Proof that God does not exist.

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

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    He seems to have left that part out.

    This line:

    "Believers seem to present their God as an entity that created everything and loves humans."

    suggests to me that Alex is thinking of the problem of evil.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    There is indeed a difference.

    And it is interesting that so far we still are at a point where no evidence for God exists. Its like believers have proved there is no God by simply failing to offer anything at all.

    I have not tried to prove God does not exist at this point as I would like to see if any come forward and offer any reason why they start from a position that assumes there is a God.

    The premise that there is a God is without foundation and it is a huge assumption and one made somewhat out of the blue.

    If we arrive at a house fire does not the question did the fire start?

    If we arrive at a car crash will we not did this crash happen?

    The simplest of matters ...and yet......

    We arrive at God but no question as to how the notion did that acceptable?

    The situation is as frustrating as when you ask why a job is done a certain way and the only non intelligent reply is...Oh we have always done it that way.. ..yes but why...oh because we have always done it this way...I will have banana mentality.

    Clearly the question posed has not been answered but the person offerring the answer mistakenly thinks they answered inteligently.

    They go on and never question and just do it that way because its always been done that way...rather silly not to review the procedure and attempt to keep up to date.

    I think it is most strange to spend time discussing the qualities of a God while never discussing why that God exists or indeed does God exist at all.

    All we have so far is in effect...there must be a God because life must have a purpose.

    And from there we move on and yet there is no discussion that life indeed has purpose or if it has, that the purpose may have nothing to do with a God.

    Other options seem to go unconsidered..

    Folk seem to want more than the life they find themselves experiencing...but I suggest we have one life and just because it may be miserable and unimportant that fact should not allow the invention of a notion that there is a God who will fix everything in the next life.

    I have not yet sort to prove there is no God but that will not be difficult and although folk gush the cant prove a negative...they overlook the requirements of a court of law as to requirements as to proof. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is all that is required.

    If we can not proceed using a law courts requirement of proof society is finished.

    If the proof required by a law court is rejected those that do so put themselves above the law...and then claim they recognise only Gods law...more made up nonsense in effect.

    The requirement of the law is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and I suggest when all one is met with is a proclaimation of faith in God as the evidence of a God we have our reasonable doubt that God does not exist and indeed our proof that God does not exist...
    I disagree but understand why folk see such as a safe option.

    To hold such a position in effect says on the one hand we have a lie but on the other we are happy to let that lie continue.

    The position is a cop out.

    However I see the merit as clearly those who believe will continue to do so and those who dont will continue to do so and the claim of agnostic really says I dont need to be involved.

    However religions need to at least adjust.

    Brainwashing children is wrong, and manipulation by guilt is wrong and promoting false science is wrong and promoting false history is wrong and promoting neglect of critical thinking is wrong...if religions address and rectify these serious issues let them have their fairey tales.

    Society should step in and prevent what is clearly unjustifiable child cruelty...
    Religious freedom should not mean children can be manipulated and lied to and put in fear of eternal punishement.

    The crazy approach to sin needs to be fixed, the misogynistic flavour needs to be much better would society be if this fundamental belief that man is superior to women was removed...think of the benefits.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    It is only round one and I am prepared for a long battle so I dont seek to win by knock out or by submission but upon the judges decision, as the battle will go the distance.

    Perhaps you could expand upon your thoughts as to the problem of evil which I can tell you I am ignorant about...also if you can offer help as to how the fire started I would be grateful.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    The problem of evil is a long-standing problem for theistic systems that imagine their God in terms of the so-called 'omni-' qualities: Omnipotent (God can do anything), Omniscient (God knows everything) and Omnibenevolent (all good and all benevolent).

    If these divine attributes are true and evil appears, God would know about it, God would be able to eliminate it and God would have the motivation to do it.

    So one would seem to be justified in concluding that if evil exists, then the three divine 'omni-' attributes can't co-exist simultaneously. Either God doesn't know, God can't do anything about it, or God doesn't care. And evil does exist.
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2018
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for taking your time to explain the situation and providing such helpful links.

    I have in the past raised this obvious problem however I now see that to be involved in such discussion gives the notion of God much more credibility than it deserves.

    A theist must be delighted that the unsupported notion of God is elevated such that it becomes the subject of serious discussion.

    The concept of God is a long way off being taken seriously enough to be the subject of any debate, even the idea of a debate to prove non existence is crazy with nothing to start with.

    First we need to establish something tangible that a God could, even on a remote possibility, exist and that has never, for obvious reasons, been done.

    And although the prospect of God takes a beating in the evil debate we see the theist now seeking to explain the apparent inconsistent actions of a now somewhat established before you get to debate God you need to establish something other than theist hold a joint delusion.

    There is no God presented such that any discussion can get off the ground.

    But to engage in any debate we find they, theists, now have their foot in the door, a door that never should have been openned for them for they have not paid the price of admission.

    The start of the game can only commence after the theist puts something forward that offers a sliver of credibility to their unsuppprted notion of God.

    They must present evidence that is not shared dellusion.

    So I say that rather than needing to prove God does not exist there is absolutely no evidence to require any conversation to proceed in the first place.

    The situation has not even arisen where there has been anything plausible presented that would even see the matter presented to any court...and for me to claim I can prove there is no God becomes an exercise in me making up a straw man to attack.

    I may as well invent a space monster with five heads so I can prove it does not exist.

    So if this were a cage fight I would find that I am in the cage alone with the ref seeking to fight an opponent who is not there, who is not in the dressing room or even on the way running late for the event.

    To shadow box would be an exercise of more substance.

    There is no need for a debate upon the evil problem as to do so seeks to attribute qualities to an entity that does not exist or has ever been shown to exist.

    A theist is like a pig inviting you to a fight in his pen to establish that he can drive a car and promising a clean fight...there is no need to step into the pen to prove the pig can not drive a car.

    If the pig wants to prove he can drive a car the thing to do is clean up and drive on by.
    And that wont happen although there is a greater prospect of seeing a clean pig drive by than there is of a theist offerring some sort of evidence upon which a debate could take place.

    The pig just wants to play in mud and has no idea of a place free of mud but with all his mud he still cant drive a car..he is a pig and will always be a mud covered pig unable to drive a car.

    Last edited: Jan 28, 2018
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    So are you seeking to "prove God does not exist", or requesting proof a god does exist?
    If you are only asking for court criteria of proof, 80% of the jury pool already believes in a god, of one form or another. So court would seem a poor criteria.
    If court does not suffice, then science? But science is defined as not having much bearing on qualitative, subjective existence.
    Seems to be a bit of an impasse. The only other option I see is the fallacious "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I confess I have changed my position.

    I started the thread confident that I could, using the standard of proof accepted at law, prove that God does not exist.

    The problem becomes that there is not anything to get my teeth into.

    For the exercise to be sensible I really need some specifics and certainly at this point all I could do is invent a strawman and then apply the standard of proof which turns on "beyond a reasonable doubt" which I am confident would enable me to prove that God does not exist...

    As to hoping that someone will come forward with proof of God I think there is absolutely no chance any proof will be forthcoming.
    Not all trials require a jury and I am confident a jugde is bound to follow the standard of proof.
    Nevertheless I think to pursue my original idea is simply not neceassary.
    I realised when considering the "evil" debate that any discussion of a God gives the notion credibility that is un warrented and certainly undeserved.
    If some proposition of a God could be presented perhaps I could involve myself but really I may as well argue that Santa does not exist for at least in that case we have something to start with... Santa has been sighted at least whereas there is nothing that we can look at for a God that even meets the simple standard I see for Santa.
    I agree.
    To pursue the matter is simply to indulge the delusion entertained by the theist and if anything give their delusion some degree of credibility when clearly that should not be done.
    Thank you for your comments.
  11. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    But atheists are still stuck in the pink unicorn's brown shit. They have to come out of that first to be taken seriously.
  12. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    In your words, Alex, thats piggish.
    Having faith in God is certainly not.
    And you wish to exit from your position, but not honorably, you still feel theists are like that "pig in pen" of yours. Please yourself.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Can I suggest a "god" who / which / what meets the criteria of "god" as per your criteria
    Not been seen for a long time
    Not been produced by the believers
    Accounts for the presence of evil

    I've been reading up on concessness

    It is present in all of us. We don't know how it moves in its mysterious ways. Never been seen

    So concessness fits the "god" - concessness anthropomorphised for believers
    at the same time remaining - inscrutable to atheist


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Yes plenty and thinking about this nonsense inhibits their free flow.
    It dawned on me earlier that the only way God gets any traction is by folk discussing God.

    The nonexistent God gets an undeserved free kick.

    I have often thought that Jan's thing was to keep the arguement going as to do so kept the consideration a God front of mind and therefore somehow lend a presence for a delusion.

    But we have been conned... There is nothing and yet we have been silly enough to search for that nothing whereas to simply ignore the delusion hindering the theist we dont let their delusion be elevated to anything more than delusion.

    Jan avoids defining God in any way else he be pressed for specific evidence.

    Avoiding definition leaves the delusion crying for rejection and in that rejection via our involvement we breath life into the delusion.

    And so I shall not give the delusion any recognition by rejection as to do so causes the delusion to grow... By ignoring the delusion it will fade away.

    My concern has always been that a lie exists and that children are harmed from their brain washing.

    And although I pity folk like Jan and Rajesh who both being gifted with observable and sharp intelligence on the one hand but on the other hand afflicted by delusion calling into question their rationality and limited exihibited inteligence, I must let go that pity.

    And as to the cruelty I see suffered by the children I must realise there is nothing I can do to change the objectionable tolerance extended to theists that entitles them to abuse their children.

    It is a shame and the cruelty will continue.

    The repetition of lies concerning history will continue, the superstition will be tolerated because faith will not be questioned nor will the absurd customs associated therewith be stopped.

    My ideas will be monopolised on real things, meaningful things and not delusional unsupported nonsense.

    Your thoughts?

  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    You have every right to think what you wish of me, that is ok. My anology with a pig pen was wrong, not that it was not reasonable and indeed appropriate but it was wrong because I was, in truth indulging a slight anger, it was that indulgence that was wrong and frankly not representative of my approach to the world.

    If I back out without honor well then I must and leave you and others who indulge a faith to examine your approach as it is not up to me to point out the problem that I percieve with your faith... It simply is not my business, it never was and my intrusion was wrong.

  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member


    Not really - theists are the ones making claims they can't support.
  17. applepip Registered Member

    What about Lord Krishna god of love? Is there a reason you don't mention him in your essay? May I ask are you a hindu?
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    You say that as though you know.
    What would constitute evidence for God's existence?

    You can't even try to prove God does not exist.
    So stop bluffing.

    Theists do not need to discuss whether or not God exists. That task is purely an atheist one.
    So it is the atheist, for whom there is no God, that has elevated it to a serious discussion.

    Knock yourself out.

    You need to establish more than that.
    The fact that you don't know that, is for you, self-defeating.

    Obviously you jest.
    If not, show where this beating has occurred.

    There is no God, for the atheist, period.
    The atheist only seeks to justify, and validate his current position, until he/she comes to their senses (from theistic pov).

    Oppression, and suppression.
    The militant atheists answer to a successful society.
    Any theist found with his foot in the door, should have it chopped off immediately.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Excuse me?
    If we are deluded, show it.
    We have yet to see proof that God does not exist.
    Seeing as though that is the thread title, started by you no doubt, I think you should cut the waffle, and begin your task.
    How about it?

    IOW, you've bitten off more than you can chew.
    You should learn how to operate in discussions, from your fellow atheist.
    It's better than the nothing you currently offer.

    There will never, ever, be a situation where the atheist can comprehend God, as long as they are atheist.
    For the atheist, there is no, and never can be, God.
    Atheist = without God.

    Atheists (unbeknown to themselves) often invent God. A lot of them are pastors, rabbi's, imams, and Congregationalists in churches.
    The problem is, they don't know they are atheist, they really believe they are theists. Then at some point they realise their real position and start banging on about how God is a made up concept.
    They fail at theism, and atheism.

    The problem is, Alex. I think you subconsciously believe that God Is, meaning you are unaware of this. Your atheism is a choice that is made for this particular life, and is (obviously) at the forefront of your waking consciousness. IOW, it masks over reality.
    This makes you desperate to draw a line under the concept of God does not exist, so as not to have to contemplate God, because the moment you do, you will surrender.
    You know it, and I know it.

    You don't seem to care how inept of the subject matter you are. You simply don't want God to exist, so you keep repeating it in the hope it will some how be true.
    It's quite sad really.

    How many threads have been started by theists, inviting atheists to talk about God, or the existence of God?
    Have a look, and display the results?
    Theists understand that there is no point trying to convince atheists of the position of theist, anymore than a sober person can convince a drunkard that he is holding up one finger instead of four. Or the straight line isn't zig-zagged.


    Last edited: Jan 28, 2018
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I dont know what you are talking about.
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    What don't you comprehend?

  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    The term O ink.
    Is that some new internet term?
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Are you being entirely truthful Jan.

Share This Page