both eternal and changing, then the fact the world is ever-changing cannot be used as evidence nor proof of a creator. 

Though frankly I don't give a damn as to the origin of the universe because "muh finite universe" and "muh eternal universe" is not an argument against Christianity, morality, or anything of real substance. 

If you don't care then debate is over.

[Matty Rose]

On 9/19/2017 at 6:37 PM, HowardHill said:

The idea of God is undoubtedly the most important idea in existence in our world, and the associated knowledge, religion, is likewise of supreme importance.  It is still complete and utter rot, but the typical atheistic line dismissing religion as rot, gets us nowhere.  If instead we recognise the eternal importance of religion, and ask why ?  Then we begin to move in the direction of finding an answer, and thus proving God does not exist, by showing what God is.  That is to say, by discovering what it is in reality that does exist, that is as important to us as God is said to be, by those who support this idea.

I get what you are trying to say with your argument, by proving the very nature of the universe we could/would prove that there is no God.

I agree with this but also disagree because the opposite is also true, proving the very nature of the universe could/would also prove God exists.

God can be real, a god, gods and not a god at the same time.

God can be what created our universe, whatever that is (I have my own hypothesis), and also what exists everywhere and always forever.

God could just be reality, all realities now and all realities that ever were, going back into infinity.

It could be God, gods and not god(s) at the same time, it could be just what is.

This is why religious discussions about the nature of the universe are a little pointless. Really fun, but pointless.

Religion is about how you live your life, science tells you what is, sometimes they cross sometimes they don't and maybe they always cross all the time.

[Jsbrads]

RichardY losing belief in yourself? Isn’t that Nihilism?

If someone born today would be immortal, he/she would still be finite, as they have a starting point. Limited brain capacity, limited sensory observation...

[RichardY]

@Jsbrads Born as in the attainment of consciousness or born as in the first breath of air.

What is the idea of God to you? Eliminate it. 

Eliminate belief in everything, to secure against having the idea of believing again in God what ever that is. Eliminate a self capable of believing, everything known is all that is required to know, or something.

Why try and prove the non existence or existence of god to others when, it only really matters to you.

[GoodJBoy]

Being a very religious person myself who strongly believes in G-d, I just want to say that in this world now, it is obviously not possible for sane people to put forth simple arguments that prove or disprove G-d's existence.

[ofd]

Quote

it is obviously not possible for sane people to put forth simple arguments that prove or disprove G-d's existence.

Let me take you to a trip to a children's cancer station.

[GoodJBoy]

The existence of horrible and very painful seemingly unjust events in the world does not prove or disprove the existence of G-d.  

Let me try to explain what I am trying to say with more clarity... Is there a country called the United States of America?  Is there a president of that country?  What is his or her name?

For sane people, the above three questions have clearly correct and incorrect answers.  For those same sane people, there is currently no clear simple argument that renders the same level of clarity regarding the existence of G-d.

If such an argument existed, all sane people would clearly agree.  The existence of G-d is thus a mystery for mankind in our current state.

[RichardY]

@ofdWouldn't a trip to the pictures be more fun?

Was listening to "Man's Search for Meaning"(wasn't really a happy book) recently on Audible. Anyway was talking about finding meaning even in suffering, as opposed to lying in your own filth, giving up on the future and living in the Now (perhaps in oppoistion to "The Power of Now", not sure) . Said something about if he didn't genuinely believe in some higher meaning, ethunasia would be the humane choice of action for suffering and he wouldn't be a psychitarist. Often even disabled children wish to live (gave a case in his book about a 11 year old in a wheelchair), I guess you could tell them their is no God or higher meaning and all their hopes are useless. I wonder if Cancer Ward by that russian guy is worth reading.

[barn]

if there's no question, there's nothing to answer...

[RichardY]

Not THE CUBE!!!!!

"No more talking. No more guessing. Don't even think about nothing that's not right in front of you. That's the real challenge. You've gotta save yourselves from yourselves." "Merde... agghhhhh". The Cube.

Silent Hill, level stuff perhaps.

 

[ofd]

Quote

Said something about if he didn't genuinely believe in some higher meaning

Indeed, I read the book too. But as far as I am aware doesn't claim that the higher meaning has to be supernatural.

[RichardY]

On 14/02/2018 at 6:57 AM, ofd said:

Indeed, I read the book too. But as far as I am aware doesn't claim that the higher meaning has to be supernatural.

Yes that is true.

He did also allude to some "ultimate" form of meaning giving the example of a chimpanzee being prodded for medical experiments and its capacity to understand what's going on, and whether there was not someother world of existence where ultimate meaning could exist. I think I heard somewhere him saying believing people to not be of this world.

Not sure how God could be a meaning in itself. Although listening to "The Power of Habits" at the moment it mentions having a "Keystone principle". I think in a competition between 2 people the person who is higher in conscientiousness will win all things being equal. Being low in conscientiousness and generally lacking any major principles, a seemingly major flaw, thinking how I could compensate for that, raising conscientiousness if possible (but what if it's not to any large degree). 

"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the earth." - Archimedes.
"Screw your courage to the sticking place." - Shakespeare.

God in general being undefined. I think the usual definition though would be: that which is Omnipotent & Omniscient. Although that is contridicted in the Bible in Job, and I'm interested in comprehending fully why that might be the case.

If I were asked do I believe in Unicorns the answer would be no. More so because I believe, the horse is a symbol often associated with the unconscious mind: Trojan Horse, Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Sleepy Hollow, flesh eating horses (Hercules). The Horn, a symbol associated with the wholeness of reality. (Two horns on a devil, choice, fragmentation or divergence of reality). Though the problem I see is in order to effectively refute the belief in one thing, I have to affirm the belief in something else "The Freudian" Unconscious mind. 

[ofd]

Quote

I think the usual definition though would be: that which is Omnipotent & Omniscient.

That's the scholastic definition, which cant be found in the Bible.

[RichardY]

7 hours ago, ofd said:

That's the scholastic definition, which cant be found in the Bible.

I think as the original poster was alluding to some form of God of the Gaps. The Idea of God. Though being unable to define what God is. Perhaps it is possible to try and infer how the idea of God might arise, whether as some form of "Father complex" or something else. Or by raising a person's conscientiousness sufficiently enough where the idea of God appears some what silly. Although how is substituting God for say freewill or determinism an improvement?

[Jsbrads]

God doesn’t substitute free will. And I guess the pagan pantheisms didn’t substitute determinism.