The Disproof of 'God'

[DragonFly]

Upward and onward, where we are, as beings, there is a heck of lot of complexity, this taking 13.5 billion year to form. Looking downwards and back, we note the less complex, such as cells, although there is still quite a lot going on there, and then a few billion years earlier, microbes and bacteria, which we are still thankful for in our stomachs today, as we are their guests, and then we trace down through the ever simpler and simpler, such as molecules, made of atoms, which came from stars and supernovae, which stars were made from the more elementary ‘simplicities’ of electrons, neutrons, and protons, which may or not have come from something less, such as waves, which could have come from the simplest state of all, nothing..

Forms become more and more stable as they progress upwards to the composite and the complex, which means that forms are less and less stable as we look down, as more reactive, perhaps even to the perfect instability of nothing.

Of course, it works the same way going up from the simplest to the complex of today, and so it is that the beginning things had to be simple and tiny, and we see them to be; so, what is composite and complex can never be First and Fundamental, not even an atom, and surely not a SuperBeing of ‘God’ who foresaw everything, thinking it up, planning it, designing it, and implementing it, via a super system of mind.

In fact, we would have to look upward of where we are and beyond into the far future just to suppose that very highly evolved beings will happen, much less some ultimate one to the nth degree that would even make the more highly evolved beings seem like ants in comparison, or much less, since ants do have some smarts.

So, the absolute, complete wrong direction is being looked to to suppose ‘God’, and, sorry to say, that disproves the notion of ‘God’.

To have the template that life requires Life behind it and then throwing the template out of the stained-glass window to not then require LIFE behind Life, and so forth, fails on three accounts. Those kinds of windows are expensive and so some still retain the notion of ‘God’ out of grooving on the idea or an emotional attachment for comfort, or as an extension of the human family structure of old that had a strict father figure, or as felt sensation of a presence, but there are states beneath our felt states of being that are not apparent, and so introspection cannot reveal the whole story, which we have science for.

I’m sure many will still believe because they like to, and there is pretty much a ‘live and let live’ for that, but for when it gets extreme and/or clashes with government’s duties; however, on forums people like to get to the bottom of things.

It is also that neither Something From Nothing nor Something Forever is ‘God’, one being the opposite—as nothing, and the other being the actual base things themselves forever—as never created; so the notion falls again.

Disproving ‘God’ twice over is more than good enough, these both being accomplished by self-contradiction, the only method available to use for universal negatives that have no positives. Meanwhile, there are positives for science, logic, and philosophy to work with to get at the the universe, its early stages, and its beginning, and these are the dreaded universal acids that eat away all the folk tales and superstitions. The ‘answer’ of ‘God’ so much begs the question that it renders it beyond repair.

Martin Gardner, who knew a heck of a lot, liked to think, for comfort, that he was and would be taken care of, by ‘God’, even though he didn’t logically or scientifically believe in ‘God’. Strong emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness, bypassing the rational areas, turning into thoughts, and it is not unusual to fall for one’s own thoughts from feelings, or just from thoughts unto feelings, because, well, that they thought of them, so it must be so, not realizing that thoughts can appear, unbidden, their roots having been placed there by natural selection, an extension of noting agency in nature going on even to the ‘wind’ and nature spirits, unto gods. Mistaking a moving bush for a bear at night was no big error to worry about, but not not worrying about it could have cost one’s life.

Such tricks hath strong imagination, that if it would but apprehend some joy, it comprehends some bringer of that joy; or in the night, imagining some fear, how easy is a bush supposed a bear! —Shakespeare

Now it is up to the believers in ‘God’ to not only undo the disproofs entirely but also replace them with the proof of ‘God’.

‘God’ was a fine and glorious notion, once upon a time.

[Zeebadee]

You really ought to define what "God" means so we know what you're talking about.

[DragonFly]

You really ought to define what "God" means so we know what you're talking about.

As said: SuperBeing of ‘God’ who foresaw everything, thinking it up, planning it, designing it, and implementing it, via a super system of mind.

[minorwork]

As said: SuperBeing of ‘God’ who foresaw everything, thinking it up, planning it, designing it, and implementing it, via a super system of mind.

If I tripped over a super system of mind would I be able to identify it as such? Your definitions have no physical referents and so can apply or not apply as you see fit with no physical means to determine the validity of what you are talking about. NOT objective referents. Imaginative fantasy.

[Jack]

You really ought to define what "God" means so we know what you're talking about.

I think the following portion of the OP would apply to any god worshipped by humans. There's no need for specificity.

Strong emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness, bypassing the rational areas, turning into thoughts, and it is not unusual to fall for one’s own thoughts from feelings, or just from thoughts unto feelings, because, well, that they thought of them, so it must be so, not realizing that thoughts can appear, unbidden, their roots having been placed there by natural selection, an extension of noting agency in nature going on even to the ‘wind’ and nature spirits, unto gods. Mistaking a moving bush for a bear at night was no big error to worry about, but not not worrying about it could have cost one’s life.

[Zeebadee]

If one can't identify the actual origin of the universe, one can't deny ANY possible cause for it's existence. You've disproved nothing.

[ranting redhead]

speaking unbiasedly no one can disprove nor prove God's existence just like the Big Bang. people say it happened but if that so why is it still just a Theory? Can the Big Bang one day be proven, absolutely but that same chance margin also can apply to the Proof of God. so right now all we have to fall back on is literally Blind Faith. I know some people in the science world find faith a taboo word but what other word is there? So we have our laws and equations and theories that have yet to be proven and they may not be proven for another hundred years or they may be proven tomorrow.we simply dont know if they'll ever be proven or not, but isnt that the thrill of science? Not knowing something and then maybe knowing it on down the line. Thats why i love it so much.

now hypothetically speaking if you were God and created the universe and the human race why would you feel the need to reveal yourself and succumb to your creations laws of physics in order to prove you exist? In that sense God does not have to fall under any law that we create. Thats like a computer that you built asking you to prove that you exist, why should you? you created the damned thing, you have nothing to prove. if it doesnt believe in you then so what? Same goes for God's case, if we dont believe in Him because He refuses to be included into our HUMAN laws then that our problem not His. If He want to stay outside the laws we create then He can certainly do it and has every right. After all He is God and He can do whatever He damn well pleases.

so to say that you disproved or proven God's existence is laughable at best, no offense for I am sure youve done some research for your claim. And i know plenty of scholars have also worked endless hours on this subject but i havent heard one that has come up with a concrete statement or concrete evidence to prove or disprove. therefore we are in a limbo of Faith until new evidence form either side come to light.

[minorwork]

If one can't identify the actual origin of the universe, one can't deny ANY possible cause for it's existence. You've disproved nothing.

The identity and origin of the universe is consciousness.

[Zeebadee]

The identity and origin of the universe is consciousness.

So, where did this "consciousness" come from?

[minorwork]

So, where did this "consciousness" come from?

I can use the deterministic method to ask such questions, but recognize that logic and reason are attributes of the evolved brain which is selected to ask and answer such questions to advantage reproductive success.

Where is the necessity for reproductive success in determining the source of consciousness? In other words there is no ability demonstrated to penetrate beyond the NOW of Consciousness as a source for the universe. Such speculation adds nothing to reproductive success.

[BlackSheep]

speaking unbiasedly no one can disprove nor prove God's existence just like the Big Bang. people say it happened but if that so why is it still just a Theory? Can the Big Bang one day be proven, absolutely but that same chance margin also can apply to the Proof of God. so right now all we have to fall back on is literally Blind Faith. I know some people in the science world find faith a taboo word but what other word is there? So we have our laws and equations and theories that have yet to be proven and they may not be proven for another hundred years or they may be proven tomorrow.we simply dont know if they'll ever be proven or not, but isnt that the thrill of science? Not knowing something and then maybe knowing it on down the line. Thats why i love it so much.

There is a huge difference between the big bang and gods. One has objective evidence and one does not. Now no evidence is so powerful that science will accepts a theory as a fact, but in science things are disproven all the time. The problem with disproving gods is the definition is to unclear to be meaningful. To disprove gods we would need a concrete hypothesis that would allow us to make predictions. Until we do have that science is not concerned with gods.

now hypothetically speaking if you were God and created the universe and the human race why would you feel the need to reveal yourself and succumb to your creations laws of physics in order to prove you exist? In that sense God does not have to fall under any law that we create. Thats like a computer that you built asking you to prove that you exist, why should you? you created the damned thing, you have nothing to prove. if it doesnt believe in you then so what? Same goes for God's case, if we dont believe in Him because He refuses to be included into our HUMAN laws then that our problem not His. If He want to stay outside the laws we create then He can certainly do it and has every right. After all He is God and He can do whatever He damn well pleases.

Why would you feel the need to hide yourself?
The problem is that the Christian god demands we beleive in him and in theory once made his self known, but no longer does.

so to say that you disproved or proven God's existence is laughable at best, no offense for I am sure youve done some research for your claim. And i know plenty of scholars have also worked endless hours on this subject but i havent heard one that has come up with a concrete statement or concrete evidence to prove or disprove. therefore we are in a limbo of Faith until new evidence form either side come to light.

There is no more limbo of gods' existence than a tea pot orbiting Saturn, unicorns or faeries. None have any objective evidence and as such there is no objective reason to believe.

[Zeebadee]

None have any objective evidence and as such there is no objective reason to believe.

Which, of course, does nothing to prove the OP's claim to provide disproof of God.