Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

Divine intervention
Now Here is someone who knows there is a God.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/855518.asp?0si=-

Mostly prayer. c.i.

If one proves something does exist does this, in fact, prove that something does not "doesn't exist"?

BillW, I've always had problems with double negatives. LOL c.i.

c.i., confusing!

The very fact of existence of this thread, and of failure to prove non-existence of God, proves that atheism is a kind of religion. It is based on faith. Faith in absence of God, just like any of the "normal" religions is based on faith of God's (or gods') existence. No logical proof can be provided for either of these apporaches. So, the only thing left is to believe, or to impose doubt on everything (including alleged non-existence of God).

godel
Terry's exposition of Godel's "proof" reveals the limitations of logic for understanding the world. Good, evil, truth, falsehood, perfection, etc. etc. (the elements of his theorems) are all constructs having to do with our linguistically ordered minds/cultures rather than with any "objective" characteristics of the extra-linguistic/mental/cultural world.

JLN, Phew! Thank you. I thought I was beginning to miss something important in my thinking process - although that's still a possibiity. c.i.

Nonsense. I am an atheist, but it is not a matter of faith--there is no deity. I responded to this thread because it was started by someone whom i consider to be my friend here at this site. When it comes right down to it, however, it is a ridiculous concept--as has been pointed out more than once in this thread. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything. The existence of a deity is an extraordinary claim--those making such claims have the burden of proof, not those denying them. As for the imposition of doubt, that is a damned good idea, the one which underlies scientific inquiry.

proof
Steissd, your point is subtle but without merit otherwise. I am an "atheist" insofar as I see no evidence for the theistic claim. But this does not amount to a religion "based on faith." I do not BELIEVE in a no-God and worship him.

steissd
Based on the definition of religion it is pretty clear that athiesim can not be considered as a religion. Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back —more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 : archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Re: godel


That pretty much nails my perception of the matter. Well said.



timber

There are two ontological aspects of "deity" that I would suggest considering ; firstly the definition of the "god' being considered is all important; if the definition is so broad as to encompass "all go(o)dness", the ultimate object of all positive forces, the ideal by which biological endeavour be measured, it is dificult to insist that these concepts, or ideas do not, or cannot exist.
Surely it is its embodyment that is in question, and in this there is no satisfying body of evidence to reach even the legal level of beyond a reasonable doubt it seems the only reason involved here refers to the "doubt"!).

The second aspect which carries the day in my opinion, is need.
There is no aspect of any proposed deity that can be demonstrated to hold any degree of necessity in the functioning of this universe. In fact the way things are progressing, as we become more and more aware of the mechanics of our suroundings, it becomes less and less likely that any non corporeal being is in any way effecting our environment, or our lives.

I would suggest that anyone suspecting, for any reason, tradition, emotional attachment, need, whatever, that there is a supernatural control operating on our universe, consider in their day to day lives, and the grander plan of the cosmic evolution taking place before our eyes, if there would be any clearly visible differences in how things transpire, if there were no deities present.

Any reasonably honest person can prove it to themself !

Go BoGoWo Go!

BillW; I feel like I should be barking!

Gee, I thought it more in the mode of

"Fight Team Fight!
Go BoGoWo Go!"

But, I can see that we could mix in a little -

"Good Girl" or "Good Boy"

Depending, of course, on gender!

Belief in God is the will and trust, not logic. Enlightenment is the experience, not knowledge.

Yes, knowledge certainly is at odds with the veneration of a superstitiously-inspired being. That would explain well why fundamentalists are so opposed to education or reading outside the context of "scripture" or "sciptural commentary."

faith and trust oft suffice for those who tire of thinking.

You could not say a trial of proof of the existence of God was a superstition.