Out of curiosity, why do we need a proof for the non-existence of God, but not for the non-existence of other things that we neither see nor actually encounter in any way that we know of?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof against the existence of God?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
It's workable means what? It's not okay?
Right. You were misled.
I hope you don't mind if i suggest... why not try reading the bible, instead of listening to what "Christians" say.
Again... You got that from "Christians" right?
The Bible does not agree. The threat of eternal torture for the disobedient is a doctrine of men.
Exactly. Did I say something else?
Yes.
Actually, I know many children who have suffered serious abuse, and serious painful diseases, who do feel the same way. Would you like to meet some?
How? That's where you come in. I provided only four possibilities. You have another?
1. Capable of being put into effective operation; practicable or feasible: a workable compromise.
2. Capable of being worked, dealt with, or handled:
ok
Read it twice, it's what convinced me that the Christian God is at best very unlikely to exist.
According to your interpretation. For me to accept your interpretation you would need to convince me that you have some esoteric ability that allows you to interpret the bible correctly.
Seemed that way.
Good to know and speaks volumes for your Gods ability to hold a grudge.
You didn't answer the question
It is claimed God is all knowing.
I provided a 5th which is why I first replied to you. It does however require that God is all knowing. I don't know if you believe that because I'm not all knowing so can only go by what I see as a common belief and was taught.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Of course it's workable. Why God not creating intelligent beings is workable... Actually, all 4 points are workable.
There's only one that's reasonable and fair. That was the point. Wasn't it?
Okay
Not according to my interpretation.
(Romans 6:23) . . .the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life. . .
(Genesis 3:19) In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”
It's up to you what you accept.
What would convince you?
You've read the Bible! Seriously?
Well, I don't know how you read it and could say that.
So God told Adam he would die if he ate from one tree he was not supposed to eat from, and God held a grudge when Adam passed away?
I really don't know what else to say honestly.
That's a yes... obviously.
Your 5th was don't create humans then. Remember? I explained why.
God already has spirit creatures in heaven.
He was not creating humans to become spirit creatures in heaven. He didn't.
Why?
I guess. It's become so convoluted I really have no idea.
Great if you ignore revelations or this one....
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46
Indeed
Convince me of what? Your ability to interpret the bible correctly? If so... valid evidence.
Yes
Easy... we're being punished for Adam's mistake.
Yes you wouldn't feel the same if you were born in different circumstances?
No. You could not have read it.
Then why did he create them?
I was discussing your use of the phrase mindless robot to refer to somebody with no will to do harm.
I did. You used the word dynamic with formless: "you can't actually capture an image of what is dynamic and really has no form. it has action but no actual definitive form because it is constantly in motion in any and all directions." My argument is that to be dynamic means to change, meaning a change in form. Form requires substance.
But the universe does contain form. How else can you say that it contains anything or whether it is in motion. How would you know?
Correct. If a god exists, it is detectable without having to try to be, just like everything else that exists.
A deity who prefers to faith to evidence
I'd say that the opposite is the case. I don't know why you call your god belief evidenced and then deny that you did. It demonstrates to me that you don't understand what you're writing.
No, if our universe were ruled by a tri-omni deity, I would expect its creatures to have no malicious thoughts. Such a god would be no harder to find or believe it existed than the sun, especially one claiming it wants to be known.
The free will arguments believers use aren't convincing. I don't really care if my choices are controlled even now, as many who argue that free will is but an illusion would claim, just as long as it is an interesting, purpose-filled experience as it has been. This is what a godless universe should look like. In a godless universe, animals might be viciously attacking one another to survive. The universe would run like a clockwork needing no intelligent oversight. Holy books would look like people wrote them. Miracles would be unevidenced claims. People trying to defend their beliefs in nonexistent gods would be forced to use opaque, convoluted arguments to explain why we can't find these gods. Faith would fail to lead to useful ideas about reality, and man's greatest advances ought to follow the taming of religions and a turn toward reason. Birth defects, pandemics, and wars might occur for lack of anything to stop them from occurring.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I've been pushing this idea for some time. To exist, something must have form and substance (and I add duration, does an instant object exist?). Putting it more loosely, it has to be made of something.
So, for something to exist in a "spiritual" realm, that test must apply there also. I'm not sure why some theists resist it, as I don't see how their beliefs are affected negatively by it. We can posit a "place" that is not part of our universe without it being non-existent by these tests.
When you go round cleaning the house. That's why I avoid doing it.
Agree. Things that exist are able to interact with one another at some time in some place, meaning that to be real is to be physical (made of matter/energy) and an aspect of nature. Everything that exists is all of these, nothing that doesn't exist is any of them, and there is no in between, such as having only some of those qualities. Thus, the idea of the supernatural is incoherent when it is described as being real but undetectable even in principle.
I like to give the example of werewolves versus wolves, the first imaginary, the second real. You can go to where a wolf is and interact with it even if that is only to see the light reflecting off of it or to hear it baying. It has substance and form. None of that is true about werewolves. Or gods.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
That's not the only alternative. Please follow along with with this chain of reasoning.
1. Free will can never be absolute (to humans at least). I'm not free to jump 100 feet in the air. That's a physical limitation on free will.
2. There are also mental limitations. I would find it impossible to torture someone for no reason at all.
3. Some people, we call them sociopaths, don't have the limitations in #2.
4. Some people are much more moral in their actions than I am.
5. Thus, there is a spectrum of morality in humans.
6. Within this spectrum, nobody has all their thoughts and actions controlled. We behave freely, but limited by our natures.
7. In conclusion, it is perfectly feasible for all humans to have natures that exhibited the same level of moral behavior as the best of us that exist now, and still retain free will.
Thus, in this imaginary world, natural evil (tornadoes and lightning strikes and diseases) would still exist, but human caused evil would be reduced to mistakes. A benevolent God could have done that, without sacrificing free will.
In order to prove God does not exist I believe one would have to know all that is. Then it would be an informed conclusion as opposed to just a denial. For denial is not proof.
The only thing humanity knows about God is that certain Teachers appear from time to time, establish a new religion and culture and claimed They were sent by God. But all They told us about God were His Attributes such as justice, mercy, forgiveness and love etc. We know nothing else.
Maybe by following Their counsels millions will have found they work so accept they are from God.
I believe that to disprove God one must also be able to give adequate and reasonable proof that the Manifestations of God were just lucky and had no invisible power assist Them.
If there is no God then why do over 5 billion people model their daily lives on Men Who died thousands of years ago, had no power or wealth and were opposed by very powerful and wealthy rulers? Why has Their Cause endured so long? Why are people willing to serve and die for Them and sacrifice for Their Cause?
It’s not just a case of cut and dried denying God for billions have gained some sort of spiritual strength from Figures like Jesus, Muhammad Moses and now Baha’u’llah Who was a Prisoner for 40 years, His Cause now embracing people from a cross section of humanity.
If truly God does not exist then These Great Beings need to be explained.
The only thing humanity knows about God is that certain Teachers appear from time to time, establish a new religion and culture and claimed They were sent by God. But all They told us about God were His Attributes such as justice, mercy, forgiveness and love etc. We know nothing else.
Maybe by following Their counsels millions will have found they work so accept they are from God.
I believe that to disprove God one must also be able to give adequate and reasonable proof that the Manifestations of God were just lucky and had no invisible power assist Them.
If there is no God then why do over 5 billion people model their daily lives on Men Who died thousands of years ago, had no power or wealth and were opposed by very powerful and wealthy rulers? Why has Their Cause endured so long? Why are people willing to serve and die for Them and sacrifice for Their Cause?
It’s not just a case of cut and dried denying God for billions have gained some sort of spiritual strength from Figures like Jesus, Muhammad Moses and now Baha’u’llah Who was a Prisoner for 40 years, His Cause now embracing people from a cross section of humanity.
If truly God does not exist then These Great Beings need to be explained.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
The only thing I differ on is when you say "made of matter/energy", and that only because I allow the theists the possibility that there could be some state of reality that consists of some other "stuff". Given that though the things there would still have to have form and substance, just be made of this other "stuff". And I suppose you could argue that our kind of "stuff" can't interact with this other "stuff", but that would make the whole question moot as we could never have any evidence for it. And no, I have no reason to believe that is true.
What about the laws of physics? They are proven to exist but by their signs not substance. Thought, emotion, virtues exist but are not physical realities. Our conscience and mind are not physical but exist.
Intelligible realities exist and science agrees but they are only known by their effect and do not possess substance or form.
When we see the effect the Prophets of God have had and continue to have upon billions do we not see an invisible intelligible reality involved just like the laws of physics on physical reality except effecting the hearts and minds of people?
How do we prove the influence of the Prophets never existed when we see cultures and civilisations raised on Their teachings. I think the only way to prove God does not exist is to prove These Beings had no effect on humanity.
The same goes for proving God does exist.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Only things in the material world can be shown and proven to exist.
God does not exist in the material world.
If God exists, it would have to be God that proves that to us since we cannot get to where God is located and prove it to ourselves.
No, we are not 'insisting' on being believed. As far as our evidence is concerned, you can take it or leave it.
His Person and His completed Mission are the evidence that He was a Messenger of God, although they are not proof, since that claim cannot be proven, except to ourselves.
The mission of Baha'u'llah did not fail, it was a complete success. How any people believe in Baha'u'llah to date is a completely moot point, since it has nothing to do with the success of His mission. He did everything that He set out to do, everything that God told Him to do, and that is why His mission was a success.
His Person and His completed Mission are 'the evidence' that He was a Messenger of God.
The prophecies are more evidence and they are not failed. They were all fulfilled.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You don't need a proof, you can simply decline to believe God exists.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
OK. Nelson Mandela. He fits the description you give of a "Great Being", don't you think? He was imprisoned for his actions. He persisted through persecution and abuse. He stood up for a righteous cause. He inspired a movement that involved many people, and succeeded in a way that has rarely been seen, a (mostly) non-violent revolution where there was every expectation that there would be a blood bath.
But he never started any religion or claimed to be a "Messenger".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
<sihg> When you can only repeat nonsensical claims, as you did about Baha'u'llah, you confirm that you only have dogma and that you do not have evidence.
Spice girls impersonation? sihg-a-sihg ahh
As I do.
But would you feel the same if it was a jury trying someone you love, who say to you, "we don't need a proof, we've just decided to believe he's guilty."