Disproving the Existence of God

[Hairyloon]

And a god with limited powers is no god at all.

This seems to be a central tenet to Dawkins and many other atheists argument.

It is wrong.

The Greeks, Romans, Norse and Hindu all believe(d) in a pantheon of gods, none of which were omnipotent.

 

Clearly if you choose to define "God" as something that cannot possibly exist, then it should be easy to show that it does not.

[six45ive]

This seems to be a central tenet to Dawkins and many other atheists argument.

It is wrong.

The Greeks, Romans, Norse and Hindu all believe(d) in a pantheon of gods, none of which were omnipotent.

 

Clearly if you choose to define "God" as something that cannot possibly exist, then it should be easy to show that it does not.

 

You're obviously new to this thread and probably haven't read most of it but we're talking mainly about a theistic god.

[six45ive]

Everybody’s god is different to everybody else’s god, individually crafted in the minds of each individual to appear rational to each mind that created it. The ultimate sock-puppet. Such a creation is pretty immune to any chance of being "disproved".

 

In addition, nearly everybody’s god is the result of significant “investment” on the part of each individual, so there is little incentive to wanting it disproved or an even Gollum like protection of the precious invention.

 

So why bother trying to disprove such a creation?

 

Well, if every god was simply the deistic imaginings of evildrneil, or the personal god imagined in most minds, then there would be no need to disprove the un-disprovable because each god’s views would simply be a projection of the host’s views.

 

The problem stems from the fact that most gods are schizophrenic. Because most hosts place their god in the category of Christian god, Muslim god, or whatever, then suddenly their god is expected to hold contradictory positions. I vividly remember listening to poisonous sermons about the evils of abortion, homosexuality and women going to work, and thinking to myself “that’s not my god he’s talking about”. And yet I was still sat there, in church, silently giving tacit approval.

 

It’s religion, not non-existent gods, that poisons everything, because it gives tacit approval to horrible ideas from people with self appointed authority.

 

The penny dropped for most gnu atheists on 9/11. We realised that it was not enough to accept apologists that reply with, "that’s not my god they are representing" in response to terrorists or preachers that promote primitive ideologies.

 

We’re not out to impossibly disprove the personal god that people thank for their safety, health, exam results or promotion. We are out to disprove, the theistic definition of god, the dictator god, the women hating god, the gay hating god, the science hating god, the sexually repressed god, the suicide bombing god. I’m sorry if believers think it’s their personal god we’re attacking, but whilst they tacitly support it whist going to certain places of worship, it is their god as well.

 

Excellent post quisquose. It sums up perfectly what this thread is about.

[redwhine]

>snip<

 

As I've repeatedly said through this thread, a lot of believers consider proof of God's existence to be absolutely irrelavent to their faith-

They don't care whether what they base their life on is real or not? How stupid is that?!

 

...it's atheists who fixate on the proof issue as the prime/only thing worth considering where religion is concerned and, it's deeply irrational to expect religious believers to share that fixation.

You've got that the wrong way round. I'm a atheist and I'm not too bothered what people choose to believe. It's when believers force me to feel the effects of their fixations that I have a problem with them.

[onewheeldave]

Atheists lack a belief in god, and that's it.

 

A small minority might require proof, but to assume we all do is to be ignorant of what atheism is, or what proof and/or evidence is.

 

Some evidence would be nice.

 

If I may be allowed to bastardise your quote:

 

It's the sane who fixate on evidence as the prime/only thing worth considering where decision making is concerned and, it's deeply irrational to expect the insane to share that fixation.

 

 

Well, my quote was-

 

As I've repeatedly said through this thread, a lot of believers consider proof of God's existence to be absolutely irrelevant to their faith- it's atheists who fixate on the proof issue as the prime/only thing worth considering where religion is concerned and, it's deeply irrational to expect religious believers to share that fixation.

 

It's refering to the fact that, generally, people do not require proof for all their decision making.

 

It's actually difficult to come up with good examples, as, when spirituality is concerned, fundamentalist atheists routinely misunderstand/misinterpret what is said (examples in this thread include misinterpreting 'rational arguments by believers' as necessarily being arguments trying to prove God's existence, or, the recent example involving what the Chilean miner said).

 

So, as non-religious/spiritual example, I'll take art.

 

Lots of controversies/questions/decisions to be made, including, 'what is art', 'what is good art', is 'some of what passes as art actually not art' etc, etc.

 

None of which are particularly subject to scientific resolution.

 

Let's suppose that the atheists succeed in their quest to eliminate religion, might they be tempted to turn their attention to art, and insist that to qualify as 'art', an item must be measured by 'art scientists' who can measure the artistic value of the object?

 

That would be an innapropriate use of science.

 

Appreciators of art do not require evidence to judge the value of a piece (or rather, to be totally accurate, it would be safer to say that appreciators do not necessarily require evidence, as, it could be argued, that some appreciators do have a fixed framework of references by which they judge a piece).

 

Now, going back to faith- the fundamental question that fundamentalist atheists fixate on is the issue of proof of God's existence, or lack thereof: seeming to imply that, if there is no proof or strong physical evidence of God's existence, then people should not have faith or follow religious practices etc.

 

(apologies for the use of the term 'fundamentalist atheist'- it's just that I need to distinguish them from atheists in general, as many atheists/agnostics do not attack religion, i'm happy for people to suggest alternatives).

 

When it comes to faith, many believers, in contrast, do not require proof, and/or consider proof to be irrelevant.

 

That is often because, they have a personal relationship with God- as far as they are concerned, they, in whatever sense, feel God to be real and feel there is some form of communication tween them and God.

 

They are aware of the atheist hypothesese that such a feeling is nothing to do with a physically existing God, but rather, is caused by their own inner mental processes (e.g. a delusion/hallucination), but, they don't care- for several possible reasons, e.g.

 

1. there's no way to prove either way whether the feeling emanates from God or delusion

 

2. they find the relationship so valuable that they go along with it

 

3. the feeling is so real (to them), that they totally accept it (in the same way that we can hypothesise the whole world is a delusion (Matrix style), yet, despite the fact that there is no final proof that the world is/is not real, even hardcore scientific atheists will happily go along with the assumption that the world is real, not because of evidence, but because, ultimately, it just seems to be really real.)

 

4. Jung had a theory and spiritual practice based on the existence of powerful archetypal beings- when asked how he knew they were real, rather than simply products of his own subconscious, he replied that it didn't matter (to him)- his interactions with the beings was so valuable that he did not care about the difference

 

That's just 4 off the top of my head- nothing too detailed, just broad brush strokes to establish some possibilites for why those with faith do not care about proof/evidence (by which I mean scientifically admissable evidence) for the existence of the God they have a relationship with.

 

And, this, IMO, is the big problem in this current 'debate' tween fundamntalist atheists and believers.

 

The atheists simply cannot relate to the kind of viewpoints I touch on above- which is why the vast majority of published and video 'debates' are atheists taking on fundamentalist believers, rather than rational, well-adjusted believers.

 

Partly cos, when it comes to rational, well-adjusted believers, they have little interest in getting involved with these ego-ridden intellectual contests, whereas fundamentalist believers are total suckers for them.

 

Partly cos, if they do get involved with a debate with an atheist, they simply do not get pulled into the questions that the atheist wants to cover i.e. questions soley about whether there is evidence/proof for god. The points the rational believer wants to cover are ones that the atheist either cannot, or, is unwilling to debate (i.e. some of the ones I cover above).

[redwhine]

>snip<

 

Let's suppose that the atheists succeed in their quest to eliminate religion, might they be tempted to turn their attention to art, and insist that to qualify as 'art', an item must be measured by 'art scientists' who can measure the artistic value of the object?

 

>snip<

Atheists withhold belief in god/gods. That's all. You have been told this previously in this thread. You misrepresent atheists by suggesting that they have a quest at all, never mind the specific one to which you refer.

 

If religion was eliminated, you'd have to ask the a-artists whether they want to eliminate art or not. Atheists don't have a collective opinion on the matter.

[sccsux]

then it should be easy to show that it does not.

 

Should it?

 

Then it should be easy to prove this does not exist? Or that there isn't a planet inhabited by intelligent, 6 eyed fruits?

[milquetoast1]

the burden of proof is on me if I wish to claim spiritual truths exist, and on you if you wish to claim they don't.

 

This seems to be a central tenet to Dawkins and many other atheists argument.

It is wrong.

The Greeks, Romans, Norse and Hindu all believe(d) in a pantheon of gods, none of which were omnipotent.

 

Clearly if you choose to define "God" as something that cannot possibly exist, then it should be easy to show that it does not.

 

There clearly persists this idea that the burden of proof lies just as much with atheists as it does with theists.

 

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person making the claims.

 

Let's examine the claims:

 

1. Theist: There is a god.

2. Atheist: I don't believe in the claim made in 1.

 

If the theist has the burden of proof then he has an obligation to define god and then provide sufficient evidence for their position.

 

If the atheist has the burden of proof then he has an obligation to establish what the theist means by god and then provide sufficient evidence against their position.

 

In other words, the theist has the burden of proof.

 

But as I said earlier, some evidence would be a start.

[*_ash_*]

Ash, I am an outward looking, giving, generous person who is interested in the happiness and welfare of other people who are more important to me than I am to myself.

I'm not doubting that Grahame.

The line of thinking you and others are taking reminds me of someone who is selfish, self centred, introverted, and only interested in themselves. This is the exact opposite of Christianity. My apologies if I misunderstand the meaning of self-awareness but "self" is an anathema to me and I hate it. To my mind love of 'self' and putting self first is responsible for most of the troubles in the world.

Then either you have misunderstood it, or I have, and in turn you've misunderstood me. There is a difference in the meaning of love oneself, and know oneself. They aren't the same thing.

 

Look again at the beginning of the originally quoted post...

'Know thyself'. Develop awareness. Face your shadow.

[milquetoast1]

<snip nonsense>

 

My flabber is well and truly gasted.