Proof there is no god.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#42 Jul 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No with the title of this thread you claim proof of no God. That makes it your burden of proof. You claim to have proof
Lets see it.
Wrong. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim of existence. Without evidence of such existence, the default is non-existence.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#43 Jul 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct kind of its not next to impossible it is impossible.
Not so. We don't need to disprove, for instance, a claim of a sentient wooden sculpture that a person might make. It disproves itself. You can argue the possibility that it might exist, but within the description of that sentient wooden sculpture, there would be qualities or claims made that the object has that could likely be disproved.

You may claim it talks only to you, or that you must feed it etc...

It's at that point we can start to disprove the possibility, and even rule it out.
KJV wrote:
This thread does not say proof of a God it say proof of no God.
Describe the god you want to be disproved. Any god will do. Show the proofs of the god(S), and I'll give it a shot.

If it's some sort of vague conceptual god that you believe exists because you just know that it must be, then there is no need for me to disprove it, since your subjective reasoning has already convinced you that it does exist, and any objective reasoning or proof that I or anyone else might provide that could rule out the possibility of it existing is irrelevant.

You've already subjectively decided objectivity is not important. Whether you are aware of that, or not. The only proof you actually require is that you believe it. Your belief is your proof. It is certainly impossible to disprove belief.

If you want to assert you have purple gremlins living in your underwear drawer and you speak with them about baseball statistics late at night or in special communication sessions, there is no need to disprove that, since you're convinced it happens, and hahaaa, I have no need to bother with such foolish claims, unless you want me to believe it, or insist it should be a part of the commonly shared reality of humanity.

If you simply want to have your purple gremlin beliefs, go ahead, I don't mind, but be prepared to be ridiculed if you bring that up and expect me to believe it and give your belief credence.

Don't expect me to ask you who the purple gremlins think will win the world series, or what they think I should be doing in life.
UMANG

Mumbai, India

#45 Jul 8, 2012
Kishore & Lata - Bheegi Bheegi Raaton Mein - Ajnabee [1974]
Bheegi Bheegi Raton Mein, Zeenat Aman, Rajesh Khanna [Lata, Kishore]- Ajnabee HQ
Kishore & Lata - Hum Dono Do Premi - Ajnabee [1974]
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#47 Jul 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim that you can prove there is no God is just as empty.
Technically you are correct although the response that there is no god is almost always in response to someone's claim there is one. The burden of proof is on the original claimant of something existing, not on the one claiming something does not exist.
KJV wrote:
<
I don't start threads claiming proof of no Thor..
Congratulations.
KJV wrote:
<.
Claiming proof of no God is nothing more then a lie. And that is what this thread is a bunch of Atheist claiming they can prove the unprovable.
Really? I noticed that the OP didn't even link to an article or actually make the specific claim that they have absolute proof of no gods existing.

You are obsessing over it because you obsess over an imaginary deity. If the topic were 'proof there is no magic forklift in the sky' you probably wouldn't give it a second thought.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#48 Jul 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim of existence. Without evidence of such existence, the default is non-existence.
Atheism is a positive claim.

The claim is no god.

Same burden.

There is evidence to deduce existence, as there is for non-existence.

The so-called "default" position is a ruse achieved be re-defining terms.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#49 Jul 8, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. We don't need to disprove, for instance, a claim of a sentient wooden sculpture that a person might make. It disproves itself.
Wrong. Your analogy fails.

"Sentient wooden sculptures" is an improper analogy to a god, because we have wooden sculptures that we know exist from which to gain observable and empirical evidence.

With a god, proving non-existence is a positive proposition, not a disproving of a proposition.

Atheism, the position of nonexistence, has the same burden of proof as the position of existence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#50 Jul 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existential claim. So prove there *is* a God.
Atheism is a positive existential claim.

The only default position is "unknowable".

Once a contention is made, either way, for existence or nonexistence,that is a positive existential claim.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#51 Jul 8, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Because there's no proof to judge yes? No Proof nothing we can observe or measure, nothing. If we were going to say that ever crackpot idea is true until it's proven false we would have to take people who believe in fairies, alien abduction, bigfoot, chupacabra sriously. But we don't and why? Again the proof must be shown by the person making the assertment not the person shaking their head at nonsense. In other words if you are claiming God is unfalsifiable what you are really saying is that there is no proof whatsoever to verify or falsify yes? That's what makes God unfalsifiable. If that's your position you are in checkmate for I chose to care about what's true and proven not what simply feels good.
Ahem checkmate.
<quoted text>
Neither claim - theism or atheism - is falsifiable.

The competing contentions have to be judged by the rules of logical argument - as in, which is more likely to be true, given the evidence available.

The atheistic position is far from being the clear winner in that argument.

You want to guarantee a win by improperly framing the debate. That's a sign of weakness, and you would lose the logical debate to the logical theist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#52 Jul 8, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
You are certainly free to believe in a myth. There is no proof for God and until there is oh circular logic user people of fact and reason won't believe.
Lol the bible is true because it says so just ignore how the gospels don't match up and contradict each other!!
<quoted text>
The gospels provide no argument for either side.

By introducing them, you are attempting to make the argument into something else - religious and scriptural inerrancy.

Again, a sign of weakness of your case.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#53 Jul 8, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet historically today's god is tomorrow's myth.
Red herring.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#54 Jul 8, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Indeed most would laugh if you said to worship Ra because Ra is just a myth now. Why? How is Ra a myth but Yahweh and Jesus real? There's no proof for any if them. They don't believe in Ra or Thor and use the same reasoning we use. If only they could go one God more :)
<quoted text>
"One god" is a small step?

You cannot make a cogent case. Leave it to someone brighter.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#55 Jul 8, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Because there are no facts yes? Without facts for something people of reason will not believe. We live by facts you live by faith.
<quoted text>
You have yet to present a fact.

If you live by what you have presented, your life is confused.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#56 Jul 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<
Atheism, the position of nonexistence, has the same burden of proof as the position of existence.
No it doesn't. Even if we accept your argument (and we don't) that atheism is the positive assertion that there are no gods, your conclusion fails.

Since it is widely accepted that it is impossible to disprove a negative when we are talking about the existence of some thing, well defined or not, as having an extant reality there is in fact no way to falsify the correlating positive claim (There is no god). This alone removes this claim from scientific inquiry and logical discourse.

However, the positive claim that there IS a god, especially as soon as it is defined, is potentially subject to scientific inquiry and logical analsis....if it interacts with the natural world in ways that differentiate from what we know as the laws of nature then we can detect its presence. If, on the other hand, it either interacts with nature in ways that are indistinguishable from the normal behavior of things in nature, or it does not interact with nature, then while technically it may exist without us being able to detect it, then it may as well be one of santa's elves.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#57 Jul 8, 2012
redneck wrote:
<quoted text>It is impossible to prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist. Do you see the similarities?
Straw man.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#58 Jul 8, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
It is generally considered impossible to disprove a negative. This is usually realized shortly after self-awareness in early childhood.
Using your logic no one can disprove ANYTHING doesn't exist. How would you function in life if there was no filter for things real and imagined.
"You can't prove that bridge isn't going to collapse as soon as you drive over it".
You would be paralyzed with fear if you actually lived your life thinking like that.
<Dome of Silence Raises>

It is very possible, and often easy, to disprove a negative.

People like you who don't understand basic logic should not claim to be talking about logic.

Most people realize this soon after they learn their arguments for atheism are mostly crap.

<Dome of Silence Lowers>

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#59 Jul 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Your analogy fails.
"Sentient wooden sculptures" is an improper analogy to a god, because we have wooden sculptures that we know exist from which to gain observable and empirical evidence.
With a god, proving non-existence is a positive proposition, not a disproving of a proposition.
Atheism, the position of nonexistence, has the same burden of proof as the position of existence.
I wasn't comparing sentient wooden sculptures to deities, Buck. I was merely pointing out that there are instances where we can rule out things for which there is no proof other than the assertion that there is, and based on the description given.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#60 Jul 8, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
I can
No, you cannot.

An honest atheist admits so.

Not many around.

Physicists Hawking and Mlodinow admitted it in their latest book.

I'll take their word over yours.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#61 Jul 8, 2012
it *is* possible to prove a negative. I can reliably and with complete justification determine that there is not an elephant in my room. The *reason* I can do this is that the properties of elephants are such that any elephant in my room would be detectable. The fact that none is detected *is* good enough to prove no elephants exist in my room.

The difficulty with the God concept is that it is not well enough defined so that it is possible to say when, exactly, and in what manner, an existent deity would be guaranteed to be observable. It is the lack of definition that is the problem. But it is not a problem for the atheists. It is a problem for the theists. They are the ones with the responsibility to define their concept well enough to be testable.

To simply say that something I choose to call "god" exists, but I have no idea what this thing actually is would be an absurd claim.

Now some properties that are usually associated with a deity are: omnipotence, omnipresence, a 'cause' for the universe, a 'giver of morals', etc. It is rather straight forward to show that each of these properties are paradoxical and, taken together or separately, could not exist in the natural universe as we find it.

The predictable retort to this problem is that "god" exist outside of nature (supernatural) or is beyond mere human understanding. But even considering these apologetics, there must be some measurable impact of "god" or again consideration of existence is meaningless.

The bottom line is that, although I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any particular god does not exist, I so highly suspect that none of them do that such consideration is nonsensical.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#62 Jul 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
<Dome of Silence Raises>
It is very possible, and often easy, to disprove a negative.
People like you who don't understand basic logic should not claim to be talking about logic.
Most people realize this soon after they learn their arguments for atheism are mostly crap.
<Dome of Silence Lowers>
Cone of Silence.

I qualified the "impossible to disprove a negative' with the extant reality provision. If you can show that it is possible to disprove a claim that 'something doesn't exist'(note this leaves open all possible realities and universes) there is probably a nobel prize waiting for you.

Atheism needs no arguments to support it any more than aleprechaunism needs arguments. It is lack of belief in deities. No matter what you add to it (positive assertions that there are no gods, positive assertions that there is no objective evidence for any gods) it is still at its core a lack of belief in deities. Get over it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#63 Jul 8, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. Even if we accept your argument (and we don't) that atheism is the positive assertion that there are no gods, your conclusion fails.
Since it is widely accepted that it is impossible to disprove a negative when we are talking about the existence of some thing, well defined or not, as having an extant reality there is in fact no way to falsify the correlating positive claim (There is no god). This alone removes this claim from scientific inquiry and logical discourse.
However, the positive claim that there IS a god, especially as soon as it is defined, is potentially subject to scientific inquiry and logical analsis....if it interacts with the natural world in ways that differentiate from what we know as the laws of nature then we can detect its presence. If, on the other hand, it either interacts with nature in ways that are indistinguishable from the normal behavior of things in nature, or it does not interact with nature, then while technically it may exist without us being able to detect it, then it may as well be one of santa's elves.
<Dome of Silence Raises>

That is not logical at all.

First, you obviously mean to say "it is impossible to prove a negative", not "impossible to disprove a negative". Disproving a negative would simply be proving a positive.

Secondly, it is possible to prove a negative.

Thirdly, your alleged characteristics offered as requirements for a god that exists are yours, they are subjective and artificial, and are not actual requirements logically.

Fourthly, your claim that an undetectable god is inconsequential, as in "santa's elves", is a glaring non sequitur. Many entities that are undetectable can logically be very consequential.

In summary, your argument is poor, riddled with basic errors, and intersects with logic at not one single point.

Your ass is handed to you again.

<Dome of Silence Lowers>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Chimney1 35,408
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 min Patrick 20,130
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min Patrick 14,953
Reasoning with Insanity 46 min superwilly 67
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr thetruth 23,871
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 4 hr thetruth 140
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 4 hr thetruth 37
More from around the web