• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Is it possible to prove God doesn't exist?

Led Zeppelin

Active Member
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
In my experience, a typical Atheist response would be something like "Can you prove there is not a unicorn hiding in my closet?" as if it is rational for them to invent fantasies to reinforce their Atheism. But I guess that's how people are.

Do Atheists have any other perspective to offer besides this?
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Depends on how the 'God' in question is being defined. Some concepts of 'God' can be disproven in that they have contradictory attributes or are logically incoherent concepts.
Also, it isn't our job to prove that fantastical beings don't exist, it's the job of those who claim they do to make their case and meet their burden. Burden shifting shall not fly.

As for inventing fantasies to 'reinforce' atheism, you might want to reflect on the above sentences and evaluate a little closer as to who are the ones inventing fantasies. You are the one who believes in something you can't prove, or even make any reasonably compelling case for, not I.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
OK. Provide me with empirical evidence for the existence of any God. I think the problem is theists saying you can't prove that God doesn't exist,
therefore the response along the lines of Russell's Teapot.
If you admit that ,by your own standards, you are unable to show us whether or not God exists, why would you ask me to use your standard to come up with an answer?
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Depends on how the 'God' in question is being defined. Some concepts of 'God' can be disproven in that they have contradictory attributes or are logically incoherent concepts.

I agree.
Also, it isn't our job to prove that fantastical beings don't exist, it's the job of those who claim they do to make their case and meet their burden. Burden shifting shall not fly.

Well you have to make a choice. It seems you must either believe that our minds are a natural outcome of rocks colliding in space, trillions of years ago. Or you believe we were created by God. Then you have to show which idea is less fantastical than the other. Can you do this?
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
You can't exactly prove existence or vice versa. The saying of faith is faith is precisely that. Suspension of disbelief.

More importantly it is a guide not to be an asshole.
 
arg-fallbackName="Secular Theist"/>
In my experience, a typical Atheist response would be something like "Can you prove there is not a unicorn hiding in my closet?" as if it is rational for them to invent fantasies to reinforce their Atheism. But I guess that's how people are.

Do Atheists have any other perspective to offer besides this?
Well, any time you're talking about the supernatural you're necessarily talking about something we can't investigate. So no, there is no way to falsify God.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Well, any time you're talking about the supernatural you're necessarily talking about something we can't investigate. So no, there is no way to falsify God.

Is this something you really believe? Or our you just repeating something that you were told is true?

Welcome to da forum!
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Well you have to make a choice. It seems you must either believe that our minds are a natural outcome of rocks colliding in space, trillions of years ago. Or you believe we were created by God.

No, you don't have to do that, that's a false dichotomy and a strawman rolled into one.
Then you have to show which idea is less fantastical than the other.

Even if we accept your false dichotomy and strawman (which I don't, but for the sake of conversation) it's quite easy to determine which is more fantastical than the other. Yours is. Reason being, rocks do exist, they do collide in this thing called space which also exists and causal chains are a thing. At no point is anything non verifiable invoked. In yours, something which is not verified to exist at all is invoked, that would be God.
Can you do this?

I just did :)
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Is this something you really believe? Or our you just repeating something that you were told is true?

'Supernatural' is notoriously ill defined, but in the interests of charitability because most people will have an idea of the sort of thing you're probably talking about...

It depends on the claim. If someone asserts that something 'supernatural' is happening we might be able to investigate it, depending on what it is. Like someone claiming their house is haunted or something, or someone claiming to have 'supernatural' abilities (See JREF). The problem is every time we do investigate, we fail to confirm such. Another problem is that if we were successful in confirming the existence of, for example, ghosts - at that point they are just part of the natural.

We've investigated 'ghosts' for centuries, along with alleged abilities like telekenesis, pyrokenesis, mind reading, levitation, possession, souls, you name it and we only ever get one of two results, either whatever is happening can be explained by the natural, or it can't be verified that anything is happening at all. Most 'psychics' are just verified frauds and those that aren't are either just cold reading (a fun skill to master to mess with peoples heads) or they've just convinced themselves they have magical powers which they don't actually have.

Frequently, when at the pub (the bar to non brits) locals will ask me to play a certain trick on holiday makers which REALLY fucks with their heads, they can't explain how I can pull it off and that I must be psychic. I'm not, it's just a very convincing trick and if you don't know what to look for (which no one ever does) it stands a good chance of freaking you out, especially if you believe in such powers in the first place. It's great fun, and nets me lots of free beer, stop by some time and I'll show you how it's done :)
 
arg-fallbackName="Desertphile"/>
In my experience, a typical Atheist response would be something like "Can you prove there is not a unicorn hiding in my closet?" as if it is rational for them to invent fantasies to reinforce their Atheism. But I guess that's how people are.
No, no, no, and no.

1) Except when it is used at the start of a sentence or in the name of an organization, the word "atheist" is spelled "atheist," not "Atheist."

2) Except when it is used at the start of a sentence or in the name of an organization, the word "atheism" is spelled "atheism," not "Atheism."

Perhaps you might consider acquiring some remedial junior high school education to redress your lack of basic knowledge.

3) It is rational to reply in kind to cultist who insists sane people disprove the cultist's assertion that gods exist. It is irrational to disprove that which has no evidence, such as gods and unicorns. Your obfuscation is a ploy on your part to ignore the point. Cultists have the obligation to produce evidence that the gods exist.

There are a nearly infinite number of things that do not exist, and events that do not happen--- such as gods existing. It is not the job of non-believers to disprove.

4) Produce evidence that your gods are not fantasies.
 
arg-fallbackName="Desertphile"/>
If you admit that ,by your own standards, you are unable to show us whether or not God exists, why would you ask me to use your standard to come up with an answer?

A: It is using the cultists' standard when a sane person is asked by a cultist to disprove the existence of gods.

How is this not obvious to you?
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
You can’t prove that God exist because its supernatural, so the other way around prove he does not exist is also not possible.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
No, you don't have to do that, that's a false dichotomy and a strawman rolled into one.


Even if we accept your false dichotomy and strawman (which I don't, but for the sake of conversation)
What are the other options then? How would you reduce a non-creation argument to its most basic parts? How can it be something other than what I have stated?
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Do you acknowledge that we can only perceive things throguh our senses?

If you mean touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing then my answer is no. We would still be able to understand non-physical things without having any of these senses. Such as numbers and logic.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
What are the other options then? How would you reduce a non-creation argument to its most basic parts? How can it be something other than what I have stated?

The other option is an accurate account of abiogenesis, rather than your deliberately lampooned strawman version.

You can't be serious.

That's neither a rebuttal nor a counterpoint. But in the interests of humouring you, with your strawman and false dichotomy...

Where is the falsehood in what I wrote? Do you not affirm that rocks exist? Do you not affirm that they collide in space? Do you not affirm space?
Where in your lampooned version is there a non verifiable component? This is where you fucked up. You provided a deliberately dishonest rendition of abiogenesis and it backfired, because even taking your deliberately bullshitted version at face value, it still fails in that every component mentioned can be verified to actually exist. Egg on face for thee.

Let's verify the existence of 'God' now, shall we?

The floor is entirely yours.
 
arg-fallbackName="Secular Theist"/>
If you mean touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing then my answer is no. We would still be able to understand non-physical things without having any of these senses. Such as numbers and logic.

So, numbers and logoc are intellectual constructs, theyre *con*cptual not *per*ceptual, yes. But our concepts are derived from that which we apprehend in the world, IE: I have two sticks, you have three sticks, hence together we have five sticks. They don't come from a mystical realm with platonic forms, do you agree with that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top