Methods for Proving God's Non-Existence

[So we're told,]

Quote by: ItsDarts Why disprove Unicorns and Leprechauns? Techically, you can't disprove god if it doesn't exist in the first place. If it does exist, we're still waiting for the evidence. This whole forum proves that. So what? People who don't believe in your god or people who don't believe in other gods discuss just as well. Again, so what? If you do believe in god, why not leave it at that instead of trying to get creationism taught in schools? Why not take off "In God We Trust" off of money? Why not remove the words "One nation under God" from the Pledge? Why are theists always trying to get their religion into government? This is why we don't just leave it at that. Humans are competative by nature. However, we're not trying to disprove gods, we simply lack any belief in their existence until evidence says otherwise. Feel free to disprove Zeus, Ra, Mythra, Horus and the 4000+ other gods of mankind.

I'm not one to shove my religion down someones throat, I respect the religion of others, but for the sake of arguement;
If we take "God" out of our money, and our of the Pledge, we'd be changing what this nation was founded upon.
This nation was created on the work of God.
Many of our founding Fathers knew the bible verse for verse. And no, I don't believe that the word of Christ should be taught in school. But going as far as taking "God" out of our money and pledge; that'd be doing nothing but starting controversy.


"we simply lack any belief in their existence until evidence says otherwise."
so you're saying you don't believe something, until someone writes it in a science textbook?

[pikatore]

Quote by: So we're told, I'm not one to shove my religion down someones throat, I respect the religion of others, but for the sake of arguement; If we take "God" out of our money, and our of the Pledge, we'd be changing what this nation was founded upon. This nation was created on the work of God. Many of our founding Fathers knew the bible verse for verse. And no, I don't believe that the word of Christ should be taught in school. But going as far as taking "God" out of our money and pledge; that'd be doing nothing but starting controversy.

We don't want controversy... or do we?

Taking the Christian God out of the money and pledge truly secularises our society's infrastructure, and removes all religious bias imposed on member of other religous influences. Hence, is it quite a fair thing to do.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: So we're told, I'm not one to shove my religion down someones throat, I respect the religion of others, but for the sake of arguement; If we take "God" out of our money, and our of the Pledge, we'd be changing what this nation was founded upon.

No it wouldn't. God in both instances weren't introduced until the 1950's, we survived just fine without him on our money and pledge.

This nation was created on the work of God. Many of our founding Fathers knew the bible verse for verse. And no, I don't believe that the word of Christ should be taught in school. But going as far as taking "God" out of our money and pledge; that'd be doing nothing but starting controversy.

Many of our founding fathers were Deists at best and they wanted a government free of religion, while allowing any and all (or none) religions to co-exist. Would you have a problem with "In Vishnu we trust" on our money? or "One Nation, Under Zeus" in our pledge? The god in these statements endorsed by our government is clearly the god of Abraham, and this is discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't believe in the god of Abraham.

You are correct though, trying to remove God from these things is certainly controversial, and I posit that its because the majority christians wouldn't feel as special if the dollar said In Vishnu we trust. They would be the ones crying to the government that we should keep religion out of government, and rightfully so. But I appreciate the fact you don't shove your religion down other peoples throats.

"we simply lack any belief in their existence until evidence says otherwise." so you're saying you don't believe something, until someone writes it in a science textbook?

No, I'm not saying that at all, but it certainly helps, because science books have EVIDENCE to back up what is written. They point to facts and the evidence supports the facts.

[Praxius]

Quote by: So we're told, If we take "God" out of our money, and our of the Pledge, we'd be changing what this nation was founded upon. This nation was created on the work of God. Many of our founding Fathers knew the bible verse for verse.

Uuummmm......

Freemasonry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Illuminati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wor...er_(conspiracy)

and

United States Presidents and The Illuminati / Masonic Power Structure

Did you ever look at a satellite photo shot of DC? Ever notice the Pentagram pointing directly south, right at the white house? Ever notice the Mason's compass symbol based around the.... wtf is it called? The DC Building or whatever.... the one with the dome..... anyways, it's directly 90 degrees from the White House, and the roadway that makes up the compass is a clear view between the two buildings.

Ever notice the roads in the compass base are also designed in the typical "Devil Head?"

Go onto Google Earth or Google Map and type in Washington DC and look at the street layouts..... pretty fluky if you ask me.

Some of your founding fathers might have been christian, but there seems to be evidence that some of them had other plans outside of the Christian idealism.

[Praxius]

^ There you go... from the last link I supplied you.

Oops, correction... it's not a devil's head at the Capital Building.

Added:

[Praxius]

1961-1963 John F. Kennedy, 35th. President of the United States (D) First Catholic President. Shot in Dallas. Satanic ties to Anton LaVey. Was also a member of the Anti-American organization known as the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) Joseph Kennedy (Johns Father) Confirmed Illuminati. Vice President Lydon B. Johnson 1961-1963. Confirmed Mason. Orville Freeman (Illuminati) was appointed as a cabinet member for Kennedy’s and then Johnson’s administration. (Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Bloodlines) Note: Again we have a non Mason president or a president whom looses favor, dies or forced out of office to be replaced by Mason power.

It would seem the people running your country are not that Christian as it would originally seem.

[spudnick]

I think "god" in my own opinion can relate to whatever created this universe. If you deny the existance of something that created all this, then you deny the existance of the universe and in fact, your own existance.

[Jack]

If you deny the existance of something that created all this...

I fine with that as long as by something, we mean natural processes. If you mean someone rather than something, then I disagree, and do so without fear of destroying my current reality.

[spudnick]

I do belive in the "christain" god, but I think that the word "god" relates to the ultimate creator. This is why I think people who deny the existance of "god" are also denying the existance of themself.

[Nurf]

Quote by: gallo Maybe the reason it's not is that most atheists are bright enough to know that you can't prove the non-existance of something.

Categorizing most atheists to be smart is not relevant to the topic. More common logic would be that since no one has proven there to be a god, then one doesn't exist. However, most religious communities know that god is not a scientific fact, and rely on faith in their belief.

[Devout_Muslim]

Why disprove Unicorns and Leprechauns? Techically, you can't disprove god if it doesn't exist in the first place. If it does exist, we're still waiting for the evidence.

My two year old sister can figure this brain teaser out. Look around you. All the stuff you see, everything, has to have come from somewhere. It is painfully obvious that SOMETHING CAN'T COME OUT OF NOTHING. Unless, if affected by possible divine intervention. Hard to explain this part, but it's as if God is playing by a different set of rules, in which the rules and ecosystems and guidelines of the universe etc don't apply.

Science's theories of the universes creation is flawed from the first statement. If nothing exists, how can something come out of it? The answer is it can't. Except if playing by a different 'set of rules'. If God doesn't exist, which I have deemed impossible, (no offence, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that God must exist - waits to get flamed) how can everything as we know it, a seemingly limitless universe, dozens (at least) of known planets, a huge and complex ecosystem with many things depending on each other to survive come out of nothing?

A freaking explosion, which is created from nothing (where did the molecules and crap to cause the explosion come from in the first place?) can't create anything. NOTHING. The explosion couldn't have happened unless someone or something put the molecules or w/e (im still in high-school, leave me alone)in the universe to begin with.

I can't believe someone would be as..stubborn to think that an explosion of some scientific reaction caused all this.

Look at your hands. There's the evidence.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim A freaking explosion, which is created from nothing (where did the molecules and crap to cause the explosion come from in the first place?) can't create anything. NOTHING. The explosion couldn't have happened unless someone or something put the molecules or w/e (im still in high-school, leave me alone)in the universe to begin with.

That's one of the big reasons for the theory I agree with that all that mass and energy was already here, and the big bang is just a "resetting" of the cycle of Explosive Release, Expansion, Collapse, and back again.

[Devout_Muslim]

^ The big bang is mentioned in the Qur'an by the by.

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we split them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Quran 21:30)

But, in the theory, where do the molecules come from?:eek:

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim ^ The big bang is mentioned in the Qur'an by the by.

The big bang is mentioned in the kuran the way my dream vacation is mentioned in the fortune cookie I had with lunch as demonstrate below:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we split them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Quran 21:30)

(thanks for the link)

[Devout_Muslim]

Alright, link, you asked for it: Qur'anic Quotes

Just use "Ctrl + F" and type in asunder.

The big bang is mentioned in the kuran the way my dream vacation is mentioned in the fortune cookie I had with lunch as demonstrate below:

It blatantly states it. The Qur'an was written in Arabic, an uneasy conversion to English.

And so far, no one has argued my original post. I don't blame anyone either.

[Zhavric]

No. It doesn't. The Kuranic verse establishes that there were Heavens & Earth. If you think that's how the Big Bang describes how the universe happened you have a lot of homework to catch up on. Nearly every primitive creation myth has some ridiculous statement about how some magic beastie created the heavens / brought order from chaos / etc. I find the Kuranic verse you quoted no different from Greek mythology which explains the Titans created the heaven / earth / underworld.

Your quote doesn't talk about the Big Bang any more so than every other religion in the world "mentions" the big bang.

You're holding up a fortune cookie and demanding the rest of us treat it as literal truth. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim My two year old sister can figure this brain teaser out. Look around you. All the stuff you see, everything, has to have come from somewhere. It is painfully obvious that SOMETHING CAN'T COME OUT OF NOTHING. Unless, if affected by possible divine intervention. Hard to explain this part, but it's as if God is playing by a different set of rules, in which the rules and ecosystems and guidelines of the universe etc don't apply.

Who said it came from "nothing?" Even atheists understand something doesn't come out of nothing. The question here would be, was there nothing before? If you wish to believe that, fine. Proving it? Impossible, only because proving something doesn't exist, or didn't exist, is a fool's errand. Theological takes on such don't count, because by definition they are mostly subjective and opinion.

if God is playing by a different set of rules

Ah, yes, but the same could be said of gremlins, fairies, Merlin... doesn't mean "untrue," simply means "unproven."

Science's theories of the universes creation is flawed from the first statement. If nothing exists, how can something come out of it?

Once again, find me any scientific text that states "there was nothing." You won't. It starts from the big bang. Previous to that? Speculation at best.

If God doesn't exist, which I have deemed impossible, (no offence, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that God must exist - waits to get flamed) how can everything as we know it, a seemingly limitless universe, dozens (at least) of known planets, a huge and complex ecosystem with many things depending on each other to survive come out of nothing?

First off, no offense taken, of course I'm a theist with agnostic tendencies, so I may not count as much when defending actual atheists. But once again, false assumption. I know of no atheists, and I know many, who claim "nothing." You're posing a strawman argument.

A freaking explosion, which is created from nothing (where did the molecules and crap to cause the explosion come from in the first place?) can't create anything. NOTHING. The explosion couldn't have happened unless someone or something put the molecules or w/e (im still in high-school, leave me alone)in the universe to begin with.

OK, when did the heat come from that causes volcanos to errupt? If two naturally occurring chemicals combine and cause an explosion, did God personally do that? Maybe. More than likely not, IMO, because I doubt God is some control freak, micromanager, who has to manipulate everything down to the molecular level. If so, then God really is to blame when a baby gets squashed by a tree whose roots have grown weak and hits a house, or a puppy gets run over when slippery roads cause a car to steer the wrong way, or... and then of course, according to some, this same deity insists we don't dare challenge him. Frankly that kind of God is closer to pure evil, IMO, as would be worshiping such a hideous thing. Of course, others believe differently. That's OK too.

[Jack]

If God doesn't exist, which I have deemed impossible, (no offence, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that God must exist - waits to get flamed)

Flaming isn't permitted, so it that happens, it will be dealt with. We do however expect people who make absolute statements to be able to support them with more than subjective experience. I agree it doesn't take a genius to figure out that god must exist. So what evidence do you offer?

[Devout_Muslim]

So what evidence do you offer?

The basic logic that comes from knowing something can't come out of nothing.

Who said it came from "nothing?" Even atheists understand something doesn't come out of nothing. The question here would be, was there nothing before? If you wish to believe that, fine. Proving it? Impossible, only because proving something doesn't exist, or didn't exist, is a fool's errand. Theological takes on such don't count, because by definition they are mostly subjective and opinion.

Atheism is inherently flawed when they claimed the big bang happened from nothing. If God doesn't exist, where did the material to cause the big bang come from?

if God is playing by a different set of rules

I never said I believed that, it's just a possibility.

First off, no offense taken, of course I'm a theist with agnostic tendencies, so I may not count as much when defending actual atheists. But once again, false assumption. I know of no atheists, and I know many, who claim "nothing." You're posing a strawman argument.

The question remains unanswered. The big bang couldn't have happened without materials to fuel it. Where did the materials come from without God?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim The basic logic that comes from knowing something can't come out of nothing.

Anyone who knows anything about the Big Bang and cosmology, knows that the BB didn't come from "nothing. It is quite conceiveable that prior to the bang, then universe was nothing more than hot energy, no matter "AS WE KNOW IT" existed, just energy. The Cosmic Microwave Background is evidence of this. On a quantum level however, quantum particles pop into and out of existence and can also be in two places at once. This has been witnessed. The theist who claims that God is eternal, can not "honestly" deny that if a god can be eternal, that energy can be also. How did the big bang start? We don't know and we honestly admit that. We do know that the model for matter forming seconds after the big bang works and there is evidence to support it, this is why it is so widely accepted withing the scientific community.

Atheism is inherently flawed when they claimed the big bang happened from nothing. If God doesn't exist, where did the material to cause the big bang come from?

Atheism has NOTHING to say about the BB. Atheist is either the implicit lack of belief in god(s), or the explicit belief that god(s) do not exist. The "material" is believed to be pure raw energy, one of the basic laws of physics is that energy can not be created or distroyed. It is also believed that physics as we know it, works the same everywhere in the observable universe. If energy can't be created or distroyed, it would imply that a god couldn't create it and thus, energy is eternal.

The question remains unanswered. The big bang couldn't have happened without materials to fuel it. Where did the materials come from without God?

Where did God come from? Your lack of knowledge regarding the BB is understandable. Before joining these debate forums my knowledge was lacking as well. To fill in this the gaps of knowledge with a "goddidit" answer is intellectual dishonest. I admit that science can only speculate about the state of the universe prior to the big bang as being pure energy, because our understanding of physics breaks down just pico seconds after the bang occured. However, this speculation of energy being eternal would tend to make sense in light of the fact that it can't be created or destroyed. If you ask where did the energy come from, I'll counter it with where did god come from, and if you say god is eternal, I'll say energy is eternal and neither of us will get anywhere. Ultimately it is up to you to decide. I choose energy being eternal because we already know it can't be created or destroyed, we have proven that.

Another misconception in the theists argument is the question of time. Science says that "Time Began" at the big bang and thus the universe "AS WE KNOW IT" began at the time as well. The ONLY reason it is said that "time began" is because if we look at the definition if time, it is the duration between events. Prior to the BB, there we're no events (that we know of) so there when the BB occured, that was Event #1, then atoms formed out of the hot energy, event 2, and now we have a durtation(time). Does that make sense? I know it's a hard concept to grasp and explain. I posted this on another forum and it came out a bit better (was I thinking more clear? Maybe.) But that forum isn't running right now, when it comes back up, I'll try to find it as it was a more clear explanation of the above and has links to references.