Proof that God does not exist.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    I have not come across this "loving God" concept. Where did you get this?

    Anyways, I had written an essay, while pondering over my theory of Origin of universe from Progenitor State of Matter & Radiation. An extract of the same is as below..

    "From Greeks to present day philosophers there has never been any dispute that the GOD was all powerful and creator of this universe, but beyond this universe; many of the philosophers have admitted the fact that there is some supreme power but we cannot find him. Plato proposed the theory of transcendental nature of GOD, Aristotle brought the concept of GOD being the immaterial (beyond the material physics), Augustine regarded the GOD as creator of universe, the origin point of time and space, Erigena came up with the concept of immortality, quite similar to that of winning the game of treasure hunt, finding the treasure GOD and not coming back to play the game, Maimonides considered God’s existence provable, John Calvin proposed the idea of GOD staying away after creation and gave full freedom to human beings, Descartes brought the fantastic proposition of GOD being the cause for himself, Aquinas proposed that since universe needs something outside of it to be the cause of it and hence the GOD, and Emanual Kant the youngest of all says that GOD cannot be ignored but he cannot be proved also."

    Which one would you chose, Maimonides? Descartes? Kant?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    I have no problem ignoring fictional characters.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Even those people who think everyone is against them do have real enemies

    Bad definitions of god do not disqualify god from existence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Yes they do. Philosophically, that is the only thing we have to work with.
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    So good definitions of god can be put forward as evidence of existence???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Whether or not you believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, you understand both concepts (assuming you were raised in a Western country where parents feed those kinds of "benevolent lies" to their children).

    Can you therefore call yourself an atheist, or even claim you don't care about whether the tooth fairy exists without saying you know what the tooth fairy is?
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Now that you ask all I can say is I can not recall however I do think the concept arises from the New Testament.

    You certainly could question if such a God exists.

    With respect I say that you can not know if there was never any dispute such as you claim.
    Given the various accounts of the slayings of non believers I expect there will be few records of any dispute other than accounts of how whole cities were put to the sword because they were "different".
    I reject the proposition that somehow God has always been a given.
    Certainly a study of history will show that disputes regarding which God was the right God must suggest there was no concensus as to God.

    Why dont we choose them all...they all share the mistake of speculating upon a invented concept with no proof of the concept in place before they assume what they discuss has any foundation in fact and reality.

    Firstly the existence of God does not depend on a popular vote between humans who all proceed upon an un proved and superstitious assumption.

    I am surprised you could take their words at face value and without question.

    Just because folk talk about something as being real that does not then make the object of their discussion in any way real or that it magically becomes real.

    Now a similar situation even exists in our sciences where a placeholder may be used to deal with a matter that has not been resolved but something is needed until more is understood and a satisfactory model is presented.

    And yet many, those who claim scientific rigor but to a large degree ignore same, who will talk of the placeholder as being real and beyond question.

    A fine example of this would be the discussion surrounding say dark matter.
    The term is an indication that we really dont know all that much and to a large degree all we have is speculation about this as yet undetermined matter...and yet it is spoken of as real and as the conversations grow so does the existence of dark matter it would seem...and this is a matter that arises from careful science.

    The condition of growing a story from imagination to reality clearly exists even today.

    All I point to is the quality of humans to believe something if it is repeated often enough and in the case of a God of creation the story has been repeated for thoudands of years... but when we look there never was any thing more than an idea that grew from imagination and that idea only owes its misplaced credibility to that imaginative story being repeated and discussed as if true...All made the mistake of not seeking reasonable proof at the start before engaging in analysis of an object produced from mere imagination.

    God and Gods are a product of imagination with absolutely no support in reality.

    Discussion will never make it real..observation of God would be a sensible place to start...but humans got the idea and rather than to seek proof ran away speculating on something not shown to even exist.

    And you can see how even the greatest minds can focus on a placeholder as real and quickly forget that the discussion moved from probable existence to a certain reality with little proof (dark matter owes its existence to man made equations which may not apply and we find dark matter an un necessary cteation) but fail to see just how much the matter proceeded upon much discussion and speculation.

    I presented the place holder dark matter for your consideration it at least has observation to suggest it may be real...for God there is no observation...none.

    We still know nothing about this hypothetical substance we called dark matter yet it has become real and beyond dispute but do we have any to examine in the lab?

    And now its seems to have become real and beyond dispute for many...does the many discussions and even papers make it real?

    So if this condition, of discussion and speculation leading to qualification of something now being real, can manifest in science does it not point to a human condition of repeated speculation of assuming a quality beyond where proof would place the concept.

    Think of God. We cant do more than speculate for we have no observation...none.

    God is discussed and those who devote their lives to religious study input their views but all fail to appreciate the discussion should not have taken place until some reasonable proof had been presented such that discussion could proceed upon what was observed rather that what was imagined.

    We can speculate for another thousand years upon the qualities of God but all that additional speculation will not and can not serve us as well as a one time limited observation.

    A picture is worth a thousand words they say and I suggest you consider the simple message contained therein...we require real evidence nothing less.

    There is no observation of God...not one...all there is we find is discussion on what could be, what may be even what should be ...all of course is meaningless when we still do not have one single observation...not one.

    So when you quote this known philosopher said this and that one said that just remember another million philosophers refining their speculation will not and can never be regarded as useful because every thing they present is speculation based on the lively imagination of a human rather than one simple yet powerful observation.

    So although your essay is very nice it offers no proof other than that various humans commit the mistake of speculating upon a unsupported notion of a mythical entity existing with no observation or any evidence of any kind what so ever.

    Do you offer any real proof or must you simply offer tired speculation upon an unproved God.

    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Sure. If god is defined as a pickle, we know pickles exist, therefore the pickle god exists.
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member


    Unmitigated nonsense, there have been philosophers from (at least) the 5th century BC throughout history (up to and including the present day) that have disputed that claim: start here.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Pickles exist, love the them ✓

    Pickle gods, never see them on the supermarket shelves in vinegar. If you see any send a few jars. Do you know what they taste like?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    One would hope heavenly.
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Sweet and sour?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    According to my proposed definition, all pickles are gods. And I wouldn't be an atheist with regard to that god, since I know pickles exist.
  17. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Why do you think one should seek proof for his faith?
    All atheists should learn to appreciate the true meaning of faith.
    It is not essential that faith in God to be put up for scientific scrutiny.
    The problem with atheists is that they do not know the purpose of their life, meaningless wandering, making some materialistic progress, dying a popper or dying a rich fellow...that cannot be the purpose of life. You appear to be an atheist, can you please tell me the purpose of your life. The point is, a theist may be ignorant of this purpose, but its there for him, unfortunately for atheists there is none.

    I am sure you are aware that, through reverse engineering, we know what we are made up of, some chemicals, but till today we have not been able to create life in lab.

    In fact you are asking "proof that the God does not exist", let life, single cellular, be made in lab from basic elements. That would be proof enough that the God does not exist.
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    What do you discuss with them if they cannot even make it to the gate?
    To discuss or dispute about the quality or form of the God, one has to believe in the existence of the God. They are rightly ignored.
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    He got it from modern Christianity.

  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    So as not to believe in something that is not true or correct in reality.

    To not fall victim of a lie.

    Faith is opinion and no more, if your opinion is wrong should it still guide your life?

    If you can maintain your faith after considering all the aspects that strongly suggest it may certainly be incorrect I just dont see that is reasonable as you really proceed upon a guess.

    I dont care other than I want truth to prevail and I certainly dont like children being converted before their brains develop... I just find it difficult to accept that folk who present as inteligent, such as yourself, and Jan, believe in a concept that has no foundation in reality.

    We think we understand faith.

    To us it seems as though your brain which is capable of critical thinking some how switches off and hangs up a! no reason shall pass.

    Sincerely its as if you refuse to consider the whole deal is nothing more than imagination gone wild.

    Faith seems that you just cant look at the facts with any degree of rationality.

    Why not?

    If faith wont stand up to scrutiny does that not mean it is probably a false belief.

    I dont understand why you would not wish to scrutinize something that you believe in and is the focus of your very existence.

    Why not?

    Just because the reality that there is no purpose and that does not suit you it does not mean that wishing life has purpose will magically see life gain purpose.

    You fool yourself to think there is purpose...If there was purpose related to a God it would be evident, it would be clear and yet all we have is made up notions with no basis in reality.

    If there was a God surely he would have the sense to make it clear to us...why would he reveal the mysteries of science etc yet be so vague as to any alledged does not add up...if purpose is there it would be undeniably clear just as is so much of our knowledge that is clear an exact without room for confusion.

    To reproduce perhaps but I dont see that there is a purpose but that does not mean I will make up a story to invent a purpose.

    Maybe but to assign purpose because it feels better may not reflect reality.

    I can live with knowing life is an experience with no other purpose than to reproduce.

    Maybe but I think we start already from a position where there never was any proof and it would seem reasonable that for anything to be established proof need be presented.

    I dont see that believing in a God is different to believing in any other made up character ...

    Thank you Rajesh for presenting your position and I hope that nothing I have said will change your mind as if your faith ...opinion...helps you thru that is all that counts.

    Fortunately I dont need it so I get by better without any belief...I really dont believe in very much at all which makes me happy.

    I do want truth above all else.
    I want kindness.

    Good luck to you and my best wishes.

    Last edited: Jan 27, 2018
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Which is?
    And who determined the purpose?

    Science "Working on it. When we do make life in our dungeon labs do we get to be gods Rajesh?"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    There is a difference between arguing that no arguments exist that support the existence of God and claiming one has proved that God does not exist.
    Those seem conflated in this thread by a number of people.

    Being agnostic is always an option. Any of the various kinds of agnostic.
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    1) You were entirely wrong in your assertion that there has never been dispute. Please acknowledge this.
    2) The "gate" is assumed and unevidenced.

    To discuss the "quality and form of "god"" one must first establish the existence of same - otherwise all you're doing is discussing whether Tabasco sauce or ketchup would better enhance the flavour of unicorn shit.
    And "rightly" is entirely the wrong word.
    Atheist philosophers are "ignored" because they point out the utter futility of your discussion...
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2018

Share This Page