Athiests: Prove that God dosen't exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eucharisted

Guest
No emotional answers are allowed. Nine examples of emotional answers:

God dosen’t exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
God dosen’t exist because believers are hypocrites.
God dosen’t exist because believers can’t prove God exists.
God dosen’t exist because I have never seen or felt God.
God dosen’t exist because my prayers aren’t answered.
God dosen’t exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
God dosen’t exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
God dosen’t exist because God killed people in the Bible.
God dosen’t exist because Jesus is not God.

Besides emotional answers, you are free to answer any way you wish.
 
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Just as in the same way that you can prove It does exist.
 
cheese_sdc said:
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Just as in the same way that you can prove It does exist.
Click to expand...
But there are philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which take into account a number of circumstances that point to an infinite, inconceivable reality that started and sustains the Universe. Believers go a step further by saying this reality is God, based on the fact that the knowledge of this reality matches up with what believers know about God.
 
Eucharisted said:
But there are philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which take into account a number of circumstances that point to an infinite, inconceivable reality that started and sustains the Universe. Believers go a step further by saying this reality is God, based on the fact that the knowledge of this reality matches up with what believers know about God.
Click to expand...
Having more arguments for God is not equal to proving God. If christians can’t prove God exists and they believe in him, then how can you expect and demand people who make no claim of his existance to prove he does not exist? Athiests do not claim to have proof God does not exist. God does a good job proving that himself.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Having more arguments for God is not equal to proving God. If christians can’t prove God exists and they believe in him, then how can you expect and demand people who make no claim of his existance to prove he does not exist? Athiests do not claim to have proof God does not exist. God does a good job proving that himself.
Click to expand...
I make the demand because athiests make the same demand on believers. Treat others as you would want to be treated. If you say believers must prove God exists, than you must be expected to prove God dose not exist. You cannot say, “God dosen’t exist because believers can’t prove He exists,” nor “God dosen’t exist because He hasn’t shown Himself,” because those are emotional arguments, which are void of intelligence and reason. Heck, I could make emotional arguments for God’s existence - but I don’t, because my belief is not based on emotion. But let’s not get off topic.
 
Which god do you want to prove doesn’t exist?

It is perfectly possible to form reasonable arguments to reject the existence of a god. You apparently accept reasonable arguments against thousands of gods.

Also, not every Christian thinks of the Christian God in the same way. Is he remote or involved. Did he reveal his religion or did he not? Is the Bible his word or is it not and if so in what way?

Without detailed exploration of these issues you’re asking us to disprove ______, where ______ can change in response to the arguments.
 
Eucharisted said:
But there are philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which take into account a number of circumstances that point to an infinite, inconceivable reality that started and sustains the Universe. Believers go a step further by saying this reality is God, based on the fact that the knowledge of this reality matches up with what believers know about God.
Click to expand...
To be sure. I happen to like Descarte’s argument myself. However, it is not proof.
 
aileron said:
Which god do you want to prove doesn’t exist?

It is perfectly possible to form reasonable arguments to reject the existence of a god. You apparently accept reasonable arguments against thousands of gods.

Also, not every Christian thinks of the Christian God in the same way. Is he remote or involved. Did he reveal his religion or did he not? Is the Bible his word or is it not and if so in what way?

Without detailed exploration of these issues you’re asking us to disprove ______, where ______ can change in response to the arguments.
Click to expand...
For clarity’s sake, we’re talking about God as Catholics believe God is. If you need to know what Catholics believe of God, here is an article on God: newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
 
cheese_sdc said:
To be sure. I happen to like Descarte’s argument myself. However, it is not proof.
Click to expand...
It’s not meant to be proof, just arguments for God’s existence. But this thread isn’t about believers proving God exists, it’s about atheists proving God dosen’t exist.
 
Atheists: Prove that God doesn’t exist
Click to expand...
We don’t have to. It’s as simple as that.

It’s like saying “Prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.” It just doesn’t work that way.
 
PennitentMan said:
We don’t have to. It’s as simple as that.

It’s like saying “Prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.” It just doesn’t work that way.
Click to expand...
I make the demand because athiests make the same demand on believers. Treat others as you would want to be treated. If you say believers must prove God exists, than you must be expected to prove God dose not exist. You cannot say, “God dosen’t exist because believers can’t prove He exists,” nor “God dosen’t exist because He hasn’t shown Himself,” because those are emotional arguments, which are void of intelligence and reason. Heck, I could make emotional arguments for God’s existence - but I don’t, because my belief is not based on emotion. But let’s not get off topic.
 
Eucharisted said:
No emotional answers are allowed. Nine examples of emotional answers:

God dosen’t exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
God dosen’t exist because believers are hypocrites.
God dosen’t exist because believers can’t prove God exists.
God dosen’t exist because I have never seen or felt God.
God dosen’t exist because my prayers aren’t answered.
God dosen’t exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
God dosen’t exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
God dosen’t exist because God killed people in the Bible.
God dosen’t exist because Jesus is not God.

Besides emotional answers, you are free to answer any way you wish.
Click to expand...
I believe the following applies to this post.

“When an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn’t exist (e.g., prove God doesn’t exist; prove UFO’s haven’t visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:
  1. Skepticism of unsupported claims
  2. Combination of an open mind with critical thinking
  3. Attempts to repeat experimental results.
  4. Requires testability
  5. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
  6. Uses descriptive language
  7. Performs controlled experiments
  8. Self-correcting
  9. Relies on evidence and reason
  10. Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
  11. Produces useful knowledge
Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:
  1. Has a negative attitude to skepticism
  2. Does not require critical thinking
  3. Does not require experimental repeatability
  4. Does not require tests
  5. Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
  6. Uses vague language
  7. Relies on anecdotal evidence
  8. No self-correction
  9. Relies on belief and faith
  10. Makes absolute claims
  11. Produces no useful knowledge
 
Eucharisted said:
For clarity’s sake, we’re talking about God as Catholics believe God is.
Click to expand...
Heterodoxy is rampant in the RCC.
If you need to know what Catholics believe of God, here is an article on God: newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
Click to expand...
I know what the consensus of clergy agree to make doctrine, not what Catholic A, B, and C believe.

EDIT: One of the arguments you summarily ruled out is “God dosen’t exist because Jesus is not God.”

However, if you’re agreeing to Catholic doctrine as the best description of the characteristics of the god to be proved or disproved, then the god described is triune. Disproving that Jesus is god disproves that god, though some other may exist.

Once again, this becomes an exercise in disproving _______ unless you agree to a specific, descriptive set of characteristics.
 
Eucharisted said:
I make the demand because athiests make the same demand on believers. Treat others as you would want to be treated. If you say believers must prove God exists, than you must be expected to prove God dose not exist. You cannot say, “God dosen’t exist because believers can’t prove He exists,” nor “God dosen’t exist because He hasn’t shown Himself,” because those are emotional arguments, which are void of intelligence and reason. Heck, I could make emotional arguments for God’s existence - but I don’t, because my belief is not based on emotion. But let’s not get off topic.
Click to expand...
How do you use the analogy “treat others as you would want to be treated” in this case?

That is so illogical!😛
 
AnotherAtheist said:
I believe the following applies to this post.

“When an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn’t exist (e.g., prove God doesn’t exist; prove UFO’s haven’t visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:
  1. Skepticism of unsupported claims
  2. Combination of an open mind with critical thinking
  3. Attempts to repeat experimental results.
  4. Requires testability
  5. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
  6. Uses descriptive language
  7. Performs controlled experiments
  8. Self-correcting
  9. Relies on evidence and reason
  10. Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
  11. Produces useful knowledge
Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:
  1. Has a negative attitude to skepticism
  2. Does not require critical thinking
  3. Does not require experimental repeatability
  4. Does not require tests
  5. Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
  6. Uses vague language
  7. Relies on anecdotal evidence
  8. No self-correction
  9. Relies on belief and faith
  10. Makes absolute claims
  11. Produces no useful knowledge
Click to expand...
Off topic. This thread is about atheists proving God dosen’t exist.
 
aileron said:
Heterodoxy is rampant in the RCC.

I know what the consensus of clergy agree to make doctrine, not what Catholic A, B, and C believe.
Click to expand...
Offtopic. This thread is about atheists proving God dosen’t exist.
 
Eucharisted said:
Off topic. This thread is about atheists proving God dosen’t exist.
Click to expand...
How is this off topic?

“When an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn’t exist (e.g., prove God doesn’t exist; prove UFO’s haven’t visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top