Comments on: How to Disprove the Existence of “God”

By: Randy Pickard

Randy Pickard — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:36:38 +0000

Related to one of the posts, it is evident that God exists throughout this discussion. How can anything be discussed if it does not exist? Of couse, mere discussion does not equal accuracy.

If we were to now list out “absurd examples” of things we “know” do not exist, would not each actually evidence something quite similar that does exist?

At a minimum, God is a construct of things known to exist.

As far as the visible, audible evidence for a particular God, there are many accounts of encounters with God, representatives of God, the “supernatural” power of God, throughout recorded history. As with any other historical account, one may choose to believe or to question the accounts. Neither the believing nor the questioning prove anything more than a particular mind has that capacity.

The finite nature of my existence. which I do not know firsthand but reasonably believe to be true, compels faith in history – accounts and explanations of what I have not seen or heard first hand. In this blog, the subject and inquiry is God, but why stop there, why not question every thing that I have not seen, or heard first hand? To try to do this in significant part, would be foolishness. To do so completely would be suicide.

By: JohnnyB89englishteacher

JohnnyB89englishteacher — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:15:48 +0000

You can tell this person here has no idea what he is talking towards. You can not prove god exists. SO GOD DOESN’T EXIST! If you cant prove he exists then I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist because you already did for me. Its that simple
For 1. You have terrible spelling and grammar and should rethink ever posting or speaking at all for that matter.
For 2. If i was raised up in a family that thinks that god is all powerful then id move out, WHICH I DID.
Religion is the reason our world is in turmoil. This world is all about the afterlife and not about our now life.
So if i am wrong, For example there is a god and hell and all that blasphemy, Then my life after death… wait… life after death? So like zombies right? OH SHIT!!!! RELIGION = ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW
On a side note. Stop trolling not believers because you believe in shit that’s fake.

By: Mikhael

Mikhael — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:27:10 +0000

i stopped when i read “You do admit that there could be a Supreme Being; nevertheless, you repulsively argue your way with current science and mathematics.” He admitted there might be a Supreme Being only to further the process of Proving or disproving what he means to. Its quite obvious that he personally knows with all his mind that none exists.

By: Mikhael

Mikhael — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:22:13 +0000

Im speechless when i try to think of how naive you quoting the bible was. Scroll up more on the page and in an argument someone had said that god doesnt equal the bible. of course it made logical sense and the conversation continued. my point is that God may not be able to be disproved, but the bible can and HAS! in the same forum you just posted on! Im trying my hardest not to express my thoughts on the amount of your intelligence and i just realize that by saying that ive caused the harm that i was trying to prevent. Of course when someone goes through whatever process theyve been through that caused such a closed mind, it cannot be done without losing some sort of intellectual capacity.

By: Mikhael

Mikhael — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:59:47 +0000

Ha… your example sucks. Human>S< cant be defined. A specific Human can. Its not that set theories dont work for living things, you just have to use your brain to fit the theory to the living thing. When a human is born that cant move, then the theory starts. but that same theory that started when an older human was born cannot be used for the newborn.

By: Fellow

Fellow — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:43:11 +0000

Yes, there are things that lie beyond our preception.

If we don’t have the faculties that can perceive God then what makes you think there’s a chance God might exist. a teapot somewhere in space could also be beyond our perception?

Say there’s a planet, of a specific size, composition, colour and location that I say exists, without absolutely any evidence even suggesting it, and even though we have a general understanding of planets making the statement sound less absurd as the teapot assumption, is the assumption still at all logical. would any scientist go looking for the planet.

And if there is a God, its existence lying beyond our perceptions, then what in the world even suggested its existence. what superhuman, what intermediary between God and mere mortals provided a select few with the proof of God, never to return to the Earth again. Gabriel? An angel sent by God?

and if you don’t believe in angels, then how could one claim the existence of something whose attributes lie beyond our perception. Like the teapot that, I could argue, lies on that same plane of existence that we cannot perceive, and so, somehow, must exist. Gods existence is irrelevant.

By: Fellow

Fellow — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:39:55 +0000

the thing that worries me is that arguments like these, these fun, time consuming exercises in logic are sometimes plagued by malice and bitterness. It’s because either one side feels grossly offended, regarding it the same as an insult toward ones mother or father. they believe it to be an offense to their intellect, feel as though they were being made a idiot of. I’d like to think that arguments like these are ways in which people can shape their own ideas, be kept on their toes, build up better, more incisive arguments. it should be for purely dialectical reasons that arguments like these are played against each other, not some kind of battle of the ego or fervent emotional protest.

By: Douglas Burrows

Douglas Burrows — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:27:02 +0000

Wow! Okay, for starters, I would have to say that using a formula for trying to solve whether or not there is a God is going to leave you blind. I agree that religion is not indispensable for proving a God, but the haste in your argument seems to suggest that you may be more anti-theistic than atheistic. You do admit that there could be a Supreme Being; nevertheless, you repulsively argue your way with current science and mathematics. Science is not the only dimension in logic and neither is mathematics. An abundance of people can learn from renowned scientists and mathematicians and throw out mind-blowing formulas and create their own at that. However, that still does not disprove the existence of God and I know that you left it open for a possibility, but in your analysis you abstrusely try to disprove God with vehemence. It doesn’t matter how much we achieve in science, because nothingness or whatever we want to call it could be the aspects of a Supreme Being. A Higher Power is at least likely to be and that in itself is irrefutable. Educate yourselves more and pay attention to your surroundings, temporality (this fleeting life and what occurs that may just not be coincidental), make sure you have all your sources correct before making such a bold decision and just remember that anything is possible. That sounds cliche, but it is true and make sure you really focus on the concept of metaphysics. I want to say something else real quick and it pertains to how we perceive the reality around us including the universe. Lawrence Krauss speaks of “nothingness” and how it constitutes about 90% of the universe (I think that’s what he said) and if we were to think about it we would wonder why it is called “nothing”. It is nothing, because it is empty space. Empty space to us is nothing, but is it really nothing? Couldn’t it be another aspect of a Supreme Being’s power? Not only that, but if we are searching and searching for what causes all this to be (the universe) and we can’t explain the complexity of what is making everything possible, then how is that nothingness possible? Is it self-sufficient? How do we know? We can’t even travel across the universe and be in it to experience anything unlike are close travels in our microscopic solar system. This may sound irrelevant, but it matters when dealing with what is actually real. Philosophers have been philosophizing about “Being and Nothingness” for a very long time and there is no conclusion of course. Well, it is philosophy for one and that’s because none of us know exactly why we are here. Yes, we are a part of dead stars and everything in the universe, but that doesn’t prove for certain that that is the Source. It sounds like it is a dumb point; however, in order to have the proof we need, we have to understand nothingness first. And we understand an aspect of it, not it itself. Energy is everywhere, but getting to the root of it even when there is nothing is the key. Upon all this, there is no proof or disproof of the existence of God. Thank you and sorry it took longer than what I expected to explain.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:29:18 +0000

Then that means the Bible has been disproved, not God. It has been a long time since I really believed Adam and Eve lived together in the Garden together. You fall into the same mistake as many believers by taking the Bible to equal God. Of course, you are just as closed minded as these people who believe in God and sentence you to hell. It is all most unfortunate as it only breeds hatred and contempt.

By: the4thwave

the4thwave — Thu, 13 May 2010 23:58:49 +0000

Buddhism relates to that theory monsieur Alpha

Brahmin is the unknowable God of which we are all a part of and understand once we reach Nirvana.

Note that buddhism also has huge flaws.