There is no Proof that God Exists

In science, when we don't have proof for something, that something doesn't exist.

This is because science can't demonstrate the non-existence of something. The scientific-method is not made to fulfill that purpose.

otokage007 said:

In science, when we don't have proof for something, that something doesn't exist.

This is because science can't demonstrate the non-existence of something. The scientific-method is not made to fulfill that purpose.

Click to expand...

Though the fact that many hypotheses, who initially began with no proof beyond the words and crossed fingers of its supporters (which according to you these processes didn't exist before they were proven), were later proven and even accepted by mainstream science.

Here's my favorite Example:
In 1911 Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity, the most controversial part of the theory stated: "Gravity distortion of the structure of Spacetime by matter, affecting the inertial motion of other matter". In layman's terms: "gravity distorts space around sufficiently large objects". Obviously this would be difficult to prove and, for years, very few scientists took it seriously.
However, there was one way to prove it. During a solar eclipse you can see the stars closest to the sun and some that are supposed to be behind the sun (this happens because the sun's gravity affects the direction light travels around it). Taking a picture of that would prove Einsteins theory, so in 1911 he challenged observatories to take a picture of this event. In 1917, several did so and came back with nothing.

However, in 1919, Sir Arther Eddington led an expedition to Africa to take a photo of the Solar eclipse expected to occur there. His results were amazing, he managed to take a photo of the stars behind the Sun (and apparently a photo of Mercury, who was back there too), which gave credit to General Relativity and led to it being accepted by mainstream science.


Science is designed to sort out the truth from the fiction (which it is bad at), and give us an understanding of the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe around us. There are very few things that are set in stone in science (inertia is a good example), everything else has been altered or proven to be false (alchemy, enough said).
Just because it has not been proven, or even if there is evidence that seems to contradict the theory, does not mean it is nonexistent.

This has nothing to do with God, just making a point that things can exist before they are discovered.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
(Taken to offer a third option of "not enough evidence to sufficiently prove or disprove the claim")

If that's the case then why isn't the Ancient Egyptians religion still round?

Click to expand...

it still partly lives on in judaism and christianity. Early judaism had heavy egyptian and sumerian influences.

10 commandments is almost word for word in the book of the dead. Plus many other influences like a afterlife.

Azekual said:

Christianity is a Faith based religion. You Choose to Believe that God exists and obtain Salvation. Faith means you Choose to believe in God without proof.

Click to expand...

Some types of Christianity may be faith based. The Gnostic kind is not. Can you guess what the Gnostic kind is based on?

Also, in religious sense, faith means you believe in God based on understanding, rather than proof. Such that "Know thy Self" may be way in which understanding is induced, and once explored / understood becomes a matter of having faith in (God) Self.

If irrefutable proof (the kind that makes nearly everyone agree about it) ever arose for or against God's existence, two big things would happen:
1) Faith would become knowledge, rendering salvation null and void.

Click to expand...

Faith is derived from knowledge.

If (magically) irrefutable proof rose in favor of God's existence, Christian salvation (especially the old school kind) would likely be rendered 'unnecessary.'

2) When you have Knowledge of God, you no longer have a choice to believe. It's a worship or risk ******* him off scenario (you know he exists, thus are expected to Worship). With the inverse: God doesn't exist so any worship is pointless.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in my understanding it doesn't work this way. Knowledge of God is awareness of God (Self). You can maintain sense of choice that allows you to play game of denial. Like I might 'know' moon exists, but I can still play (rather honest) game of denial that says I don't know all facets of the moon, therefore maybe I'm not really sure what 'moon exists' means to me.

If God does exist ( I personally believe he does), he's not going to give proof of his existence until He decides to begin the Rapture and Tribulation, and proof against his existence will never come.

Click to expand...

The proof against God's existence is the end of existence. We can (think we can) imagine that, and can (think we can) describe it, so this provides us with sense of proof that God may not exist. It literally is end of all existence, but the philosophical implications are too challenging to explain in short order. Suffice it to say, we have set up a 'reality' where plausible denial of God's existence is proven by the world we (think we) see.

Proof of God's existence is found within (both existence, and in Self).

If he doesn't exist, then proof for his existence will never come and proof against it may or may not pop up eventually.

Click to expand...

Obviously from my perspective this makes a few too many assumptions to 'work.' But to play along, if God doesn't exist, then proof against God's existence will never come up. It would plausibly come up if eternity somehow (magically) still existed and we understood what I can only now conceive of as "end game." Might sound contradictory but the hypothesis itself is based on contradiction.

In the end, no proof of his existence/nonexistence is currently available, hopefully this will end all arguments (knowing my luck it will start a whole new one).

Click to expand...

The proof is available. More like evidence is looked through a particular filter and denied certain, I would say rather basic (and honest), understanding. The proof of God's existence is existence. But here in human land we have distorted understanding(s) of what exists, and therefore what makes for existence.

Azekual said:

Though the fact that many hypotheses, who initially began with no proof beyond the words and crossed fingers of its supporters (which according to you these processes didn't exist before they were proven), were later proven and even accepted by mainstream science.

Here's my favorite Example:
In 1911 Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity, the most controversial part of the theory stated: "Gravity distortion of the structure of Spacetime by matter, affecting the inertial motion of other matter". In layman's terms: "gravity distorts space around sufficiently large objects". Obviously this would be difficult to prove and, for years, very few scientists took it seriously.
However, there was one way to prove it. During a solar eclipse you can see the stars closest to the sun and some that are supposed to be behind the sun (this happens because the sun's gravity affects the direction light travels around it). Taking a picture of that would prove Einsteins theory, so in 1911 he challenged observatories to take a picture of this event. In 1917, several did so and came back with nothing.

However, in 1919, Sir Arther Eddington led an expedition to Africa to take a photo of the Solar eclipse expected to occur there. His results were amazing, he managed to take a photo of the stars behind the Sun (and apparently a photo of Mercury, who was back there too), which gave credit to General Relativity and led to it being accepted by mainstream science.


Science is designed to sort out the truth from the fiction (which it is bad at), and give us an understanding of the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe around us. There are very few things that are set in stone in science (inertia is a good example), everything else has been altered or proven to be false (alchemy, enough said).
Just because it has not been proven, or even if there is evidence that seems to contradict the theory, does not mean it is nonexistent.

This has nothing to do with God, just making a point that things can exist before they are discovered.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
(Taken to offer a third option of "not enough evidence to sufficiently prove or disprove the claim")

Click to expand...

I'm still happy with what I have said: If we don't have proof of something...

Hypothesis that are accepted after an experiment, have proof, and therefore exist.

If you say now that mermaids exist. The science position will be: no they don't, untill you prove they do.

Azekual said:

Before you start raining hellfire and brimstone, there is no proof against God either.

Click to expand...

There is no proof against leprechauns, Harry Potter, Elves, Sauron, the Loch Ness Monster and the Flying Teapot either.

Why does everyone take religion so seriously? Believe if you want and if you don't want to then more power to your elbow. It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

Indeed, why? I take it seriously because I view it as a threat, because people such as Gov. Rick Perry of Texas would rather have a prayer meeting rather than actually sit and solve his state's problems. The threat is when people let their theistic beliefs control their lives, and more importantly, the lives of others. (read Gay Marriage, environmental protection and stem cell research).

Gjallarhorn said:

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

Click to expand...

Here's a great site with a lot of commentaries about the bible and other study tools:
Biblos.com: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

For this particular verse:
Isaiah 45:7 Bible Commentary
"these words are directed to Cyrus king of Persia, and must be understood as spoken in reference to the Persian sect of the Magians; who then held light and darkness, or good and evil, to be the supreme Beings, without acknowledging the great God as superior to both;''

"Before you start raining hellfire and brimstone, there is no proof against God either"

It depends on which god concept. A number of god concepts can be disproven.

Azekual said:

Thank you! Someone finally grasps that concept!

How would his infinity affect his omniscience?

Click to expand...

By definition. He cannot know all things if he had a begining.

otokage007 said:

If you say now that mermaids exist. The science position will be: no they don't, untill you prove they do.

Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is that it fails to accept natural processes exist beyond the current detection of science. It only allows for a black or white perspective, and doesn't take into account the possibility a process cannot be proven at this time but may be provable at a later date. By refusing to acknowledge a third option, a pragmatic view that is useful when channeled properly, you create a fallacy: If it cannot be proven when presented to me, regardless of the current limitations of technology, it does not exist.

FlyingTeaPot said:

There is no proof against leprechauns, Harry Potter, Elves, Sauron, the Loch Ness Monster and the Flying Teapot either.

Click to expand...

Harry Potter and Sauron are established fiction. J.K. Rowlings has said on multiple occasions that Harry Potter, and the magic portrayed therein, are figments of her mind created specifically for the book (though many of the creatures featured inside are taken from legend and not her own work per se).

Elves and the Loch Ness Monster are European legends that, while probably false, are worth investigating for the sake of "Basic Science" (this applies more to the Loch Ness Monster).

And I apologize but I am unaware of the Flying Teapot.

Indeed, why? I take it seriously because I view it as a threat, because people such as Gov. Rick Perry of Texas would rather have a prayer meeting rather than actually sit and solve his state's problems. The threat is when people let their theistic beliefs control their lives, and more importantly, the lives of others. (read Gay Marriage, environmental protection and stem cell research).

Click to expand...

Religion in and of itself is not a threat, it is the people who exhibit blind faith and refuse to think critically about their beliefs (questioning the validity of "holy texts", accepting the possibility your faith could be wrong, exploring your faith) that present the threat when in power.

Rick Perry is an example of why we are a republic. In a dictatorship or monarchy, we would be stuck with our leaders. Within a republic, however, leaders like Perry can be easily removed from power in the next election, or if worst comes to worse, impeachment.

I apologize, your first sentence confuses me. It implies you view religion as a whole as a threat (specifically Protestantism it seems), but your final sentence contradicts that and claims it is the people in power. Would you please clarify?

I do believe I have found someone who is willing to participate in an intellectual discussion

Acim said:

Some types of Christianity may be faith based. The Gnostic kind is not. Can you guess what the Gnostic kind is based on?

Also, in religious sense, faith means you believe in God based on understanding, rather than proof. Such that "Know thy Self" may be way in which understanding is induced, and once explored / understood becomes a matter of having faith in (God) Self.



Faith is derived from knowledge.

If (magically) irrefutable proof rose in favor of God's existence, Christian salvation (especially the old school kind) would likely be rendered 'unnecessary.'



Yeah, in my understanding it doesn't work this way. Knowledge of God is awareness of God (Self). You can maintain sense of choice that allows you to play game of denial. Like I might 'know' moon exists, but I can still play (rather honest) game of denial that says I don't know all facets of the moon, therefore maybe I'm not really sure what 'moon exists' means to me.



The proof against God's existence is the end of existence. We can (think we can) imagine that, and can (think we can) describe it, so this provides us with sense of proof that God may not exist. It literally is end of all existence, but the philosophical implications are too challenging to explain in short order. Suffice it to say, we have set up a 'reality' where plausible denial of God's existence is proven by the world we (think we) see.

Proof of God's existence is found within (both existence, and in Self).



Obviously from my perspective this makes a few too many assumptions to 'work.' But to play along, if God doesn't exist, then proof against God's existence will never come up. It would plausibly come up if eternity somehow (magically) still existed and we understood what I can only now conceive of as "end game." Might sound contradictory but the hypothesis itself is based on contradiction.



The proof is available. More like evidence is looked through a particular filter and denied certain, I would say rather basic (and honest), understanding. The proof of God's existence is existence. But here in human land we have distorted understanding(s) of what exists, and therefore what makes for existence.

Click to expand...

Then it really only comes down to whether or not you are willing to believe in something you cannot satisfactorily prove or disprove.

Azekual said:

The problem with your logic is that it fails to accept natural processes exist beyond the current detection of science. It only allows for a black or white perspective, and doesn't take into account the possibility a process cannot be proven at this time but may be provable at a later date.

Click to expand...

the problem with your logic is that it expects every fool notion to be accepted.

Azekual said:

The problem with your logic is that it fails to accept natural processes exist beyond the current detection of science. It only allows for a black or white perspective, and doesn't take into account the possibility a process cannot be proven at this time but may be provable at a later date. By refusing to acknowledge a third option, a pragmatic view that is useful when channeled properly, you create a fallacy: If it cannot be proven when presented to me, regardless of the current limitations of technology, it does not exist.

Click to expand...

Could you put an example of something that has not been proved by science but still exist?

To say it doesn't exist because you can't prove it, doesn't mean you have to stop your research.

Does scientific method exist? In the form that we use to symbolically represent it?

If that does somehow exist, then I'm not clear on when / how science may have proven it's existence.

Hmm, maybe doesn't even really exist, but is figment of our imagination(s).

Mestemia said:

the problem with your logic is that it expects every fool notion to be accepted.

Click to expand...

No, my logic does not expect to accept every "fool notion". My logic expects proof but recognizes when technology cannot, at this time, provide it and thus reserves judgement.

otokage007 said:

Could you put an example of something that has not been proved by science but still exist?

To say it doesn't exist because you can't prove it, doesn't mean you have to stop your research.

Click to expand...

No, I cannot because you would not accept it. I can, however, offer an example where a theory describing a natural process (which existed since the beginning of the universe) was impossible to prove during the time the theory was published, but was proven several years later. I have, in my first post addressing this issue, the account of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity published in 1911. The theory was criticized until finally proven during the 1919 solar eclipse.

That example, if you will read it with my logic in mind, will prove my logic.
1. A natural process can exist before it is proven
2. A natural process may not always be provable at the time it is hypothesized due to limits in technology.

For my logic to apply in a situation, 1 is contingent on 2.

crocusj said:

By definition. He cannot know all things if he had a begining.

Click to expand...

omniscience is not based of experience, omniscience allows one to see the future as well as the past. If a being has true omniscience, it doesn't need infinity to know all things.

Azekual said:

No, my logic does not expect to accept every "fool notion". My logic expects proof but recognizes when technology cannot, at this time, provide it and thus reserves judgement.

Click to expand...

Like I said, accepts any notion put forth that cannot be dis-proven.

I have to ask, does this work both ways?

Mestemia said:

Like I said, accepts any notion put forth that cannot be dis-proven.

I have to ask, does this work both ways?

Click to expand...

It reserves judgement. Which means it neither accepts the notion or condemns it.

work both ways how?

and your signature bugs me >.<