Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

Scientific proof is an accumulation of observable events which form a pattern and serve as an explanation until new data is accumulated, offering a new theory which will serve as a scientific "fact" until new data is accumulated.......etc. So, it seems to be a "fact" by definition that one cannot prove nor disprove any theory, including the existence of God. However, by use of the scientific method, certain observable "facts" are much more likely than others. We can't prove that there aren't little men in white coats, running about in our brains pulling levers and flipping switches, resulting in affective sensation. But it is highly unlikely to be the case. I have seen no evidence for the existence of God. Actually I see plenty of "proof" that no God exists. There is much more scientific proof that the theory of the process of evolution explains at least in part the development of what we understand to be living matter. As far as I know, there is no other method of determining an explanation for what is than scientific observation. And that's good enough for me until we have more data.

Hi, Amv, and welcome to A2k. I agree whole heartedly that "It's your duty to yourself to seek answers". I submit however, that the eloquent "Proofs" you mention of GOD's exisistence all presuppose there in fact would be a deity. A valid premise cannot develop from a flawed hypothesis, nor can a valid proof of a thing or condition be wholly internally referential. Whether or not there may be deity, "GOD" is surely an invention of humans, as far as I am able to determine, and the concept does not stand to reason. Others, of course, are welcome to their own determinations.



timber

amv, There are also many other books that argues against the existence of god(s). The first one that comes to mind are those that has to do with the subject of "Logic." c.i.

I am surprised that all of you so quickly brush off my three proofs:

One -- You are yourself fascinated with God.
Two -- You cannot swear well without God.
Three -- Music, which if not inspired by a god, is at least inspired by an ephemeral, immortal Muse whose genius far surpasses any human.

proof of God's existence
Amy, I know of no philosophers who accept the "proofs" of God's existence by such thinkers as Descartes and Aristotle. Many theologians do, however--and this should tell volumes about the lack of objectivity in this matter. A scientific proposition is not one that can be proven true; it's one that can be proven wrong. It is "falsifiable!" All other propositions are non-scientific. They may be metaphysical in nature, and interesting--even true--but NOT scientific propositions. The proposition for God's existence belongs, clearly, in the latter category. By the way, Amy, is it not the case that we should--in Christian doctrine at least--learn from Doubting Thomas that faith is sufficient; indeed, is it not the criterion for religious right-mindedness? If we need proof then we have no faith. And, more importantly, if the existence of God were truly proven (and I don't refer the word games of classical philosophy), then religion, as we understand it, would have come to an end. The God we BELIEVED in would then become a mere KING, a ruler. Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead" would become more like a news report than a philosophical-sociological assertion about the growing irrelevance of religion for European society.

Re: proof of God's existence


A most astute and to-the-point observation. I see Theology by its very nature the antithesis of objectivity, and one of humankind's more troublesome inventions.



timber

a pretty simple question comes to my mind regarding any attempt to "prove" the existence of a god. Define what is god? without first defining what it is to be proved one cannot proceed with coherency.

dys, Good point! Only christians seem to know that Jesus is made in the image of god. hiccup! c.i.

By JLNobody's definition, belief or faith in God falls under the catagory of analogy........God representing something.....a wish, a feeling, a defense against conflict and thus anxiety or fear......and as such it is not inconsequential to the individual believer (in God), but not at all provable by scientific standards.

Pifka.
...your take on music intrigues me. I was raised as a baptist, but after becoming disenchanted with organized religion,and considering myself a spiritual being , if pressed to state my religion I say music. Not only does musc bring the masses together, but it is the one thing men can achiebe perfection in, on a regular basis. Perfect rhythmn, timing, and pitch.

Booman, Your perfect "rhythmn, timing, and pitch" may be noise polution to others. Don't be discouraged, though. Like religion, belief is in the ear of the listener. c.i.

Good point c.i. It seems the real point always comes down to any given person's right to impose their own idiocyncratic definition of God onto others. Respect for individual differences is the subject here, I think

Religion and belief in God is based on faith and nothing more. You either have or you don't. Attempting to find proof one way or the other is an exercise in futility.

au, The one inconsistency I find dogging about the bible is that god was ready to perform all kinds of miracles to prove his existence, like a few loaves of bread and a few baskets of fishes that fed thousands, but we don't see similar types of miracles in the past two thousand years. Why does god treat those of us living in a different time period different from those living in jesus' time? What miracle repeated from the bible a second time will prove god's existence? The answer? Because the stories in the bible are all fiction. c.i.

And as in all good fiction, analogy

simple science: hypothesis=white men cant jump
1. define white
2. define men
3. define jump
proceed

God's existence
Lola, metaphor? C.I., you are right, of course, about the fantasy/fictional nature of biblical stories when taken literally. I feel it's best to read such tales with an interpretive orientation, assuming that there is some philosophical value in the tale. Sometimes I find some, often not, but that may reflect my limiation. Adam and Eve's original sin and expulsion can have an interesting interpretation--at least for me: They were instructed not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but they did, and in consequence lost their place in Paradise. One can argue that when they ate from the tree of knowledge, they--by that very act--transformed themselves from "innocent" creatures living in Nature "holistically" as it were. This precognitive, pre-reflective state of mind, where the world is not broken up into the dichotomies of good/bad, true/false, beautiful/ugly, etc. etc. is I guess the world as experienced by animals. But once we divided the world into parts (eating from the tree of Knowledge of parts) we (Adam and Eve) lost the whole-ness (or perhaps the holiness) of life. That is to say, we ejected ourselves from the mystical bliss of Paradise. Such interpretations are neither true nor false: they may be inspiring, orienting, broadening--or not. Depending on the reader.

God's existence
A good, albeit stuffy, way of phrasing this difference between an orientation to the world in terms of its One-ness or in terms of its conceived parts comes from the philosopher/social thinker, F.S.C. Northrup: (where "aesthetic" refers to experience) "the differentiated aesthetic continuum" VERSUS "the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum."

I came across this phrase in 1962. Understood it immediately and never forgot it.

Great interpretation J.L.,If you're that close to my interpretation, you must be right. :wink:

I agree, JL, the story can be interpreted in many ways, but it's easy to see the connection to self awareness, consciousness of self and time, space, causation, etc. The concept of choosing awareness and self reflection seems an odd one to me and is a defect in the story, in a way. Because human consciousness and sense of self were not chosen, but rather were a maturational process. However, I think we could understand the story as being about a choice of conflict management. When good and bad, love and hate, etc. are strongly felt simultaneously, internal conflict results and a need for a method of management emerges. So the story could be about the choice to use denial in relation to ourselves or to allow conscious awareness. Conscious awareness which, magnificent in the sense of discovery, is a painful state and can feel like a loss of innocence.