- False assumption. I do not believe that the premise ‘the non-existence of a god is unprovable’ is true. Never confuse a premise with a fact. One doesn’t have to prove a negative; however, one cannot logically hold the alleged truth of a negative if there is no solid proof for it. One must prove a positive, just as you would have to explain why your new bill should be passed in Congress. People prefer to know what they are buying. What is your idea of a god? Is it anthropomorphic, or just undefined? In either case, the following is my conclusion: If a positive is not proven (and in this case it is not), the argument is inconclusive.
I call it a mistrial.
what fact would that be, DAVEY???
Romans 1:20 -” 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 god ship so that they are inexcusable.”
Based on the hypothesis of those who claim to rationalize our existence from anything other than, GOD I have to say that I disagree with your analysis. and can promise a definite conclusion based on facts coming in the near future that there is a creator and you will come face to face with that reality. Maybe the wait and see answer isn’t what you want or need to aggravate those whose lives should not concern you, however it is a promise that you will not be held in suspense…….for too much longer…Patience.
- While I personally believe that the benefit to the world would be immeasurable were we able to definitively prove that no deity or higher power exists today or has ever existed it is not currently possible to do this as I understand it. Many important people throughout history have certainly tried to do society this service however. I believe that once this is proven that otherwise unmotivated people who dream of the afterlife without making the most of their present existence will do more to benefit themselves and the rest of society. However Asker, I do think that those of us with a passion for seeing this happen can take comfort in the fact that scientific breakthroughs are constantly eroding the barrier between what is generally regarded as man’s capabilities and those of a deity.
If this keeps occuring then scientific proof for non-existence might not even be necessary due to a certain common sense understanding.
- Don’t confuse fact with opinion or belief. There’s an old saying that seems pertinent here. Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one and it usually stinks. I’ll give you one that doesn’t. Ever hear of a French scientist and mathematecian named Blaise Pascal? He was no oaf. Among many things his discoveries have a very important bearing on our knowledge of the atmosphere and the mathematics used in computing. As a rule, 17th century scientific men of his genius and stature were notoriously either agnostic or atheist. He proposed what is known as “Pascal’s Wager”, which goes something like this: If you believe in God but he doesn’t really exist, then you’ve wagered little and lost nothing. However, if there is a God and you don’t believe in him then you’ve lost it all.
Think about that.
- I look at this question from a few angles: 1) What does the word God signify exactly? Is it a limited idea, or could it be a number of things? 2) Why do we need to believe in a God? Is there an inherent idea within us all, or was the concept of God created to soothe man’s collective fears? If its the latter, then its not a 50/50 equation, between existence and non-existence. We would have little basis to give validity to the idea. That being said, if “God” is not what we box the idea in as, “God” could still exist in a much different light. 3) Yes, there is no definitive proof for or against God. I’ve done a lot of study in Cosmology, Astronomy and such fields, and most experts in those areas tend to lean towards Atheism for understandable reasons. That being said, as much as we can study in the Universe, we don’t know if anything existed before the Big Bang, or how it was created. We don’t even know if there are other Universes outside of our own (space is FAR too vast).
So basically, I’m on the edge between neutrality and non-belief. There have been times in my life when I firmly believed in a higher power, but I can’t say that anymore. People tend to hang onto their own subjective perspectives, but the logical path is not blatantly one way or the other, even if it leans more to one direction.
- I think it’s provable, so long as you define your God. The Biblical / Abrahamic God has certainly been disproved. Vague Deist ‘God’s who do nothing and don’t interfere and don’t care are not disprovable, though I’m not sure why anyone would care they existed since it’s indistinguishable from non-existence. You’re still going to die. Deist God has no afterlife.
eta: Oh, I can’t believe someone used Pascal’s Wager non-ironically.
- Science has a certain method and it goes like this: We are perfectly happy to believe in all things for which there is good and sufficient evidence right here right now. We are not ready to believe in anything for which there is not good and sufficient evidence right here right now. So you ask us would we please believe in poltergeists. And we say no. And you say why. And we say inadequate evidence of poltergeists. Well how about unicorns? No — no unicorns — we don’t assert a belief in unicorns. Does that mean that we believe there are no unicorns? No, that would be like saying there is no God. You can’t prove a negative. The universe is too big, life is too short, man is too finite. Too many places where possible evidence could be, which you haven’t visitted and examined. All you can do is limit your own assertions of belief to those things for which you have good and sufficient evidence. That is the method of science. Not trying to prove that there’s no Easter Bunny, or poltergeists, or ectoplasm, or God, or Mome raths, or borogoves, or Stobors, or Distaks. Science recognizes that many things are sayable and even imaginable that do not necessarily exist. This is the opposite of Anselm’s idea which is that if a perfect being is imaginable or sayable then it must exist becauase it’s more perfect to be than not to be, and if it’s a truly perfect being then it must exist rather than not exist. Modern logic recognizes Anselm’s idea to be circular (metalogic actually, see Russell Principia, and Godel, and Wittgenstein). No God is no more provable than no Easter Bunny. We can say what there is evidence for, but without being omniscient, we can’t positively assert what there is no evidence for anywhere at any time. We would have to be God to say there is no God and know it as an absolute empirical fact. In the meantime, we just have the method. We believe in things for which there is evidence, and we confine ourselves to that. Not like poets, or mythmakers, or shamans. Scientists are a parsimonious lot, they shave with Occam’s razor every morning, and are very careful not to slit their own throats, although God does get his throat slit by this shaving. Science is productive. The tree is known by the fruit it bears. The tree of science bear much fruit. We would all be living in first century old testament Christianity were it not for science. As things are, only 70% of us are living that way, and believing in angels. What is not, is not knowable. It is not an arithmos. It is not countable. You can’t say whether there is one of it or 46 of it, or none of it. Because it is not, and thus it is not knowable or countable. So if there is no God, you can’t prove that one way or the other. What you can do is confine your belief to things for which there is evidence. You can affirm Being that is apparently so. You cannot deny or affirm non-being that is not apparent in any way (since it is non-being). So, if there is no God, you cannot deny or affirm that proposition. Things that there are none of are beyond the true and the false (like unicorns, poltergeists, and Easter Bunnies). Here’s what may be said — In the 6000 years or so of human history, there has never been a single scintilla of credible evidence for the existence of God. The proposition that there is no God is still unproveable, but it is at least plausible, based on our experience as a thinking species. Here’s a corrollary: The proposition that there is a God does not appear to be supported by any credible evidence, and thus, it’s contradictory is at least possibly true. But possibly true and “proved” are very different, as any mathematician will tell you. Plato said of his academy “Let none who are untrained in mathematics enter here.” Reason is part of philosophy, just as imagination is part of poetry. If you wander into the world of the poets, or shamans or mythmakers the proposition that there is no God would seem quite false to you. Try wandering around in India for awhile. The idea of “no God” would seem provably false. But in science we know that many things are sayable, and even thinkable, which are not necessarily so. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. The poltergeists are dancing on the roof.
Here comes the Easter Bunny and God.
- There is no God is just a belief of some, not a Fact. So what if it is ‘unprovable’ many who believe in a Mother/Father God as I do, with the personal validation
I have had, no one can sway my belief and knowing that god exists.
Originally posted 2013-11-09 23:00:19.