How to prove God does not exist?

by UBM101 111 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  paranoia agent

  tornapart quoted Jack - Quote from C S Lewis... an atheist who bacame a christian.

  " My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

  That's one big strawman, not sound for the cruelty and unjustice of God (rather than proof of god which he is not talking about) but the argument itself is addressing the ying and yan, that we can not know what is good without knowing what is bad yes. But this does not address is argument, it does not explain god's shifts of personality, this is the style of Lewis, sounds intelligent but its filled with assumptions that has nothing to do with the argument.
• 

  Theredeemer

  What is evil? What is love? What is good? What is bad?

  The problem with these words is they are all the same, the issue is point of view.

  Take Jesus' death for example.

  God allowed his son to be handed over to a tribune, falsely convicted of a crime, physically and verbally assaulted, tortured and ultimately put to death. All this to vindicate his name and balance the scales of justice in order for the rest of mankind to have a chance to live forever. All the while he had the power snap his finger, just erase sin from the record and end all the madness.

  If any other father in the world allowed their son to go through all this just to prove a point he would be considered bad, evil and unloving.

  But since it was GOD, the point of view changes; he is good, loving and just.

  Socrates posed the question: Is something holy because God deemed it holy or was it holy to begin with and God simply just chose it because it is holy?

  If God can deemed anything, even something that can be considered evil, holy; this is arbitrary. No reason or wisdom is required.

  If something is already holy and God chooses it based on its holiness, then he is not in control and he is subject to other standards just like us.

  The bible proves that God is arbitrary. He can deem something very evil, holy.

  If there is a god, he has no wisdom or reason behind his actions. His sense of justice is arbitrary and, so far, all his plans have gotten us nothing.
• 

  adamah

  Terry said-

  I've never understood why a person who lives by FAITH should concern themselves with PROOF.

  Paul, being a Hellenized Jew, was no stranger to the philosophies of the Greek thinkers (he lived in a cosmopolitan area which contained a university which attracted those who were thinkers), and he denouced all those who relied on their 'flawed mortal logic' as inferior compared to 'God-given knowledge'. Instead, Christians were encouraged to ASK for the gift of FAITH from God, since one cannot rationalize their way to FAITH.

  So yes, per strict reading of the Bible, those who seek to use logical thinking of the Greek rationalists to justify their belief in God are actually only demonstrating their LACK of FAITH, since they're attempting to bolster their beliefs with visible evidence and concepts quite foreign to Christianity (logic), which is even strongly denounced by Jesus (who made 'Doubting Thomas' the paradigm of those who trust their own sensory perceptions and logic, rather than simply accepting beliefs without question, AKA faith).

  Adam
• 

  Monsieur

  onthewayout

  Nothing seems to change with those so closed minded.

  Yes, indeed!!! Epicurius has confirmed what God isn't. Either God isn't omnipotent or else He isn't worthy of being called "God." 'Why call him God' calls for the action to STOP WORSHIPPING that one. It does indeed put the ball in our court, but if you can see that, why can't you see that this very logic is proof enough for even you that a certain, commonly believed in, God does not exist?

  onthewayout

  lol, you believe that STOP WORSHIPPING was the extent of his call to action?!

  how about, what can man DO to stop or prevent evil from happening??
• 

  adamah

  Yeah, PA, CS Lewis wasn't exactly a deep thinker: in fact, the guy bores me to tears, as his arguments are often filled with such fallacious reasoning. Painful to read, really....

  As a kid, I never made it thru "the lion, witch, and wardrobe": it struck me as more of a cheap knock-off of Tolkien's stuff for the cognitively-impaired.

  Adam
• 

  bohm

  Well, assuming you mean the biblical God, here are some reasons I find convincing:

  • One should not accept claims without evidence. This is a biggie. The bible is for instance an alternative theory to evolution, it is an alternative theory of the origin of the universe, it is the idea there is intelligent life outside earth etc. etc. These are claims that warrent scepticism and require a burden of proof to be met before they can be accepted as true, however in my oppinion the best evidence for God (as for instance presented by WLC) is speculative and poor.
  • The bible does not seem to agree with reality: The flood and evolution are two major examples, but it seem to me that in always every way the bible could have turned out to be true, it wasnt the case. The simplest explanation is God does not exist.
  • The problem of evil. Imagine if I told someone I was the best, most moral and resourceful person on earth, but the other day I just happened to walk by a car parked in the sun with a baby inside it, and I stood by and let the baby die from heat-stroke. People would rightly think I was nuts. If I told them they should still accept I was the best person on earth because I might have had some reason for letting the baby die they just wouldnt understand right now, they would think i was mad. All theodicities are examples of special pleading and faulty reasoning, the simplest explanation is God just does not exist.
  • The problem of silence. Despite all the above issues God supposedly love us and at the same time want, need and demand that we accept he exist and that he spoke to some jews thousands of years ago who wrote about it in a book. The basic problem if I had something important to tell someone, and I really loved him, I would just tell it to him and make sure he knew what I had to say. As with the problem of evil there are a number of strained solutions that take special pleading and then there is the simple solution: God just does not exist.
• 

  adamah

  Bohn said-

  One should not accept claims without evidence. This is a biggie. The bible is for instance an alternative theory to evolution, it is an alternative theory of the origin of the universe, it is the idea there is intelligent life outside earth etc. etc. These are claims that warrent scepticism and require a burden of proof to be met before they can be accepted as true, however in my oppinion the best evidence for God (as for instance presented by WLC) is speculative and poor.

  While I agree with the lion's share of your thoughts, I'd only say that you'd actually grant creationism the same status as evolution, by calling it a 'theory'? WOW, I wouldn't.

  That's only giving credit where it's not due, since evolution has TONS of supportive evidence from diverse disciplines in science which warrants and justifies calling it a 'theory', whereas creationism doesn't meet any such standard and warrants no label other than being a hypothesis (and shown to be a DISROVEN hypothesis, at that, which implies the only rational thing to do at this point would be to discard it as a failed hypothesis).

  Adam
• 

  tec

  No one can disprove God, UBM. Most atheists admit this from the get-go, if they even care. Some think that certain arguments (like the presence of evil)... are evidence against (or even proof) that God does not exist. But these arguments are based upon a lack of understanding about God (obviously, lol... as they make no claim to know God).

  In any case, the most there can be are arguments against a creator... and the atheist denying and/or mocking any reasoning or evidence for a creator as not being proof... and then using a similar kind of reasoning or evidence against a creator (also not proof)... is using a double standard. (hypocrisy)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  bohm

  adamah:

  I'd only say that you'd actually grant creationism the same status as evolution, by calling it a 'theory'? WOW, I wouldn't.

  Then substitute "idea" for theory. If i describe different concepts X and Y with the same label A does not mean I say X and Y has same status (I assume by status is meant either the evidential status or the degree to which the idea can be investigated scientifically).

  Trying to strongly delimeter strongly between theories, hypothesis and ideas is in my oppinion best left to the philosophers of science. Is string theory for instance a theory? Is heliocentricity a theory? Is a theory without sharp numeric predictions (like early evolutionary theory) a theory?
• 

  adamah

  TEC said-

  No one can disprove God, UBM.

  Poppycock.

  While one cannot disprove that which doesn't exist, the Bible itself has been long-since disproven as simply reflecting the beliefs of a long-disappeared ancient culture, which reflects their misconceptions of reality which were based on the best-known hypotheses and prevailing thinking of their day (eg Gods and spirits caused disease and death, they could recreate with humans to produce demi-gods, etc).

  Instead of thinking of the ABSOLUTE proof found in math (eg where a theory fits into the other accepted ideas with perfect harmonious resonance), such a perfect concept of proof doesn't exist in the REAL World. Instead, it's helpful to use the standards that exist in law (eg preponderence of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc). No one demands ABSOLUTE certainty before convicting someone of a crime: if we did, the jails would be empty, as even video or DNA evidence would be inadmissible (since someone could fake them).

  So when the Bible describes a solid half-dome metallic firmament above which God exists in Heaven (which is right above the great storehouses, the place rain comes from, per the Noah account), which WAS the prevailing thinking in Hebraic culture, the Bible's credibility drops to ZIPPO when the first airplane flew around the Earth, or the first rocket didn't explode in a fiery crash when it ran into the firament. The Apollo moonshot didn't note any Heaven above the Earth.

  (And Xians simply "move the goalposts" by relocating God and Heaven conveniently just outside of the range of the most powerful telescopes as they are invented.)

  As a believer, WHY are you insisting on demonstrating your LACK of faith, TEC? You're supposed to believe IN SPITE of evidence, and instead of protesting, you should be AGREEING with the insurmountable mountains of counter-evidence, since then when you reach the same illogical conclusion, it would demonstrate your STRONG FAITH (aka dogmatism, a lack of dependence on ANY evidence to support your conclusion).

  Adam