Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

I am not the medieval Spanish inquisitor, and I support the principle of freedom of conscience. If you do not believe in God, that is your right.

Booman, Just playing the "devil's advocate." I just challenge things that do not seem logical to me. c.i.

"Are you talkin' to me?"
"Are you talkin' to me?"

Just kiddin' C.I., you're a man after my own heart...Once, 2 friends an I, on a non- stop 20 hour road trip, debated this same stuff. It was one of the most pleasurable and enlightening times of my life.

c.i. ..
Properties of "wrong" or "right" can be logical ones, and personality is not required in a logical consideration.

satt, If you haven't noticed yet, emotion has much to do with human right and wrong. c.i.

To take away personality from humans is not logical. c.i.

If I understand the christian religion, the belief is that "man is created in god's image." c.i.

c.i. ..
For the moment I have been limiting my argument to the logical aspect (Godel's proof). If you would like me to be involved in emotional aspects I must afraid that it could lead to emotional debates.

satt, Not necessary. Can we just agree to disagree at this point, and let it go at that? c.i.

satt, Re your post of Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:35 pm :

"Logic can prove negative. If a system A is shown to be contradictory (typically '1=0') inside, A does not serve to any purpose."

I am not sure I understand. Could you elaborate on this a little?

Thanks, JM

c.i. ..
"If god has no personality, how would he know there is wrong and right?"

[G]od has no necessity to be involved in emotional affairs for "wrong" or "right" to be determined.

JamesMorrison..
My response to you is an objection to your statement,

"If one tries to employ logic to prove God Does not exist one must come to an abrupt halt simply because one of the tenets of logic is that you cannot prove a negative."

Logic has no difficulty about proving inconsistency (negative) of some logical system A, if it is inconsistent.

satt, Since god created wrong and right, he is guilt of the original sin. c.i.

Why God doesn't exist.

It is because of the Babel fish that God doesn't exist.

The Babel fish is a small, yellow anf leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received from not it's own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It the excretes into the mind of it's carrier a telephatic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them.

The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything that is said to you in any form of language.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggely useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.".

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED".

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that!" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

http://ramtops.net/babel.html

If "wrong" was not done, the existence of idea of "wrong" would not be a sin.

satt,

I was refering to classical logic. In classic logic one cannot prove a negative assertion. If one asserts that something does not exist one must disprove an infinite amount of arguments that it does exist. Scince the amount of arguments is infinite, no matter how many arguments one disproves there is always at least one more that has not been proven, thus making the proof incomplete and it therefore fails.

Are you perhaps refering to Boolean operators such as NOT?

If A = 1 then
NOT A = 0

or perhaps logical operators such as AND / OR?

JM

BillW..
Very impressive quote.
Socrates would have objected the sophistry involved.

JamesMorrison..
When I talk about logic it is modern logic.
Within inconsistent system, every statement can be proved true.

Suppose that "0=1" be true.
Let us define the values of the variable x as
x = true if 1
x = false if 0.

Then "true = false" as "0=1", and hence "0=1" is false as it was supposed to be true.
Hence,
0=1 implies not(0=1).

boolean boolean to you satt!

satt, You lost me. c.i.