İt is impossible to prove the denial of God

[hasantas]

Denial of something is so difficult to prove and sometimes it is impossible. But a claim for presence of something is too easy to demonstrate. Forexample asserting presence of something on the world is too easy to demonstrate which can be proved with showing that object. But to prove absence of that object it needs to observe all corner of world which is so difficult to do.

Likewise reject presence of God is impossible to prove. Becuase that claim cannot be demonstrate by physical and material proofs. Physics or science can be applied in material issues. But God is not material. God is outside of time and matter which science has no any valid cause to interfere in. İf science can go and observe beyond of time and matter then it can claim that there is not a God there. But that is not possible.

To prove presence of God is too easy. There were thousands prophets and their miracles who and which declared presence of God. Billions of people approved that with their witnesses and experiences. Millions of people attested the facts which noticed by prophets with high morality and moral discovery. The order in universe shows that there must be a will power to make that work which cannot be by itself. İn that issue every evidence support each other.

 

[4love2God]

hasantas said** : “Likewise reject presence of God is impossible to prove. Because that claim cannot be demonstrated by physical and material proofs …
To prove presence of God is too easy.”**

I think you these things backwards.

Nobody has been able to prove the existence of God.
People play around with different strategies, like the Bible (or Koran), but all that PROVES is that there is a Book in current usage. And, since nobody alive today can attest to their accuracy, they fail as a Source.
And, EVEN IF a person could prove that the Bible today is truly the words written 1000s of years ago, it does NOT prove that the Bible was relating actual events.
And, even if they did, maybe God no longer exists (but, in the past, did exist).

A person I know wrote his Doctoral Dissertation on Proving that God Exists.
He spent 100s of pages, tying together everything he could think of.
I read it, and thought that it was inspired, and made some Good Points, though falling short.
But, his Protestant professor rejected the Dissertation, claiming that it didn’t come close enough to prove that God exists.
(He was then forced to write another Dissertation, on another Religious issue.)

Because of this, and many other things, it is impossible to prove the existence of God (or Allah).

This makes to “reject presence of God” very easy to do.
I would say, there is NO proof that God exists, so I can reject the idea of the presence of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would say, there is NO proof that God exists, so I can reject the idea of the presence of God.

Basically how is goes, and if you add denial with a high IQ, you can spend a very long time in dialogue which may result in no progress.

I understand the concern though.

 

[christus_vincit]

The order in universe shows that there must be a will power to make that work which cannot be by itself. İn that issue every evidence support each other.

I think that this argument works best to direct a non-believer to opening up his heart to the possibility of God’s existence. Citing the Bible for proof doesn’t work because the Sacred Scriptures only make sense in the light of Faith. However, when we are able to effectively demonstrate to a non-believer that God’s work is constantly evident in His creations - particularly in the order that governs nature and morality - it becomes possible to make progress. Next, we can show that person how this order points not to random chance - but to some ultimate end or purpose. We can reach this point without ever citing a sacred text.

 

[Rhubarb]

The criteria of “proof” seems to be the place to start with this issue. What would count as proof for or against God’s existence? And how is it we can, or should, come to know of this proof?

It seems to me a strict materialist or empiricist would have no issue denying the existence of God, and offering many reasons for doing so, in ways that a rationalist would not.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I would say that it is possible to prove God’s existence, and that St. Thomas Aquinas did it. But leaving that aside for the moment:

It may be possible to prove the existence of something that exists by demonstrating its existence, and this may be possible simply by pointing to it, but things can be very hard to point to. String theory posits the existence of lots of tiny little strings, but last time I checked (which was a while ago, so things may have changed) no one had any idea how to go about finding them. Of course, that may change, but it may not, and (as you say) God is on an entirely different level from physical objects. We aren’t going to find Him under a rock. So in general terms, I do not think it is true that it need be easy to demonstrate the existence of something that exists. Especially just by looking for it.

Demonstrating that something does not exist by looking for it is impossible, unless there are only a finite number of places to look (and some other details that don’t really matter, because it is not true that there are only a finite number of places to look). But if one could show that the existence of something would logically contradict something else that we found, then we would have demonstrated that it didn’t exist. This may or may not be easy, depending on what it is. For God in particular, this sort of contradiction cannot exist, but that is more of a property about the question of God’s existence than about disproofs in general.

I’m not sure if broad statements about how easy or hard end up working out.

 

[Zachary]

How do we prove something doesn’t exist?
Remember the film, Miracle on 34th Street? In the end, they prove Santa Claus existed. It is much easier to prove something exists than something doesn’t exist…to prove a positive rather than a negative.

As per what you say above:
What billions of witnesses are you talking about?
What thousands of prophets and their miracles?
And why would an order in the universe prove a God? If that were simply the case, everyone would believe God exists.

.

You can’t prove that you can prove that something does not exist. Ie - you can’t prove the process in this context because it suggests that you can prove that all proof of everything not existing, exists, which you cannot since you can’t prove it. That would mean you would have to prove all things that do not exist, do not, in fact, exist.

Confused…me too I hope that made sense. Comma overdose

Jesus came to prove that God exists. And He was rejected by believers, let alone, non-believers. What’s to say that if He popped back into the world today He would be believed by everyone this time? I hear it all the time from my atheist friends “if God exists, why doesnt he just reveal himself?” And I’m like…“really…?” These same people would just go about the same futile path of trying to find evidence of something they think doesn’t exist.

!!!

 

[Partinobodycula]

The ultimate truth is, that not only is it impossible for men to prove the existence of God, it is impossible for God Himself to prove His existence.

There is no act that He could perform, nor evidence that He could provide, that would prove that He is God. If you believe that there is such an act, or evidence, please cite it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The ultimate truth is, that not only is it impossible for men to prove the existence of God, it is impossible for God Himself to prove His existence.

There is no act that He could perform, nor evidence that He could provide, that would prove that He is God. If you believe that there is such an act, or evidence, please cite it.

So should God reveal himself to you, your saying there is nothing He could do to convince you?

I don’t know anyone that died was buried and rose on the third. I don’t know anyone who walks on water.

Admittedly that would impress me in person, what would it take to convince you?

 

[Lynxdk]

Well… this could get messy.

Maybe one of the reasons people don’t believe in God, is because they don’t just simply Trust that they are there, here, and now(Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Why should God have to prove that God exists, if there’s proof enough all around us, given how organized the entire universe seems to be, instead of a chaotic nightmare? Change one law of physics, and things would have worked out a lot differently, than they have so far…

Maybe people are looking too much outside of themselves, for “proof”, ignoring what’s right in front of them, and not spending enough time looking ~inside~, where the Holy Spirit is said to reside. In themselves, in others, in everything around them.

It seems pretty easy to prove the denial of God. People deny God every day. It’s much harder to Accept the Truth, even when it Lives in you, if you pay too much attention to all the stuff outside of you, that says it can’t be true =P

 

[oldcelt]

The ultimate truth is, that not only is it impossible for men to prove the existence of God, it is impossible for God Himself to prove His existence.

There is no act that He could perform, nor evidence that He could provide, that would prove that He is God. If you believe that there is such an act, or evidence, please cite it.

Aye, there’s the rub.

 

[Partinobodycula]

So should God reveal himself to you, your saying there is nothing He could do to convince you?

Revealing Himself to me would do nothing to prove that He is God. A sufficiently advanced alien could reveal himself to me in any form he so chose, and it would not prove that he is God. I would never be able to tell if I was looking at God, or an imposter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A sufficiently advanced alien could reveal himself to me in any form he so chose, and it would not prove that he is God. I would never be able to tell if I was looking at God, or an imposter.

However, now you suggest Aliens exist while denial that God could? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Rather a false analogy that is unless you believe in Aliens.

 

[Lynxdk]

Revealing Himself to me would do nothing to prove that He is God. A sufficiently advanced alien could reveal himself to me in any form he so chose, and it would not prove that he is God. I would never be able to tell if I was looking at God, or an imposter.

What if it’s just you?

Lets take that a little further. If it’s just you, that would more or less make you God, no? If everything else outside of you, doesn’t really exist, except to you, then by default, it seems you would already have your answer, depending on how seriously you take your claimed “religion”

 

[Peter_Plato]

hasantas said** : “Likewise reject presence of God is impossible to prove. Because that claim cannot be demonstrated by physical and material proofs …
To prove presence of God is too easy.”**

I think you these things backwards.

Nobody has been able to prove the existence of God.
…
And, even if they did, maybe God no longer exists (but, in the past, did exist).

…

This makes to “reject presence of God” very easy to do.
I would say, there is NO proof that God exists, so I can reject the idea of the presence of God.

You can no more reject the presence of God than you can reject your own existence, even less, in fact, once a proper understanding of ‘God’ is established.

What God is not is some ‘thing’ like other ‘things’ in existence. God is that which grounds the existence of all things. In other words the essence of existence itself.

This is what Aquinas was getting at in his Five Ways. Every thing that exists does not account for its own existence nor the existence of anything else, that ‘accounting’ has to come from that which has existence necessarily as an aspect of its essence.

For all ‘things,’ THAT some ‘thing’ exists (its ‘thatness’) is quite a different matter from WHAT it is (its ‘whatness.’) If this were true for every existent there could be no explaining the existence of anything, since nothing could explain itself or anything else. The only logical possibility, according to Aquinas is that the ‘thatness’ of everything is ultimately derived from Existence Itself (Ipsum Esse Subsistens.) Whatness and Thatness have to be essentially conjoined and inseparable in Being Itself, in God. There must exist ‘God’ whose essence is existence itself.

If the Five Ways are read with this idea in mind, they become a set of very powerful principles that are undeniable.

The first way, **the argument from motion **holds since motion (properly understood as ‘change’) exists, tracing the source of that change is only successful if it arrives at change being an aspect of the ‘whatness’ of things. Things that exist do so in the way they do (their whatness) because they exist in a manner that is susceptible to being changed. No changed entity nor changer sufficiently explains change itself. Only if Existence itself does contain within it a sufficient explanation for all change can change itself be properly explained.

The second way, from efficient causation, holds that since contingently existing things do not, ultimately explain or account for their own existence and can only cause other things to exist if the cause of their own existence can be sufficiently explained, tracing the account of causation cannot end with something itself caused. Rather, there must be an Uncaused Cause that sufficiently explains why causes occur at all.

The third way, from potentiality, observes all things that exist conditionally are contingent for their existence on something else. Which is to say all things have not always existed and might not always exist. Trees, rocks, planets, galaxies, universes, etc. come and go. Yet, if this were the case absolutely, then at some point, given infinite past time, nothing would have existed and thus nothing could come to be. From nothing, nothing comes. Yet this is impossible since things do now exist. There must be ‘something,’ speaking loosely, that is not contingent on anything else and that has ‘within’ it the "accounting’ for the existence of all contingent things.

The fourth way, from degrees of being, begins with the ‘gradation’ found in all things. Some things are better than others. There could be no speaking of ‘best’ without a standard to which things can be compared. That standard cannot exist in the things themselves, because it is those things that are being compared in virtue of something they each possess. That standard, to be meaningful, must EXIST apart from all things and that can only be in Existence Itself, in God.

The fifth and last way observes there is design in creation. Things tend naturally towards discernible ends. That essential ordering could only be possible if it derived from the nature (the ‘whatness’) of those things themselves. The ‘whatness,’ since it is determined by the existence of each entity, could not be imposed from without, but is, rather, essential to the manner of existence of each entity, which is essentially ordered in coordination with other entities towards clearly identifiable ends. This ‘design’ is not imagined, is undeniable and integral in nature. Therefore, the design could only have been ordered by Existence Itself, which we call God.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Why should God have to prove that God exists, if there’s proof enough all around us, given how organized the entire universe seems to be, instead of a chaotic nightmare? Change one law of physics, and things would have worked out a lot differently, than they have so far…

People see, that which they choose to see.

I have a sister who believes in all manner of conspiracies. She believes that hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy. To her every mass killing at a school is a government conspiracy. 9/11 was a government conspiracy. If you ask her to defend such a seemingly irrational belief she will cite all manner of evidence. To her the facts, evidence and intricacies of these events leave no doubt, but that those tragedies are part of a government conspiracy.

Humans are endowed with the ability to see patterns in things. It’s part of what makes us intelligent. It’s what we’re really good at, and we do it without even thinking.

When the Bible says that God is evidenced by creation, it is being perfectly truthful. For if you believe in God then you will see evidence for Him everywhere, just as my sister sees evidence for government conspiracies everywhere. But seeing evidence for God in creation, does not prove that God actually exists.

It proves that like my sister, you see what you choose to see.

 

[Partinobodycula]

However, now you suggest Aliens exist while denial that God could? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Rather a false analogy that is unless you believe in Aliens.

I made no such claim, only that I could not tell the difference.

Just as you cannot prove that God exists, I cannot prove that either God or aliens don’t. Thus if someone appeared before me claiming to be God, I would not be able to tell the difference.

 

[GaryTaylor]

People see, that which they choose to see

Plausible, but difficult.

Yet there is absolute truth? I may look at the Sun and call it the Moon. Doesn’t make it a Moon, reality then isn’t how I would like it to be, nor how I think it is. It is what in fact is. So the fault resides in personal perception which doesn’t negate a truth?

 

[Partinobodycula]

What if it’s just you?

Lets take that a little further. If it’s just you, that would more or less make you God, no?

You may have perhaps noticed that the notation in the upper right hand corner of this post states that I am a solipsist.

However you have a very common misconception. Being a solipsist does not mean that I think that I’m God. Such a position would be illogical. I know that I exist, but I don’t know what I am, or where I came from, thus why should I assume that I’m God? I may indeed be the creation of something or someone else, but the problem is, that I have no way of knowing. All that I can ever know, is that I am.

This is ultimately a limitation of my own nature. I can never know.

 

[inthespirit]

Likewise reject presence of God is impossible to prove. Becuase that claim cannot be demonstrate by physical and material proofs. Physics or science can be applied in material issues. But God is not material. God is outside of time and matter which science has no any valid cause to interfere in. İf science can go and observe beyond of time and matter then it can claim that there is not a God there. But that is not possible.

G-D might be “outside time and matter” if you believe that, but His Spirit exists on our plane and is tangible. Our science has yet to catch on, but the most obvious example of the Spirit in action is the weather. And while we are told that weather is chaotic, in fact it is perfectly ordered, beautifully so, as you would expect in an Intelligent Creation.

The Spirit can be expressed in mathematics as a relationship between three objects. It involves Pythagoras (triangles), three trigonometric functions (sine, cosine, inverse tangent) and the coefficients are perfect whole numbers in the ratio of three to one!

Attached shows the Spirit in a humanly comprehensible form and the Clouds over the UK yesterday afternoon in perfect rhythm. This is impossible according to meteorologists. The same representation also aligns perfectly with an English oak, as a Believer might expect. To a biologist this is also an impossibility. And science certainly cannot reconcile weather and tree formation in such a simple, visual way.

They are all part of G-D’s creation and personally “signed”. Forget the science. It is completely off-track.

Finally is the Spirit today, right now, as I type this. It is in the form of a Dove, descending, just as described in the New Testament. G-D has given me His Divine Permission to share this.

(Also attached are the numbers for you to graph yourself, over 2,400 in each set to multiple decimal places.)

You are among the first to witness these things for hundreds if not thousands of years. Contemplate them and grow in His Spirit which is always with you.

Have a great weekend.