How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)...

[psychoslice]

I would feel a bit silly trying to prove there is no father Xmas to a child.:icon_evil

 

[s2a]

You can not disprove God as the concept of God is unfalsifiable. I just don't see the need to disprove God as that shifts the burden of proof. I would rather just believe things where there is good evidence to support that belief. The number of unfalsifiable things that you could believe is limited only to your imagination. No one here can disprove that I existed during the big bang and watched it all happen but no one is going to believe it because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Always is seems that I am the first to unveil the awful Proofs presented by Steve Hawking that any present super-diety or otherwise supernaturally inexplicable entity is the ONLY available causal explanation of the cosmos as observed today,

Your desired projections of "belief", upon it's own hopes, while most humanist... is not "proof" of anything. Not within the realm of scientific experimentation anyway.

"Faith" is not now, nor in any plausible future, a considered realm of scientific inquiry. It's just not.

Especially any sort of dogmatically derived nor implemented course of "beliefs"

That's ok, but let;s be VERY VERY clear.

"Belief is NOT "science".

EVER

 

[s2a]

I would feel a bit silly trying to prove there is no father Xmas to a child.:icon_evil

Sooo... Explaining an invisible but benevolent "daddy" in the sky is easier ?


Really?

 

[s2a]

That's okay, I'll take the moral hit for ya. God would be expecting this from me, anyway. Its how I'll know the real deal if it ever decides to show itself.

"If, when, or... geez...."

That's why I specified that the miracle would be a direct manifestation of the deity.

Since that is unlikely your call...

It should take a bit more than that, unless I miss my guess. But who knows really? Maybe all it takes is a well-placed spear-wound.

Obviously, you do not know... so, next?

If the cowardly wretch ever decides to show itself, I'd be happy to. Seems to be terrified of me, however.

Even I do not presume to outguess the claimed master and origin of time itself...

I'd prefer to build a bridge...

Whenever god stops quivering in its boots, I suppose.

So, now... "God" is now House Republicanism in 2014"?

Really?

 

[psychoslice]

Sooo... Explaining an invisible but benevolent "daddy" in the sky is easier ?


Really?

Exactly, that is where my words were pointing.

 

[s2a]

Exactly, that is where my words were pointing.

OK, accepted.

You are just another failed evangelist amongst many unbelievers then... but, a simple request...

...do not EVER knock upon our door at home again... ok?

I'm a a peaceful atheist, I swear. I REALLY do not care to whomever or whatever "diety" you chose to pray, chide, request, or otherwise seek/request some element(s) of restitution/validation/reward... I REALLY do not. OK?

God help you if atheists EVER get even remotely interested enough to knock upin your doors in game time on Saturdays or Sundays..

I have changed and converted resolute and evangelizing Mormons to outright skepticism in 30 min over decaf tea.

Come get some...

 

[psychoslice]

OK, accepted.

You are just another failed evangelist amongst many unbelievers then... but, a simple request...

...do not EVER knock upon our door at home again... ok?

I'm a a peaceful atheist, I swear. I REALLY do not care to whomever or whatever "diety" you chose to pray, chide, request, or otherwise seek/request some element(s) of restitution/validation/reward... I REALLY do not. OK?

God help you if atheists EVER get even remotely interested enough to knock upin your doors in game time on Saturdays or Sundays..

I have changed and converted resolute and evangelizing Mormons to outright skepticism in 30 min over decaf tea.

Come get some...

Oh my god i don't know what your talking about, i don't believe in god and don't belong to any church, so I wont be knocking at your door, now you can relax. :162:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are two ways to achieve knowledge. Esoteric and Exoteric. Esoteric comes from within and can almost be considered interchangeable with "revelation". Exoteric is all knowledge that is learned from outside yourself.

Belief in god often requires an esoteric "knowledge" that god exists. This is supposed to be an innate knowledge that exists within everyone. However how can we define esoteric knowledge from exoteric knowledge? Its not as simple as one would think. A revelation in one sense exists as a conclusion brought about by previous exoteric knowlege. In this case its still an exoteric knowledge that has gone through a series of internal considerations and formulations.

Frued was a brillian man who unlocked an amazing idea. A sub-concious that exists within us all that none of us are aware about. Things that affect us in ways we can't truely know even within restrospect. It is not too far of a leap to conclude that it is possible that several esoteric revelations could actually be from exoteric sources earlier in life.

To delve deeper into psychology we must look into the development of children. In the early years children trust far more than we do as adults. They believe what they are told and reguard it as true. Anyone who tells a 5 year old something that differs from what they were told at home will know this battle all to well. (Well my daddy says....therefore your wrong) We even know now that much of what we believe to be true about ourselves was taught at an early age. At 5 years old we internalize what we think the "norm" is for nearly the rest of our lives.

So it is impossible to suppor the claim that god is purely esoteric if they were subjugated to this kind of idea growing up. Especially if it was supported by the community and more or less everyoen they came into contact with.


Next we look at reason and logic. All religions cannot be true at the same time as it conflicts. Islam and Hinduism cannot be correct at the same time. So what gives anyone any argument for proving they are "correct". There are endless debates but no one has really achieved a comprehensive argument why Christianity is more true than other major religions.

So then we arrive at another conclusion. Either a) God doesn't exist and religion is false or b) we have to change what we define as "god" and conclude that all different religions are simply different interpretations of said god.

Then we need to look at things historically and scientifically. Much of what has been claimed in religion is simply false when illuminated by science. Suddenly its a medaphor refrences pop up and we move on. But when we look at history we know that humans haven't always lived on this planet. What sets people aside from animals? Do we have to change the scope of what religion and god means for us as a species? In some cases it doesn't matter but in several it does.

Look at the early forms of religion. Are they simplistic and evolving later into something more complex? Yes. Is it commonly accepted that many ancient religions are nothing more than folktales and mythology? Yes. Why exactly then do we assume that any of the modern incarnations of the same mental illusion is somehow different?

 

[s2a]

Oh my god i don't know what your talking about, i don't believe in god and don't belong to any church, so I wont be knocking at your door, now you can relax. :162:

thank you.

Enjoy the game(s)

 

[psychoslice]

thank you.

Enjoy the game(s)

Silly me, I should have known better lol.

 

[s2a]

There are two ways to achieve knowledge. Esoteric and Exoteric. Esoteric comes from within and can almost be considered interchangeable with "revelation". Exoteric is all knowledge that is learned from outside yourself.

Belief in god often requires an esoteric "knowledge" that god exists. This is supposed to be an innate knowledge that exists within everyone. However how can we define esoteric knowledge from exoteric knowledge? Its not as simple as one would think. A revelation in one sense exists as a conclusion brought about by previous exoteric knowlege. In this case its still an exoteric knowledge that has gone through a series of internal considerations and formulations.

Frued was a brillian man who unlocked an amazing idea. A sub-concious that exists within us all that none of us are aware about. Things that affect us in ways we can't truely know even within restrospect. It is not too far of a leap to conclude that it is possible that several esoteric revelations could actually be from exoteric sources earlier in life.

To delve deeper into psychology we must look into the development of children. In the early years children trust far more than we do as adults. They believe what they are told and reguard it as true. Anyone who tells a 5 year old something that differs from what they were told at home will know this battle all to well. (Well my daddy says....therefore your wrong) We even know now that much of what we believe to be true about ourselves was taught at an early age. At 5 years old we internalize what we think the "norm" is for nearly the rest of our lives.

So it is impossible to suppor the claim that god is purely esoteric if they were subjugated to this kind of idea growing up. Especially if it was supported by the community and more or less everyoen they came into contact with.


Next we look at reason and logic. All religions cannot be true at the same time as it conflicts. Islam and Hinduism cannot be correct at the same time. So what gives anyone any argument for proving they are "correct". There are endless debates but no one has really achieved a comprehensive argument why Christianity is more true than other major religions.

So then we arrive at another conclusion. Either a) God doesn't exist and religion is false or b) we have to change what we define as "god" and conclude that all different religions are simply different interpretations of said god.

Then we need to look at things historically and scientifically. Much of what has been claimed in religion is simply false when illuminated by science. Suddenly its a medaphor refrences pop up and we move on. But when we look at history we know that humans haven't always lived on this planet. What sets people aside from animals? Do we have to change the scope of what religion and god means for us as a species? In some cases it doesn't matter but in several it does.

Look at the early forms of religion. Are they simplistic and evolving later into something more complex? Yes. Is it commonly accepted that many ancient religions are nothing more than folktales and mythology? Yes. Why exactly then do we assume that any of the modern incarnations of the same mental illusion is somehow different?

I do not wish to seem rude or indifferent to your
thoughtful missive... personal effort and meaningful inquiries were presented for opportunities of introspection and reflection alike... but...

If one is NOT "blessed" with the "gift of Faith" (or an otherwise requisite of suspension of disbelief), then what?

Either superstitious beliefs of supernatural cause/effect explanations for the cosmos seem real, or seem maybe kinda sorta caveman-like... fearing storms, snakes, bears, and the occasional moon/sun eclipses.


I do not believe the moon will eat me alive... so is that a lack of "faith', or something else?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not wish to seem rude or indifferent to your
thoughtful missive... personal effort and meaningful inquiries were presented for opportunities of introspection and reflection alike... but...

No need to be bashful speak your mind. If there is some questions or comments on it please don't hold back I don't get offended.

If one is NOT "blessed" with the "gift of Faith" (or an otherwise requisite of suspension of disbelief), then what?

Then you don't believe? The whole point of the above post was to bring into question the basis of "faith". Is it something you are blessed with or something instilled within you as a child? Are there certain mechanisms that cause a predisposition to being an atheist vs a theist? I don't know.

But the esoteric knowledge of god doesn't seem to be a good excuse when looked at from a psychological standpoint.

Either superstitious beliefs of supernatural cause/effect explanations for the cosmos seem real, or seem maybe kinda sorta caveman-like... fearing storms, snakes, bears, and the occasional moon/sun eclipses.


I do not believe the moon will eat me alive... so is that a lack of "faith', or something else?

Superstitious beliefs are in the same vein. I don't have all the answers but if I were to guess I would guess that superstitious beliefs and theological beliefs stem from teh same place. If someone made a cause/effect explination based off of personal observations (as much superstition and theological concepts most likely were) then it would be misinformation and jumping to conclusions.

Once science has illuminated this mistake it would be illogical to cling to it further. But the human psyche is resistent to change and prone to stubborn defense of our original notion.

 

[captainbryce]

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

I honestly don't see what this is necessary. Is there some reason why we should consider doing this?

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".

If you can provide evidence that nobody has a "soul", that would be significant. If you could for example prove that my consciousness is "unique" ONLY due to the specific combination of biology and experiences that make up my "self", then you will have convinced me that there is no god. If you can conclusively prove that we are all merely the sum of are parts - nothing more, and that any genetically identical person would have exactly the same "consciousness", have exactly the same personality and make exactly the same choices as their genetic twin if they had lived life in their shoes, you will have convinced me that there is no god.

Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?

No. Why would it?

Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

Unlikely. In fact, in my opinion the opposite is true. I would have said that if you could convince me that the universe wasn't finely tuned for to make life possible, that might convince me that there was no god. Unfortunately, the confirmed existence of dark energy as the dominant component of the universe essentially rules out that argument. I also might have suggested that evidence that the universe did not have a transcendent, singularity beginning might also be somewhat convincing that there is no god. But since the Big Bang Theory is generally considered to be the principle theory of universal origins, I'd have to say that this is a dead end as well.

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?

I'll play along, for now. See above!

 

[Sir Doom]

"If, when, or... geez...."

You seem to have a problem with me stating that I've never met god. Not sure why.

Since that is unlikely your call...

I agree. Very unlikely. As is the possibility of me abandoning theism.

Obviously, you do not know... so, next?

That is obvious. Probably why I called it a guess. So... why is that a problem for you? Am I supposed to know? Do you know?

Even I do not presume to outguess the claimed master and origin of time itself...

I find it rather odd that an atheist has such a specific idea of what God is.

So, now... "God" is now House Republicanism in 2014"?

Really?

Right over my head on that one.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

How does this disprove God to you?

It doesn't, Doom. It is simply a story, about a man trying to "prove" things that are beyond his ken. The concept of God, of course, is, as Sherlock Holmes might say, "elementary" -- it has been with us for millenia, long before British Atheism came into being in the 19th Century. Supposing one can "prove" God's existence, presumes that we can somehow get "outside" of God to observe him. That is a very proud presumption, incompatible with what even the ancients knew of the divine nature.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It doesn't, Doom. It is simply a story, about a man trying to "prove" things that are beyond his ken. The concept of God, of course, is, as Sherlock Holmes might say, "elementary" -- it has been with us for millenia, long before British Atheism came into being in the 19th Century. Supposing one can "prove" God's existence, presumes that we can somehow get "outside" of God to observe him. That is a very proud presumption, incompatible with what even the ancients knew of the divine nature.

Why do we assume that the ancients knew more than us...is it at all possible...that...they didn't....

 

[bobhikes]

What say you?

It is quite easy to disprove any belief in any person. You must take the time to get to know the person you must then understand their beliefs. You must understand their core reasons for their beliefs. All it takes is time and faking interest in them. Then and only then you can attack and break them down. The shorter and less violent root would be to torture them into submission. Why you would want to do that is the real question.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Why do we assume that the ancients knew more than us...is it at all possible...that...they didn't....

Hi, Franklin

If you accept, as I do, that God cannot be objectively observed, we need not concern ourselves with what either we or the ancients "knew". When it comes to building a better mousetrap, knowledge and historical experience are certainly useful; but in trying to understand eternity, these things do us little good. Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul said,

Romans 1
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...

Notice that Paul said, "...from the creation of the world..." God existed before the "beginning" of Gen. 1, and will continue to exist after the world as we know it grows old and dies. We don't know much about God; but we can get a good idea of His nature just by observing the world around us -- the same world that the ancients saw. Consider some of those things, and the conclusions drawn:

1. The ancients understood, and many of us also understand, that the world was crafted by, and is held together by, wisdom. Sir Isaac Newton, a devout Bible-believer as well as the greatest scientist of all time, demonstrated this by describing the immutable laws of Physics. One might think, as Sir Isaac himself thought, that our faith in an All-Wise God would increase with this knowledge. Quite to the contrary, though, men in these most modern times postulate a world brought about by random interractions and happenstance. We have more knowledge than our predecessors, yet we reject it.

2. The ancients believed that the world did not create itself; but that it was created through a supernatural agency. That is simply common sense: WE create things of rather simple intricacy, but those things cannot create themselves. Today, we can even create things that can create things (robots); so we ought to understand more than the ancients: We ought to understand that we are able to create because God CREATED us with the ability to create. Many of us don't believe this, though; we think instead, that man evolved without design from unthinking cosmic goo.

3. The ancients believed that the divine beings were more powerful than humans. This also was merely common sense. Today, we understand that the universe is far greater and more complex than the ancients ever imagined; yet many of us do not think of God as being so much more immense and powerful. Instead, some of us think of Him as not existing at all.

We KNOW much more than our ancestors did; but this hasn't profited us much in the matter at hand.

 

[Sir Doom]

It doesn't, Doom.

Then its hardly an answer to the OP's question.

It is simply a story, about a man trying to "prove" things that are beyond his ken.

Naturally, I'm not a fencepost. I understood what you were trying to say. I just don't see why you are saying it.

The concept of God, of course, is, as Sherlock Holmes might say, "elementary" -- it has been with us for millenia, long before British Atheism came into being in the 19th Century.

So it is your opinion that threads like this should simply not exist? Or do you think the question is unanswerable? Because I'm pretty sure I answered it (as dubious as that answer might have been).

Supposing one can "prove" God's existence, presumes that we can somehow get "outside" of God to observe him.

But that isn't what this thread is about, its about the opposite. By presenting what you have, you are essentially saying that you can't answer. That's fine, if you feel that way. But why then did you post? Just to inform everyone you were incapable of answering?

That is a very proud presumption, incompatible with what even the ancients knew of the divine nature.

And just a bit of shame to top it all off, eh? Bloody typical.

 

[idea]

Anyone who asks for proof of anything (be it religious, political, scientific, or liberal beliefs) are dualists... Might I suggest to all of the dualists out there, that there are higher thinking patterns to pursue? ...


William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

does anyone know what it means to use relativist epistemologies? If you do not yet know, you need to learn