Prove god doesnt exist

[OS,JMT,IT]

Im in an arugment and i know theresd lots of intelligience on this ofurm, some one give me a good arguement how god doesnt exist please, thanks

[4ged]

Edited with more complete version of original quotations. 

The following are selected quotes from the book Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H.  Smith published by Prometheus Books of Amherst, New York in 1989.  The book is a meticulously thorough destruction of theistic belief which covers a wide variety of topics.  The reason why I like this book is that it does not grant the theist unwarranted ground, as so many atheist text do.  By failing to adequately critique the premises of theistic belief, many atheists a drawn into a stale mate were they are forced to concede that they ‘can’t prove god doesn’t exist’.  Smith prevents the discussion from reaching this point by pointing out that in order for a position to warrant refutation, it must be intelligible.  For this reason Smith demonstrates in the early chapters of his book that the theistic concept of god is little more then contradictory gibberish.  The book goes on to discuss other topics such sense perception, design arguments and ethics, but it is from an earlier chapter The Concept of God which the following quotes are drawn. 

Just to clarify Smith states, controversially, that everyone is either an atheist or a theist, he does not consider agnosticism (the belief that god is unknowable) to be a middle ground because agnosticism deals with a different question.   Theism/Atheism is about does God exist, Agnosticism is about is god knowable.   Agnosticism is not a middle ground because you still can be, and in fact are, either a theist or an athiest even if you believe God is unknowable.   Some people believe god is completely unknowable, but still believe in God (theist agnostic), while others believe god is completely unknowable and don't believe in God (atheist agnostic).    Some might refuse to answer, but that doesn't escape the fact that they either do or don't believe in God.


“To be, is to be something, as opposed to nothing, and to be something, is to be something specific.  If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific – but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.  A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without limited nature – which amounts to existing without nature at all. ”

“If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified.  But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude that possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god – because by so doing we being our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law. ”

“The theist, even if he agrees with this analysis, is bound to remain singularly unimpressed.  To the charge that we cannot “comprehend “supernatural” existence, that it makes no sense to the human mind, the theist is liable reply, “See, I told you so.  God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable. ”

“This is the standard defence against any objection to the metaphysical impossibility o a supernatural being.  The theist and the atheist may well agree that a supernatural being cannot be grasped by the human mind; but whereas the atheist wishes to scrap the notion of god for this reason, the theist uses it as evidence that god falls beyond the scope of human understanding.  Thus, so long as the discussion remains on this level, an impasse I reached – which indicates that we need to examine a more basic issue.  We must move from metaphysics to epistemology.  As is often the case this is where the fundamental disagreement lies; this is where the major battle will take place- and, ultimately, this is where the conflict will be decided. ”

“The belief that god is basically unknowable is the most important epistemological element of theistic belief.  It is shared by all theists to some extent, who disagree only with regard to what degree, if any god’s nature can be known. ”

“We must remember that theism maintains not just that god’s nature is unknown to man at the present time, but that god’s nature is unknowable in principle.  Man will never understand god, which is expressed by such terms as ineffable, inexpressible, transcendent and unfathomable. ”

“The most extreme version of this belief is religious agnosticism, which holds that the nature of god is completely unknowable. ”

“Any attempt to talk about the unknowable will eventually lead to strange and paradoxical assertions, such as that of St.  Maximus the Confessor (a Greek theologian of the seventh century), who taught that “the mind is perfect which through true faith, in supreme ignorance supremely knows the supremely unknowable…. ”

If consistently adhered to, theistic agnosticism will result in a dialogue of the following kind:
Theist: "I believe in god.   "
Atheist: "What is 'god'?"
Theist: "I don't know.   "
Atheist: "But what is it that you believe in?"
Theist: "I don't know that either.   "
Atheist: "Then of what possible significance is your original claim to believe in god? How does your 'belief' differ from no belief whatsoever?"

“Religious agnosticism suffers from the obvious flaw that one cannot possibly know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists.  In the words of the ninteenth-centuary-philosopher, Ludwig Feuberbach: "To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. "

“If god is completely unknowable, the concept of “god” is totally devoid of content, and the word “god” becomes a meaningless sound.  To state that “god exists” – where “god” represents the unknown, a bank – is to say nothing whatsoever.  It is on par with, “Unies exist” or, “A blark exists. ” The agnostic, by refusing to state the content of his belief, exempts himself from reason and serious consideration.  Religious agnosticism is so indefensible that one must regard it as nothing more than the antics of a confused and muddle mind. ”   

"Many Christians wish to avoid agnosticism by assigning characteristics to their deity, but these Christians find themselves confronted with a serious dilemma.  On the one hand, they favour the notion of a supernatural being, a being without restrictions, a being with an infinite nature.  On the other hand, they want a god with characteristics, a god that can be identified. . . ”

“. . . The solution has of this difficultly has been the introduction of "unlimited attributes" - characteristics of God that do not limit his nature.  Hence, we have the traits of omnipotence, omniscience and other limitless qualities. . . ”

"Many Christians wish to avoid agnosticism by assigning characteristics to their deity, but these Christians find themselves confronted with a serious dilemma.  On the one hand, they favour the notion of a supernatural being, a being without restrictions, a being with an infinite nature.  On the other hand, they want a god with characteristics, a god that can be identified. . . ”

“But this enterprise is doomed from the start. ”

“To specify characteristics is to specify determinate qualities, and these qualities cannot be divorced from limitations. ”

“When god's attributes are pushed to the limits of absurdity, the Christians invariably falls back on man's inability to comprehend God. ”

“We have uncovered an important principle: Scratch the surface of a Christian and you get an agnostic.  The Christian god is simply the agnostic god with window dressing. ”

“If one examines the list of attributes quoted earlier from the National Catholic Almanac, one will find that many of them are negations.  ie; they specify what god is not. ”

"Immutable" tells us that God does not change; "ineffable" tells us that God cannot be described; “infinite” tells us that God is not finite; “invisible” tells us that god is not visible. ”

“Furthermore, attributes such as "omnipotence" and "omniscience" signify capacities without limits, so they also stem (at least partially) from a negative way. ”

“The first problem with negative theology is that, if God is described solely in terms of negation, it is impossible to distinguish him from nonexistence - "any Being which had to be characterized entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no being at all. "

“Nothing can be known to be incompatible with the unknowable. ”

“If God can not be known in some positive way, God cannot be known at all - which throws us into blatant agnosticism. ”

“Wisdom, love, knowledge, power – these may be fine qualities, but just what are they qualities of?”

“All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. ”

“When Christians say god is alive, does he (patriarchal language is throughout this book) mean that God is alive in the same sense as natural organisms? If so, God must be a material entity who will eventually die.  When God is said to be wise or to posses knowledge, is this the conceptual knowledge with which man is familiar? If so, God is capable of error and can acquire knowledge only through mental effort.  When god is said to have a certain power or capacity, is this power similar to the concept was we understand it? Is so, God must be limited.  When God is said to be loving, is this a love with which we are familiar? Is so, God must have emotions with which to feel passion. ”

“To say that ‘the divine goodness is to God as human goodness is to man” is quite meaningless without some direct knowledge of God’s nature. ”

“As W. T.  Blackstone points out, “if one is to know analogically something of God (or any other an other object) then one must know something of God (or any other object) literally. ”

“To say that an “unie” possess wisdom in proportion to its nature – while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man’s wisdom and that the nature of an “unie” is unknowable – contributes nothing to our understanding of “unie” or to he meaning of attributes when applied to an “unie. ”

“And so it is with the Christian God.  We might just as well claim that God is “yellow” or “slimey,” while stipulating, of course, that these qualities do not mean the same when applied to God as when applied to man, and that God possess them in a mode appropriate to his infinite nature. ”

“As long as the Christian God remains in the realm of the unknowable…” “…To say that God is “good” or “wise” is to say nothing more than some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way. ”

That's the basic run down.    I haven't encountered a theist who was able to respond to this yet.   

[GG]

The best proof available is the simple imperfectness of the universe and life itself.   
Also there's nothing concrete that suggests there should be a god, besides our nature to assume things are created cause that's the only way we can easily explain things, hence we created god(s).   

hxxp: video. google. com/videoplay?docid=275693092937060684&q=Session+2+-+Beyond+Belief+2006+duration%3Along&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Neil Tyson explaining the hypocrism in intelligent design

[Godfather of Soul]

How about we don't waste our time proving a negative?  It's impossible.  Why don't you start off with those that claim there is SOMETHING and then see how the evidence stacks up. 

Prove to me that when you are sleeping and alone in your house that a 3 foot tall meerkat doesn't come in your room and try on all of your left socks.  Or prove to me that there isn't an invisible teapot on the darkside of the moon.  See, if I were to make you try to prove these things you would see how inherently ridiculous they are, but for some reason that same standard of evidence and proof is not required with god.   

[4ged]

"if I were to make you try to prove these things you would see how inherently ridiculous they are"

Religion has a further disadvantage in that their words don't mean anything.     For instance we all know what a meerkat is, or a teapot.     But "god" or variations of "god" is just a meaningless noise made by religious people.     When ever they try to attach any meaning they usually succeed only in making those words, also meaningless.       

All words are symbols for the things they refer to and are potentially interchangeable.       
For instance if I started saying "gloot" instead of "dog" and you asked me what a "gloot" was you'd be able to figure it out because for instance, I'd say "it's about 2 feet tall, has brown fur, gets fleas, has litters of baby gloots, makes a barking noise and howls," and you would know the creature I was referring to when I made the noise "gloot".    "God" on the other hand has no such features.    If I say "gloot" instead of "god," you would have no idea what I was talking about because god posses no characteristics that aren't completely gibberish.    The difference between a noise, and word, is a word has a socially attached meaning.    "God" is a noise, and not a word, until someone can attach a definition to it that isn't complete gibberish.   

So you're right in that it's an unprovable statement.    But I would go even further and say that even it's claim to be a statement is pretty weak.    I believe in "grrrr" or "honk!" or "skwark!" is not a complete statement.    Neither is I believe in "god.   " That's my favorite way to piss off door-to-door religion sellers.    Ask them what they believe.    When they say "god," you say "What, what was that noise you just made? "God," what's that?" Then watch as they try to explain it.       

Most of the time they will make some attempt at trying to explain what they are talking about.     The thing to remember to keep asking them and yourself is, how does that differ from nothingness? As Smith shows in his book, when theists deviate from agnosticism* and attempt to attribute properties to god, they either attribute characteristics that are a denial of limitations** or they attribute properties which make no sense and/or lose their meaning when applied god.      "God is loving BUT god does not love as we know love, god loves like god loves.     "

This goes for all of gods other attributes like knowledge, power etc.    They are not as we understand them, but as god does them.      For this to make sense you have to ignore the fact that God is not given meaning by assigning him the attribute of "loving" in this context.    Instead the word God remains meaningless but now, in this context, the word "loving" is also meaningless.    The term God has a kind of Midus touch, everything that touches it becomes meaningless.   

Understanding this, I recommend responding by saying "Well, just like god, there are no limits to the power of nothingness, so long as we understand that nothingness does not have power as we understand power, but instead has the power of nothingness.    " Remember, if you always bring it back to how does God differ from nothingness, you shouldn't have too many problems.   Also remember, "any Being which had to be characterized entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no being at all.  " That is important.       

*which is the belief that God is completely unknowable.   

** For example, omnipresent means that there are no limit to god's presence and omniscient means that there are no limit to god's knowledge.   

[GG]

When they say "god," you say "What, what was that noise you just made? "God" what's that?" Then watch as they try to explain it.   

Well played.

[Nervecell]

Well played.

not really...it barely made sense.

Theist: "I believe in god. "
Atheist: "What is 'god'?"
Theist: "I don't know. "
Atheist: "But what is it that you believe in?"
Theist: "I don't know that either. "

they wouldn't say that either. what you just said was complete ass talk

[4ged]

Would you like to elaborate on why it didn't make sense? Perhaps you are just having trouble understanding it.   What part needs explaining?

As for my "ass talk," I suppose the script was labeled somewhat inaccurately in that the theist in this example is not just any theist, but an agnostic theist.   Although this was mentioned in the sentence which proceeded it, sentences that followed it, and heading in bold under which it appeared, I'm assuming you missed all that because you were eager to attack what ever I was saying rather than actually understand it.   Smith didn't say, "this is what will happen if you talk to an agnostic theist," so you're criticism that "they wouldn't say that" is not really relevant.   What he wrote was "If consistently adhered to, theistic agnosticism will result in a dialogue of the following kind:.  "

Would you like to explain why this is not the case? Perhaps you have a different understanding of agnosticism.   Perhaps you don't understand agnosticism and that's why this 'barely makes sense' to you.   

[Nervecell]

A theist would not say that they don't know what god is. Show me a theist who said that and also so me where you got your information from.

[Godfather of Soul]

http://www.trivia-library.com/a/biography-of-famous-agnostic-david-hume.htm

[Bob]

Actually most 'intellectual' theists don't define God clearly. The attributes that they attach to God is extremely vague and often incorporates modern progressive ideology. The God before Evolution, quantum mechanics and what-not was an just omniscient one. They say, "He knows everything", "God is behind all natural disasters", to now, "God is behind T-Cell receptor specificity" or 'he's behind the behind the Ulam spiral pattern". These definitions look promising amongst the sea of ignorance, but certainly not in the scientific sphere.

For that reason, most theists today do not focus on define God. Rather they focus on pointing out the unknown to the universe and somehow connecting it to God. They invest in ignorance. One major rule in this discipline is an inconsistent definition. Yes, such a term is an oxymoron, but what else do you expect from that camp?  If they were to define God, the evidence on the table would have no compatibility.

I'd be akin to defining pregnancy as "carrying one or more offspring in a stork's beak between conception and birth". Yes it does sound convincing a child who does not know basic biology, but nonsense to one who does. Similarly defining God as omnipotent is also preposterous, because that implies that the building blocks in our universe can instantaneously produce a bra. Yes, and its all done consciously. That isn't what modern science tells us, but to a 2-year, it does sound plausible.

To those more knowledgeable, we understand that there is no conscious being that can instantly create life at will. Hell, forget tools. They didn't exist. You'd have to assume that God has magic powers or something. Such a being has no compatibility with the natural realm. The evolution process is far from uniform and always followed a direction from a generalized 'body' to one that proliferates, congregate forming a specialized 'body' eventually to a being that can flush a toilet. It didn't start from a conscious entity conceiving matter, because such beings hasn't been identified as a building block of atoms! According to natural law, such a being would have to appear WELL after the conception of atomic and sub-atomic particles. 

Hypothetically speaking such a being can exist at the lowest probability. Yes, far lower than the existence of human feces that can communicate in human language. Therefore theists would have to provide evidence because this is certainly a grand claim. To suggest that Mr. Hankey exists would require the claimer to provide significant evidence. Most would demand a high standard of evidence, unless they're on some extreme drugs.

PS: I will always end with attacks from now one. Simply because past comments from the theist camp has been too childish. This isn't about personal beliefs. No we require evidence. If you to follow some bankrupt standard then so be it. Confirming your stance by pleasing ignorance isn't a logical discussion. Rather its mere dogma.

[Nervecell]

So you're saying that theists have the same understanding as a 2 year old? And defining god as 'knowing everything' is alot different from 'i don't know'

[Bob]

So you're saying that theists have the same understanding as a 2 year old? And defining god as 'knowing everything' is alot different from 'i don't know'

Sure, why not? That is a good description of their stance. For instance, if I were to believe that stranger has to protect me from harm, it too would exemplify childish understanding. The same is the case if one thinks there must be a creator simply because they were conceived in a womb. As if if human cells come from nothing...but that's another point, I can cover later.

Those with side with theism invest in ignorance which is often more common amongst children. Since they have more important aims such as social requirements. Theists used religious literature as empirical evidence when it was designed to promote themes. It is NOT an objective source. Rather its more like a political ad. Therefore to form a argument that is based on religious text is hypocritical. Debate must follow a scientific standard: Empirical evidence is a must.

That is elementary knowledge. You can say the same for who side with atheism simply because the stance is not absolute. Therefore a more correct stance in rational debate would be suggest that there is a high certainty that God doesn't exist. If creationism were to be valid, would atheists carry that label? It seems like it. The Atheist identity is quite popular around here. Also this implies that creationism is an alternative hypothesis. No, it is not. Evolution has a highly level of certainty while creationism is a non-starter.

To label oneself as a "atheist" is akin to labelling one who sides with the "feces can't talk" block. These theories counter hypothesis that are non-starters. That is very unnecessary. Scientific thinking does not see any credence in creationist ideology, just like any branches of pseudoscience. It sees it as irrelevant. The Atheist ideology aims to counter the dominant theist ideology, and hence it is no longer within the scientific domain. Theism by its nature disregards empirical evidence.

They actually shouldn't be compared. Theist have already chose to invest in ignorance (vs. scientific facts), while atheists have chosen to invest in an ideology that confirms their stance. Instead 'atheists' need to attempt to disprove the stance in order to further augment it. If standardization was followed Atheist would ask why evolution is true. Why does number theory seem to oppose the notion of randomness? These are better than further demolishing a non-starter argument.

To be honest, I don't know why I entered a thread without any standardization. Maybe to augment evolution theory, but I just realized, putting it against creationism is childish at best. Therefore I also carry that trait.

[Ado]

Im in an arugment and i know theresd lots of intelligience on this ofurm, some one give me a good arguement how god doesnt exist please, thanks

say "why do i need to prove something doesnt exist when it hasn't been proven that it does exist" :]

[GG]

Science needs to learn to persuade, aka engaging these 'irrelevent' and 'pointless' discussions because believe it or not, they do change minds.

[Godfather of Soul]

Science doesn't need to change very much, people need to learn to see science for what it is and to see it with an open mind.  There is a great deal of fear and misunderstanding regarding scientific discoveries because people fear what science has to tell us.  The truth is an unsettling thing, or as close to the Truth as science can get.  The fact that, at its core, science is agnostic on EVERYTHING, can make people uncomfortable because it shows that nothing is absolutely certain, that nothing is absolutely true.  People enjoy their mysticism and the safety of feeling like everything has an explanation (god).  Science doesn't need to learn to persuade, societies need to be willing to accept the conclusions of science, especially if they conflict with religious dogma. 

[4ged]

<edited to fix some grammar and make it flow better>

Nervecell, you're not really listening to what I'm saying.   

Nobody ever said, "if asked, a theist will say they don't know what god is".  What was said was "If consistently adhered to, theistic agnosticism will result in a dialogue of the following kind:"

The first problem is that you are talking about theism, and I am talking about agnostic theism (aka.  theistic agnosticism).  These are two distinct things, they are not identical.  Theism a belief in a god of some sought.   Agnostic theism, is the belief that God exists, but that he is completely unknowable or unfathomable or incomprehensible to human beings.   

Secondly, nobody said "this is what will happen, or has happened, if you ask a theist the following questions".  It was
"If consistently adhered to, theistic agnosticism will result in a dialogue of the following kind:. "
The following kind.  Not these exact words, but stuff to this effect, because "I don't know what god is," is consistent with the beliefs of an agnostic theist.  If an agnostic theist doesn't say these words, it's not because they are contrary to the position of agnostic theism.   

Get it?

[Nervecell]

yes

[4ged]

"Science needs to learn to persuade, aka engaging these 'irrelevant' and 'pointless' discussions because believe it or not, they do change minds.     "

Exactly.      In this day and age, it should be common knowledge that there is no god.      Not, "oh, it's one of life's mysteries.     " Logical minded people need to go on the offensive more.      If we just sit back, the god peddlers will get to them first.     

We need to solidify our side more.      Not turn into a bunch of raving lunatics, but be more pro-active.      Challenge religion more often.      The method I outlined above is a great example because it challenges religion at it's root.      If we concede the ability to use a completely meaningless sound like "god" as word, then we'll always get drawn into a stale mate.      But if we attack this fundamental premise we can win pretty easily.      Plus, attacking them on this early short circuits a lot of the more complex debates.      If we always let them fight on their turf, the bible and evolution, it will be a much harder battle.     

Our territory is simple every day logic, that most of us used to stay away from the god peddlers in the first place.      With a few simple steps we can show even the most uneducated people that "god" is just a meaningless sound.     


1.  God is a sound, not a word, until it is defined.   

2.  Negative characteristics, like invisibility, tell you what god isn't, they do not tell you what god is.  Anything that can only be describe in negations must be synonymous with nothing.     Even omniscient and omnipresent are essentially negative characteristics in that they say, there are no limits to it's presence or no limits to it's knowledge.     

3.  All positive characteristics place a limitation on the thing which they are attributed to.  To say something is has "characteristic X" is to say it can't be all the things which are not "characteristic X. "It is confined and limited to all the things which define that characteristic.  For instance if something is visible, it can't at the same time and in the same way, be invisible.  But theists, want their god to have characteristics and be unlimited at the same time.  For instance, they say their god has "power".  But all power found in the natural universe has limits, many things in the universe are powerful, but no power is unlimited.  So to keep their god unrestricted by the attribute of power, the theists say that their god has "unlimited power. "

But because all kinds power found in the natural universe are limited, we know that this "unlimited power" is not just an increased amount of the type of power found in the natural universe, but a completely different kind of "power". 

We know that the power found in the natural universe has the ability to move things.  It can shape and change material objects.  We know absolutely nothing about the "unlimited power" which god posses.  This type of power may be completely useless.  Remember, it's not a different degree of power, it's a different kind.   

So to say that "god" has "unlimited power" does not inform us of anything.  Now, added to the meaningless sound we already have, which is "god," we now have more meaningless sounds "unlimited power. "

It might be captured well in the following dialogue.     

1: A "blork" walked.   
2: It's legs must be tired.   
1: Not really, a "blork" doesn't have any legs.   
2: Well did he slither or something?
1: No, a "blork" doesn't really have a solid form.   
2: So it must have floated to a new destination.   
1: Well no, it's not really comprised of any matter at all, plus it's omnipresent so it has no new location to go to.     
2: Then what the fuck do you mean by "walk?"
1: Such are the mysterious ways of "blork"!
2: Fuck.  You.     

[IdontAlwaysAgree]

You just proved it in your post's title.  One must believe that something exists in order for it to exist (in some phylisophical circles). . . but not revereing the "name" and capitolizing the "g", you just proved his non exisistance to yourself, therefore that's your reality and your truth.  There is no such thing as Truth, but merely truths as they are seen from your perspective.