Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

Ye Must Have Faith...
Seems you've gone and defined "God" in the typical Judeo-Christian terms.

First we will start with your first definition: "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."

God is all things, so why in your definition have you only focused on "goodness". "positive forces," and "biological endeavor?" You seem to have short-change "all that God is," in your definition.

Your end with your comment: "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"!)."

When has religion been an exact science? If you insist on using this argument, you might as well deny the existence of "Love." Faith is the overriding factor, in any belief of a religious doctrine or moral tenant. "Doubt" is for non-believers. You, yourself state: "it is dificult to insist that these concepts, or ideas do not, or cannot exist."

Now to your second aspect: "need." I ask, "functioning of the universe" or "functioning of mankind?" When has mankind, or all that mankind is, had any degree of necessity of the universe?… Never!!!

"Man created god in his image"…, like he has been doing since the beginning of his time. It was a way of him attempting to understand and explain, the mystery of life. Mythologies are filled with these man-like deities. I would hope that this Judeo-Christian-Islamic notion of "god" will soon become another Mythology.

God is life, in all shapes and forms. Any reasonable, honest person, can understand, this.

I couldn't have said it better myself. (And I tried!)

Re: Ye Must Have Faith...

Essense of proof is persuasion. If one is convinced of "this", the proof has been done (in a positive way and in its own definition of God).

Re: Ferrous' comments
The broadness of my sample definitions was so in order to include, for example the god"ness" of Bhudism, with which I have no problem.

Your comment "God is all things" is a little presumptive within an argument, don't you think?

"When has religion been an exact science?"; I agree with your rhetorical question, entirely! And I also agree that "love" would afford an excellent sequel to this thread.

I'm afraid "faith" though, just won't do it. I believe our assignment was to seek a proof, not merely an affirmation. If no-one "doubted" there would be no discussion, and it would be a pretty sad universe if we all agreed on everything!

As to the necessity of the universe, I thought it made a nice venue for this little discussion; would you prefer to do it somewhere else?

I concur with your wish to hurry the "Judeo- Christian-Islamic notion of "god" " into the anals of mythical anecdote.

Your last comment "God is life, in all shapes and forms. Any reasonable, honest person, can understand, this." brings us full circle to my opening point:

It all depends upon definition!

BTW if I sound a little frivolous in part, no disrespect is intended; I have learnt to respect your opinions, and expect with a name like
"ferrous - iron" they might be somewhat "weighty".

BoGoWo
I too, have respect for your opinions and thoughts. Your thought provoking insight to an argument, gives us much to consider, and I find myself, always learning something new.

My time spent, learning to understand "Native American" thoughts on religion have led me there. The land, trees, rocks, wind, etc, all are a part of oneness. When I speak of "God is all things" I am projecting a universal thought. It can even go further, if one recognizes the sheer power of life force (energy) permeating through time and space (but that is another subject.)

If we are to ask "What of God" how can we not ask "What of Love?" Greek Mythology, twenty-five hundred years ago, expressed it aptly:

"In the past, uncounted ages ago, there was only the formless confusion of Chaos brooded over by unbroken darkness. Somehow in this shapeless nothingness, two children were born from Chaos. Night was the child of Chaos and so was Erebus, which is the unfathomable depth where death dwells. In the whole universe there was nothing else; all was black, empty, silent, and endless.

And then a marvel of marvels came to pass. In some mysterious way, from this horror of blank vacancy, the best of all things came into being.
From darkness and death, Love was born and with it birth, order and beauty to banish blind confusion. Love created Light and its companion, radiant Day."

I glad to see that we agree on the timely demise of this Judeo-Christian-Islamic notion.

The last point, definitely, is definition. I do seem to get on my soapbox when I hear Christians or Muslims use the term "God" as if they are the only ones that have a lock on the old guy. The concept of atheists have me somewhat confused. Are they denying the existence of God or the existence of this Judeo-Christian-Islamic god?

Which God are we trying to prove, exists?

ferrous, I'm an atheist. For me, there is no god. I believe that 'nature' supercedes everything in our life. All things we experience are all 'natural.' Wars, religions, politics, science, foods, drinks, earth, sun, moon, universe, galaxies, are all part of nature. Human life just happens to be a small part of 'everything.' c.i.

Doesn't make sense
Seems to me, that we need a clear definition of what we're refering to as, God, before we can accept or deny the existence of such. You tell me that you are an atheist, but that you are a believer also... Which is it?

You deny the existence of a man made god, but believe in some random order of things, you call nature. I call it life. And yes, "Human Life" is just a very small part of "All Life."

Seems you are an atheist and I am a believer, and we seem to believe in the same thing.

The god I refer to are all the definitions created by man usually based in culture or groups that believe in some form of super power or creator. They include all the organized religions of the world, plus any group that believes in the worship of something/anything. c.i.

proof
C.I., I totally agree. It may be speculated that humans have constructed the notion of the "supernatural" to account for things they cannot account for in the "natural". But there can only be one reality; it's either natural or super ("above/beyond") natural. Frankly, I prefer the former. And as we progress in our knowledge of the natural world, for example in medicine, we drop our supernatural explanations (for illness or whatever) because they are no longer useful. But notice how rare it is that humans drop a naturalistic explanation IN FAVOR OF supernatural ones. The arrow of progress tends to go forward not backward.

the myth of jesus or buddha, or the great spirit are exemplary, but not necessary. there is no story that must be told. stories do not have a truth that must be told. stories do not have a truth that someone needs to reveal, or that someone needs to hear. it is part of the myth of jesus that it makes itself unnecessary; it is a narrative of the world becoming flesh, of language becoming history, a narrative of of the word becoming flesh and dying, of history entering into language. Who listens to his myth cannot rise above history to utter timeless truths about it. It is not necessary for a valid man to be christian-indeed it is not possible for a valid man to be christian in any serious sense. neither is it possible to be buddhist, or muslim, or atheist, or for that matter, a new yorker. all titles can only be abstractions, mere performances, valid men are not serious actors in any story but, rather, joyful poets of a story that continues to originate what cannot be finished.

dys, You may call them abstractions, but those who believe in their religions live believing in them. For them, it's serious business, and they spend many of their waking hours devoted to the teachings and their attempts to live by it. Some extremists die for it. c.i.

truth
Dyslexia. I thought I was having a stroke or an attack of aphasia.

JLNobody sorry bout that

dyslexia
It's quite obvious, that you have no understanding of Buddhism or certain Native American religions, when you speak of them as myths. I would recommend a deeper understanding of them, before you go "start shooting from the hip," and so easily, dismiss them.

As for Jesus, as a myth, it really is a shame what his teaching have come to represent.

ferrous; i have have a fairly good understanding of "native american" religions having been raised in the home of a "native american" grandfather. perhaps a further understanding of "myth" is in order. it is not a derogatory term and generally refers to the "lore" of a culture. so i do take offense at "It's quite obvious, that you have no understanding of Buddhism or certain Native American religions"

indeed, myth is the highest form of listening to each other, of offering a silence that makes the speech of the other possible. Which is why listening is far more valued by religion than speaking. Fides ex auditu. The opposite of listening is amplification. A choir is the unified expression of voices resonating with each other, a loud speaker is the ampfication of a single voice, excluding all others. A bell resonates, a cannon amplifies. We listen to a bell, we are silenced by the cannon. When a single voice is sufficiently amplified, it becomes a speaking that makes it impossible for other voices to be heard. We do not listen to a loudspeaker for what is being said, but only because it is all that is being said. Authoritarian speech is amplified speech, it is speech that silences. Authoritarian speech is a mode of command, and therefore speech designed to bring itself to an end as completly and swiftly as possible. There is no conversation possible with a loudspeaker.

myth
Dyslexia, I love your response to Ferrous (and even better, I understand it). But I think Ferrous was indicating (wrongly in your case) that one should not demean myths as collective falsehoods. I believe they are, but only in the sense that all human culture is a fabrication, artificial constructions, of an otherwise meaningless reality (except to a mystic who has learned to identify with and swim, as it were, in nature's chaos). But let me note that anthropologists for the most part think of myth, not as untruths, but more or less as stories of a people that (1) help to make sense of their lives, (2) justify moral systems of proscriptions and prescriptions, and (3) justify systems of authority and the status quo (customary institutions)--and, by the way, they are sometimes reinterpreted and invoked to justify change, even revolutionary change. So, it is irrelevant whether or not the myth be true or false (to an outsider); it is TREATED as if it were true by cultural insiders. And if there were insider or native sociologists on hand they might explain that it is treated as if it were true, meaning its veracity is unchallenged because of its justificatory functions. Nietzsche (and later anthropologists) also included the function of marking a boundary around the group: it is a distinct "ethnic" community, a society, because its myths (and other customs) are different from those of others.

According to the bible that some of us studied in our "religions" God is love, love is God. "It is the Father within who does the works, not I," said Jesus.

How can you who claim there is no "God" prove love doesn't exist? The only "way" we can reach that part of ourselves is to lift off all else that is not love. And, that journey is, always has been, into our own self. Since religions don't actually teach this concept directly, what use do I have of them?


Tex-Star

Tex, Here's a clue why religion has not been successful; all countries with religion still require civil laws to protect other citizens. No matter how much you may believe that religion teaches love, it just hasn't worked. If religion was successful, we wouldn't need civil laws to protect others from crime and wars. c.i.

When I use the term myth, it is defined from a course I took in college. This definition has three segements:

1. It is a story/tale that happened long ago.
2. It involves, in part, things out of the ordinary and/or of the super natural.
3. It is believed.

This definition does not say it is not true. I do realize that some people use it with a negative connotation; and, this is unfortunate!

Have a blessed day, one and all!