ANSWERS: 24
  • Science would say you cannot prove a negative. By opening out the concept of God far enough, you can make it impossible to disprove God's existence. Equally, you cannot prove the non-existence of the Great Galactic Ghoul, the Star Wars universe, magic wands, and Global Conspiracies.
  • From Stanford Press: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ Ontological Arguments First published Thu Feb 8, 1996; substantive revision Tue Jul 26, 2005 Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists. In the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For instance, in the Fifth Meditation, Descartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being — we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being — we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz attempted to fill what he took to be a shortcoming in Descartes' view. According to Leibniz, Descartes' arguments fail unless one first shows that the idea of a supremely perfect being is coherent, or that it is possible for there to be a supremely perfect being. Leibniz argued that, since perfections are unanalysable, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible — and he concluded from this that all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity. In more recent times, Kurt Godel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear whether we should really say that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the existence of God. Critiques of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm. Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that "existence" is a predicate. However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.
  • Depends on your standard for "proof." For some, "I've never seen God" is adequate proof. (For most, such an extrapolation is preposterous.) I have never seen or read any experiment or argument that I believe meets the standard of legal or scientific proof.
  • You cannot prove a negative, at least not scientifically. You can rule out plausibility and practicality, but not an absolute impossibility.
  • There is no absolute, undisputed proof that God does not exist. It is impossible to prove a universal negative (and I just used one, the circular logic hurts my brain), because we simply cannot look everywhere.
  • To the contrary, as it says at Romans Chapter 1 verses 19-20 “because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable”
  • Oh geesh, another one of these questions. Wait just a second while I go ask Him.
  • To which God are you reffering? There is more than one for the hundreds of religions that plague our Earth. Be specific to your religion and don't assume or be uptoose that your faith is greater than anothers,... that is disrespectful in the eyes of any God, and insulting to ones own intelligence.
  • No, Philosophy says that God is infinite and nothing that is infinite could have been created by man so then it has to exist which means that God exists.
  • A couple, I could supply more but it bores me a little yawn yawn yawn: If you look at the people worshipping a God, and notice that they are wrong about everything else - (slavery is ok- its ok to kill for the pope - women are inferior and can't be trusted - teh earth is 600 years old or what have you- things don't change so there is no posibillity of evolution, etc.) then it is very likely they are wrong about a God. If there is a God then he is an Asshole because he forces suffering onto people. Therefore he is not the kind or all knowing, careing, and all powerful if he does exist. If he is not all knowing and all powerful then he is not a god. Most human advancements come from people - so if there is a God, he is not good for anything. A Decartes style proof: If I can see and feel a table if it exists - sure I don't everything there is about it. I can also then think about things like tables if there is the possiblity that they do exist or could exist. Even if it doesn't exist I could bring one into existence aby building one. Therefore my mind is capable of capturing the possibilities of existence. If I can't get a mental model of it then it does not exist and cannot exist. I Cannot mentally model God - a being outside all the rules - even when I can mentally model changing the rules myself. God cannot exist.
  • The Miracle of Theism by Mackie - is a pretty good book that reviews the majority of the proofs for and agaist god. Most of the time it seems the same style of proof can be used both ways.
  • I don't hat Star Wars at all - I enjoyed the first three (in production order). I don't hate magic wands, either - I would love to have one. And anybody who wants to organize a Global Conspiracy to make me Owner of the World has my full approval. (Not Ruler of the World - that would be much too much like hard work. I would be an absentee landlord, appointing an agent to run the world for me ans send me the profits.) I think I disapprove of the Great Galactic Ghoul, though I always willing to give anyone a fair hearing.
  • what I've just read is that there is a 67% chance that God does exist according to this: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/july2006/does_godexist.html
  • Yeah, the 1980s. Who's dumb idea was that!
  • Look around you, nature declares God DOES exist.
  • There is PROOF neither one way or another. That is why FAITH is required. Faith is what makes our relationship with God meaningful. It's like you wanting your children to have faith that you love them and will protect them, because you will do those things, and they should be able to live their lives worry free because of your love and protection.
  • not really.
  • It is true that God cannot be disproven. However, this does not mean he exists. Bertrand Russell explained it well with his teapot parable. He can make an assertion that between the Earth and Mars, there is a teapot in orbit. Provided he is careful to state that it is too small to be detected by our most powerful telescopes, nobody will be able to disprove the existence of his teapot. But this does not mean that anybody should declare that, because it cannot be disproven, there must be a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars! If we did this, our entire world would be swamped in fantasy. We cannot disprove the existence of Harry Potter, Platform 9 and 3 quarters, Hogwarts and St Mungos - but I don't see anybody combing the British countryside trying to break into these magical realms. Humans have always been very curious about their origins. With the advent of science, not only human origins can be investigated but also the origins of the Earth and Universe. Obviously why the world seemed so wonderful and why anything should bother to exist seemed inexplicable to them. For some psychological or evolutionary reason, it seemed logical to the ancient peoples that the world and themselves should have come into existence through the work of some powerful being (invisible, yet powerful). They couldn't find such a force or being. But there were other advantages to the notion of a god than just explaining the improbability of nature. The notion of a spirit watching over them seemed comforting to some. That's two advantages. Simply thoughts, that provide comfort and explanations for the existence of the world and oneself. Comfort was found with regard to death. They made up that the god who looked after them while alive, would protect them and look over them when they were dead. Death was a baffling and frightening phenomenon. Many peoples require comfort around the topic of death and their own in particular and the notion of God could easily provide it. Such stories of a god were precious. Children were told about their god who would protect them. If a child asked where did the world come from, a ready made answer could easily be found. Over generations of story telling, a culture obviously becomes convinced of a real god. The notion of gods was by then seen as precious. All the answers and love in the world in one. A huge number of supernatural beings have been invented. Virtually every society had a belief in at least one supernatural being or occurrence. These beings frequently have very little in common. Also, religions can spring up virtually overnight. A good example of this is the cargo cults that sprang up in the 1900s on many pacific islands. White men turned up, bearing radios, firearms and tinned food. It has often been said that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. And so it proved to be. There are still people on the Pacific Islands that believe that a man called John Frum will return to them bringing 'the cargo'. They have built an airstrip with dummy planes made from wood to lure down his aircraft. If John Frum lived at all, he did so within living memory - but nobody seems to know who he was, where he came from, whether he was short or tall… These stories (the attribution of perfectly explainable phenomena ie. guns to supernatural causes, and the totally unrelated beliefs in supernaturalism that have sprung up the world over) seem to indicate a tendency for the human brain to be religious. It is merely a matter of culture - where one was raised and in what time - which particular brand of nonsense infects the child brain, as Dawkins puts it - that determines which religion an individual will follow. Scientific Arguments These arguments are based on science; specifically, the large number of cases where what the scientific method has near-proven about our world and our universe, is largely incompatible with religious dogma. There are far more scientific contradictions of God than philosophical ones. The bedrock of the so called intelligent design movement is that matter cannot come from nothing. Illustrating one of the many reasons intelligent design isn't allowed in a class room is that physics shows that matter does indeed spontaneously materialize, and that the true evidence of a universe with a God, would be one in which nothing existed. In fact, it has been said by Nobel Prize winning scientists that because there is material in the Universe, is proof God doesn't exist. 'Intelligent Design', and most quasi-scientific religious arguments, are based on the Argument from Improbability. It usually manifests itself as something akin to the following: "Phenomenon X is unbelievably complex. All of its parts work together in perfect order. How could this have spontaneously self-generated?" In reference to a biological system: No sane person has ever suggested that a tree, or a bacterium, or a fish, or a person, came about by chance. The idea is absolutely ludicrous. The religious people claim that evolution is a theory of chance, and indeed, if the two alternatives were 'it generated itself by chance' and 'it was created' then intelligent design may carry some weight. But it does not, because nobody is suggesting chance as an alternative to design. The two opposing theories are intelligent design and evolution by natural selection. The theory of evolution is one of stunning simplicity - there are very, very slight changes to an organism in each generation, and they are small enough changes that anybody could accept they had come about by chance. Some of these very small changes will be advantageous, and increase an organism's survival chances, thereby causing the genes for themselves to become more prevalent in the gene pool. Over a vast timescale of millions of years, the effects of these tiny changes add up to become greatly noticeable, and giving us the wealth of diverse life we have today. Intelligent design immediately raises a huge question: if everything complex was designed, then who designed the designer? If God has 'always existed', then why could not life have 'always existed'? Ditto the spontaneous self-generation of God. In reference to an abiotic factor influencing a biological system: In this answer there is only really scope for one example, so I'll give one I frequently hear: the seasons. The whole world is 'set up' so that just as the spring plants are growing, the animals bear their babies, and the snowmelt replenishes the streams. The answer to this is so obvious that it barely needs explaining: life has exploited an existing pattern (ie. the seasons) to bring maximum advantage to itself. Those animals that did not 'fit the mould' in this regard died out. Babies born in the middle of winter froze or starved, taking with them the genes that increased the likelihood of giving birth in midwinter. Etc. The world has not been 'set up' for life. Life has set itself up to fit to the world. In reference to the cosmological 'Goldilocks Zone': Our planet is in a very narrow band of orbit around the sun where it is neither too hot, nor too cold, for the existence of liquid water (a vital prerequisite for life as we know it.) Any life-bearing planet needs to fall into this zone, and it also needs a virtually circular orbit so that it does not stray outside this zone. It needs a lone star (rather than one locked into mutual orbit with a companion star) so that the orbit is not wonky. In short, the fact that our planet is suitable for life is not a likelihood, and is frequently used as an argument for God (God set it up to be perfect for life.) The best way to answer this is with the anthropic principal: there are billions upon billions of planets out there. If just one of those billions of billions was suitable for life - just one - then it MUST be ours, because we're here debating it. As Richard Dawkins puts it, finding a planet suitable for life is like looking for a needle in a haystack, but the very fact that we are contemplating the search means that we must be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before we begin looking. Scriptural Arguments The scriptures (when talking about the Abrahamic religions - the Bible, Torah and Quran) are usually used as evidence FOR the existence of a God. However, they are self-contradictory, factually inaccurate, and carry many obvious hallmarks of being engineered by humans to suit our own purposes. The notion of God was thought up (as recorded biblically) in a tiny corner of the world. This was the Meditteranean, Greece, Arabia and Egypt. The world seemed to spread no further. To a God believer the Earth was suggested as being 6000 years old after investigations of the ages (as so written down) of biblical characters like Adam, stated to being 900 years old. No land or people or language that did not exist in the bible lands was recorded. So those peoples (like the San) and languages were probably considered to not exist by a reader of the bible. Kent Hovind in a God-promotional evolution-'demolishing' speech said that Jesus spoke every language in the world. There was only one language to speak. Probably Arabic. And Jesus spoke it announced Kent Hovind. You see, a language that was not mentioned in the Bible was considered to not exist. Try convincing a San that they had no language just because they didn't feature in the Bible. And yet after all this, a creationist will still believe the history that Jan van Riebeeck arrived in South Africa on 6 April 1652 and met the local people. They do not notice that this implies that these people had been there forever, nowhere near the Garden of Eden (in other words the bible lands). Having realised this, they immediately revert to the doctrine that all man sprouted out of the sand in the Garden of Eden (Arabia, Greece et cetera). The doctrine they have been spoon fed. Philosophical Arguments There are a lot of philosophical arguments both for and against God's existence based on logic. The atheist's typical proposition is that it cannot be proven there is no God, however, it should be said there isn't reason to believe one exists. (Just because God cannot be disproven does not mean that he is likely to exist.) Also, that the Gods described in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are certainly disproved by the factual contradiction of the monotheistic texts' metaphysical claims regarding the origins of our species and cosmos, as well as their descriptions of who God is and what God is like. Science has adopted much more accurate and verifiable explanations for the observable world and universe; so good, it has been said, that had we had these scientific explanations to begin with, religion would have never taken root in the first place. Most religions claim that their God is a loving God, and that he loves and cares for his people. Certainly, mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism all preach this. However, there is the rather obvious problem that the world includes a lot of suffering, and evil. Religions attempt to overcome the problem of evil by attributing evil to Satan, however, if God were indeed a sovereign and all-powerful God, his authority would surely preside over all things including Satan, and he could end evil. The fact that he doesn't, or so far hasn't but one day will, affirms the fallacy of an all-loving God, as he has allowed evil to exist either thus far, or indefinitely; if he can't, than the proposition that he is all-powerful is dispelled. It has been pointed out by Richard Dawkins that if you are a Christian, you have been told that Christianity is correct. You believe this. You also think you know that all other religions are completely incorrect and belief in them would be heretical. If you were a Muslim or Jew or Hindu you would think that you know that your respective religion were truly and undeniably the correct one and believe passionately that Christianity were incorrect. As you see, the idea of God is simply an opinion, with no actual truth in any statement about him anywhere. There cannot be a truth if all other religions in the world think the exact opposite. And their religion isn't true either as every other religion in the world other than themselves is against their doctrines too. God is in the eye of the beholder as it were. Most of the evidence 'for' God (even ignoring the fact that it is largely pseudo-scientific ramble) is evidence 'for' Yahweh, 'for' Allah, 'for' Baal and Jupiter and every other creator being that has ever been postulated. So it does not go anywhere towards proving one particular set of fantastical beliefs. Rebuttal of Pascal's Wager Pascal's wager, simplified, is this: Believe in God, and if you're right, you are rewarded with heaven. If you're wrong, you get nothing. Don't believe in God, and if you're right, you get nothing. If you're wrong, you get punished with Hell. Therefore, it makes more sense to believe in God. This is clearly fallacious on two counts: firstly, that faked belief in God (I know that I personally could never 'believe' in something for the sake of a bet) is unlikely to win you his favour, and secondly that it would be ludicrously easy to worship the wrong God, since there are thousands of them that have been proposed, and hundreds of belief systems that are currently followed. God said "they [humans] will live no longer than 120 years", yet somebody lived to 122 years. Therefore, God's word is not correct, though it is said to be perfect. Therefore, a perfect God's word must be correct. Therefore, God cannot be perfect, and therefore cannot exist. An all-virtuous being cannot exist 1. God is (by definition) a being that which no greater being can be thought. 2. Greatness includes the greatness of virtue. 3. Therefore, God is a being that which no being could be more virtuous. 4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger. 5. Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed. 6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is no one that which no greater being can be thought. 7. For you can think of a greater being, on that is non-suffering and indestructible. 8. Therefore, God does not exist. Worship and moral agency 1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship. 2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent. 3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God. The problem of evil 1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil. 2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil (or so we're told by the followers of these faiths). 3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist. Omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipotence (all-doing) are mutually exclusive 1. If God is omniscient, he knows what the future holds. 2. If God is omnipotent, he is able to change any aspect of the future he wishes. 3. If God is omniscient, he already knows what he is going to do to change the future. 4. This means that God cannot change his mind about his intervention. 5. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. 6. (Therefore, the concept of God as put forth by Abrahamic religions is incompatible with logic.) A perfect creator cannot exist 1. If God exists, then he is perfect. 2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. 3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect. 4. But the universe isn't perfect. 5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe. 6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist. A transcendent being cannot be omnipresent 1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside of space and time) 2. If God exists, he is omnipresent. 3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space. 4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space. 5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent 6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist. A personal being cannot be nonphysical 1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical. 2. If God exists, then he is a person (or personal being, as Jesus is described in the Bible after his resurrection "a man"). 3. A person, however, must be physical. 4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist. An omnipotent (all powerful being) cannot exist 1. Either God can create a stone he cannot lift or he can't create a stone he cannot lift. 2. Either way, God is not all powerful. 3. Therefore, God does not exist. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_arguments_that_God_does_not_exist
  • If there was proof of anything, we wouldn't argue over it.
  • You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can only prove something does exist. How would you prove a purple flying goat doesn't exist? (Not that I'm comparing a goat to God.)
  • Yes. http://godisimaginary.com/
  • The lack of proof speaks volumes for those that want to listen. Many of you like to talk about the weather behind closed windows.
  • Nature doesn't mean god exists.If you go the scientific way we all started out as organisms and just evolved after we broke off of a planet. Everything can and will evolve if we face the same kind of climate or conditions for a long period of time. I am on of the people who are called atheists. I don't believe there is a god and I feel there is no room for nonsense of hearing someone in a church talk about it, Who is that person just another man or woman who is no one trying to teach us about a god that may or in my cause may not exists.
  • look at the universe it is never ending there is No wall at the end of it, just like GOD has no beginning & no ending, always was & will be, but no-one debates a never ending universe w/galaxy's. People use the "nature" theory that it just developed or "the big bang", well what started THAT if it were true, what made the 1st cell or dot of matter, it had to have a CREATOR or something to stem from. There is no proof that God does NOT exist, he wouldn't be GOD if by our intellect it was so easily figured out, because our lives & all we know have a start & end we can't comprehend that there may be something(a God) that has no beginning. It is by faith Christians believe, he wouldn't be a GOD to reverence if we didn't look up to him... if we weren't awe struck with wonder.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy