I invite all atheists, young and old, learned or unlearned to provide their proof.
I ask only to prove God does not exist. This does not mean to disprove what designation man gives this being. So questions such as "which God?" are irrelevant.
Please use the generic definition of God found in any dictionary for example: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
I ask only to prove God does not exist. This does not mean to disprove what designation man gives this being. So questions such as "which God?" are irrelevant.
Please use the generic definition of God found in any dictionary for example: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
A complete lack of evidence for any Gods is all I need to not believe in one. If you want me to believe in a god them show me proof of one
ReplyDeletethe burden is not on the non-believer. theists make the claims about the existence of gods.
ReplyDeleteI sorry but you don't understand how this works
ReplyDeleteThe burden is on the one making the claim. You guys claim there is no god, so stop spinning in circles and show your rational empirical proof. I used to be an atheist and saw no reason to NOT believe in a God. Time has passed, so perhaps you found proof? Go ahead, don't be afraid. If you are for reason, then your answers are not rational. You are just shifting burdens. Shifting burdens does not answer anything.
ReplyDeleteThe proof is there. It's simply a matter of shifting and assigning color values to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum so our tiny brains can tell computers how to show us what's right in front of our faces. What's really going to freak everyone out is what they will actually see, not that it's there. All of the information is in the speck of light of the 'singularity', it's just spinning and flashing at a different frame rate than our eyes, and the image alludes our brains otherwise:
ReplyDeleteA)We'd go crazy
B)We'd use the information for evil
C)We'd stop trying to advance
D)We'd expect G-d to do everything for us
E)We'd become very scared and depressed which brings us right back to A) and we'd all lose it.
But I assure you, this world was created in the same way a movie is projected, and there is an energy intelligence behind the scenes waiting for us to figure it out. Having seen the tree of life with my own eyes I can personally attest to the existence of a world beyond this one.
Use your mastery of science and your scientific method to prove this hypothesis wrong. "The image of G-d and Heaven are just outside of the human visual acuity.
Assumptions: This visual is the result of all the elements of the electromagnetic spectrum being brought into the visual context. That secondary flashing image over your vision, and that ringing in your ears are part of a signal being transmitted to your brain.
Challenges: This image is totally within the reach of the human mind and it's all the proof you'll ever need. Simple resonating truths exist about the ability of the human mind to receive the proof we all seek.
A)It comes from a need, not a desire. If you don't need G-d to be happy, you'll never see Him.
B)The image is clouded by a tunnel of blueish light, sort of like that described in NDE.
C)The image is subjective, not objective. If you go into this looking for a human figure and are using your mind to seek it out, you will find a human figure. If however you seek the truth, you will find a clockwork of geometry that will incapacitate your imagination forever.
It is 2:50AM and still no proof.. my mentions instead is getting piled up with shifting of burden responses... Typical atheist behavior when rationalism fails.
ReplyDeleteI claim that the Christian god does not exist. I claim that the Judaic god does not exist. I claim that the Muslim god does not exist. I claim that Zeus, Thor, Odin don't exist.
ReplyDeleteYou're making a mistake here in assuming that we have an answer for simplistic, unprovable-in-the-first-place, untestable, unfalsifiable definitions. That's silly.
Approve my comment.
ReplyDeleteI have an equivalent challenge for you;
ReplyDeleteProve to me that we did not just come into existence five minutes ago with pre-made memories, holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting.
Clock's ticking...
We have been asked to prove that a god doesn’t exist. I will not do EXACTLY THAT. But what I will do is demonstrate that the request is irrational and that the burden of proof lies on the believer and not on the atheist. I am an atheist (as most other atheists, I believe) due to the lack of credible evidence that a god does exist. And I will support this position below. I hope you enjoy.
ReplyDelete1. Impossibility of disproving a god or gods.
The non-existence of a god cannot be conclusively proven.
By the same token, the non-existence of the Toothfairy cannot be conclusively proven. The same applies to any number of gods, goddesses and fairytale characters.
Is it possible that an invisible Toothfairy exists? Of course it is.
Note that the fact that the Toothfairy is an admittedly contrived entity doesn’t make any difference here. To illustrate this, let’s suppose that the Toothfairy does in fact exist and always has. Let’s further suppose that at some point in our history somebody (who didn’t know about its existence and had no evidence available to suggest its existence) made up the Toothfairy as a fictitious character. Does the act of this person inventing the fictitious Toothfairy result in the real Toothfairy ceasing to exist? Of course not. It would be very unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
I have a personal example to go with this point. When I was a child I came up (totally for the fun of it and with no evidentiary or knowledge-based backing) with the idea of tiny little things that everything was made of. If you magnify any object enough, you’ll get down to these little things which are all the same in nature, no matter what material they amount to when combined together. At that point I had no idea about fundamental particles. Does that fact that I invented protons and electrons (as fiction) result in them ceasing to exist? It does not.
The above is of course not limited to me; the Ancient Greeks had the concept of an atom; also with absolutely no empirical evidence for it.
What follows from this? Well, the fact that somebody invents something without evidence does not mean that the thing does not exist in reality.
Now, I am fully aware that the above point is a double-edged sword. The theist might now reply: “Oh! But that means that even though (if?) there is no evidence for a god, god might still exist, just like those atoms did in Ancient Greece.”
That point is taken onboard. It is true. And never did I claim that a god is impossible. I doubt that any rationally thinking atheist will claim with all certainty that a god doesn’t exist or that a god cannot possibly exist. That’s not what atheism is about. Atheism is about not believing that a god exists (weak atheism) or believing that a god doesn’t exist (strong atheism).
We have been asked to prove that a god doesn’t exist. I will not do EXACTLY THAT. But what I will do is demonstrate that the request is irrational and that the burden of proof lies on the believer and not on the atheist. I am an atheist (as most other atheists, I believe) due to the lack of credible evidence that a god does exist. And I will support this position below. I hope you enjoy.
ReplyDelete1. Impossibility of disproving a god or gods.
The non-existence of a god cannot be conclusively proven.
By the same token, the non-existence of the Toothfairy cannot be conclusively proven. The same applies to any number of gods, goddesses and fairytale characters.
Is it possible that an invisible Toothfairy exists? Of course it is.
Note that the fact that the Toothfairy is an admittedly contrived entity doesn’t make any difference here. To illustrate this, let’s suppose that the Toothfairy does in fact exist and always has. Let’s further suppose that at some point in our history somebody (who didn’t know about its existence and had no evidence available to suggest its existence) made up the Toothfairy as a fictitious character. Does the act of this person inventing the fictitious Toothfairy result in the real Toothfairy ceasing to exist? Of course not. It would be very unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
I have a personal example to go with this point. When I was a child I came up (totally for the fun of it and with no evidentiary or knowledge-based backing) with the idea of tiny little things that everything was made of. If you magnify any object enough, you’ll get down to these little things which are all the same in nature, no matter what material they amount to when combined together. At that point I had no idea about fundamental particles. Does that fact that I invented protons and electrons (as fiction) result in them ceasing to exist? It does not.
The above is of course not limited to me; the Ancient Greeks had the concept of an atom; also with absolutely no empirical evidence for it.
What follows from this? Well, the fact that somebody invents something without evidence does not mean that the thing does not exist in reality.
Now, I am fully aware that the above point is a double-edged sword. The theist might now reply: “Oh! But that means that even though (if?) there is no evidence for a god, god might still exist, just like those atoms did in Ancient Greece.”
That point is taken onboard. It is true. And never did I claim that a god is impossible. I doubt that any rationally thinking atheist will claim with all certainty that a god doesn’t exist or that a god cannot possibly exist. That’s not what atheism is about. Atheism is about not believing that a god exists (weak atheism) or believing that a god doesn’t exist (strong atheism).
If God was all perfect, all knowing and all loving, he could not and would not create humans that were destined to live for eternity in hell. That would mean God was not loving because he either knew and created these humans anyway, or he didn't know so In which case he is not perfect.
ReplyDelete2. Absence of evidence
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my second point. Despite many claims and attempts, nobody has ever produced credible evidence for the existence of a god. I will not attempt to prove this assertion here but I will be happy, if challenged, to demonstrate it at a later time. For the time being, let’s assume that it’s true; no proof that a god exists.
Does this entitle me to say that there is no god? No. As I’ve said above, a god might well exist, as might the Big Bad Wolf or the Toothfairy or Santa (and there is plenty of evidence of Santa, including thousands of eyewitness accounts of him flying in the sky every year around Christmas time!)
Therefore what DOES this lack of evidence for a god entitle me to conclude? It entitles me to say “there’s no basis on which I should profess that a god exists”. And that is what I say.
But I go further. I say that it’s unreasonable to claim the existence of something without concrete evidence for its existence. Let me illustrate this with a statistical illustration below.
3. Absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
ReplyDeleteIt is often said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I disagree. I say that absence of evidence does amount to evidence of absence. This applies across the board and I will now illustrate why. In the next section, I will then turn to the special case of the claimed god.
Let’s start with a perfectly agnostic type of position. Let’s say there’s no evidence that a god exists and no evidence that a god doesn’t exist. Let’s further assume that in absence of evidence for and against a proposition, the odds for it and against it are equal. Can we say that? Well, I happen to disagree. But let’s think about this a little. When there’s no evidence either for the existence of something or against its existence, there are only three possibilities:
a) the odds of its existence are higher than the odds of its non-existence
b) the odds of its existence are equal to the odds of its non-existence
c) the odds of its existence are lower than the odds of its non-existence
Option a):
Clearly, option (a) cannot be correct as it would result in an anomaly. It would mean that an existence is proven by the sheer lack of evidence. There’s no evidence for the Boogy Man, therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Boogy Man exists. I think we can all agree that option (a) is out.
Option c):
If this option is correct then the lack of evidence for or against God allows us to conclude that there is no god and amounts to evidence in support of atheism. But is option (c ) correct? I say it is when applied to COMPLEX PROPOSITIONS and I will address this in the following paragraphs. But we will start by assuming that it’s not.
Option b):
Can this option be correct? If it is then agnosticism is the only rational position, given lack of evidence for or against a god. But can option b) be correct? Let’s wait and see.
Option B – equal odds
In order to discuss this, I have to introduce a concept. I will call this concept “defining element”. Any entity or thing or idea has a number of defining elements, without which it the thing or entity or idea is no longer itself.
Let me give an example:
ReplyDeleteA square has 4 sides and 4 equal angles (90 degrees each). In order for a figure to be a square, it has to meet this definition; it has to meet both elements:
i) 4 sides
ii) 4 equal angles
These are the defining elements of our square.
Now what about a box? We might agree that a box is:
i) a tangible object
ii) which has at 5 or 6 solid walls (lid or no lid)
iii) with all right angles between all adjacent walls
iv) and is hollow
This is an example only and we don’t need to debate whether this really is what a box is. Now, assuming that the above are the defining elements of a box, no object is a box unless it meets all four criteria. But a box can also have other attributes. It can be painted red or black, it can be big or small, cubical or not. It can be made of paper or plastic. None of those attributes will alter the fact that our object is a box, as long as it meets the four DEFINING ELEMENTS.
Time to move on. Where does all this fit in? Well, we’re considering Option B, remember?
So let’s define our god. What can be the defining elements of a god? We might agree that at the very basic, god is defined as follows:
i) omnipotent
ii) omniscient (we will not bother with the apparent logical contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience)
iii) uncaused
iv) that has given rise to the universe
v) that still exists (to differentiate from a deist god)
So far we have 6 defining elements of a god. Without any of these elements, our entity wouldn’t be god. Now let’s turn to probabilities.
i) there’s no evidence that an omnipotent entity has ever existed. Therefore, if we assume option B above, the odds for its existence and against it must be 50%.
ii) But what are the odds that there has existed an entity that is both omnipotent and omniscient? Again, there’s no evidence that an omniscient entity exists or that it doesn’t. But our god has to be both; orelse it wouldn’t be a god. This is where we have to use the statistical combination of “AND”. We arrive at this by multiplying the two probabilities. And that makes it 50%*50%=25%
So far, therefore, with no evidence going either direction, the odds that an omnipotent entity exists who is also omniscient are 25%. But that’s still not a god!
Our god must also be uncaused. Again, the odds that this particular entity (being omnipotent and omniscient already) is also uncaused must be 50%. That’s because there’s no evidence going either way and we have stipulated that option B is the true position.
Therefore the odds that there exists an omnipotent entity who is also omniscient and uncaused must be 25%*50%=12.5%
But that’s not all. Our entity must have given rise to the universe. There’s no evidence that an omnipotent and omniscient and uncaused entity created our universe. And there’s no evidence against that. Hence, the odds are again 50%. That brings the total odds of our god (as defined) down to 6.25%
ReplyDeleteWe don’t end there, however. We still have one more defining trait to address. Our god must still exist. There’s no evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, uncaused creator of the Universe has not ceased to exist OR that it HAS. Therefore, still abiding by Option B, we must agree that the odds of this proposition are 50%.
Hence, we must conclude that the odds of our god (as defined) still exists are 6.25%*50%=3.125%
And this is our probability of god.
But of course, this is not a god who cares about human affairs. That would include further stipulations, again without evidence for or against. It’s also not a loving god. It’s also not a just god. All of these propositions would need to be addressed before a final calculation is made.
What can we sum up from this? Well here it goes:
IF THE ODDS FOR AND AGAINST A PROPOSITION (WITH NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST ITS TRUTH) ARE EQUAL, THE ODDS THAT A PROPOSITION THAT IS COMBINED OF MORE PROPOSITIONS (A ‘COMPLEX PROPOSITION’) MUST BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN EQUAL TO THE ODDS AGAINST THAT PROPOSITION.
Does this mean that option B cannot be correct? Well, not as such. But what it does mean is that option B (if correct) must be refined to account for complex propositions.
So why is it so unfair? Why is the existence of a god so much less probable than his/her/its (God’s gender is of course another unproven defining element) its non-existence? Well, it’s not really unfair at all! For a god to exist, it must be ALL THOSE THINGS. And for a god to NOT EXIST, it’s sufficient that ANY ONE of those things is missing.
And of course this is a reason (one of many, but it’s surely one way to illustrate it) why it’s irrational to claim that non-existence has equal odds to existence in the absence of evidence in either direction.
What follows then is that it’s unreasonable for a theist to demand proof AGAINST the existence of his chosen (whatever the defining elements may be; and they do vary between faiths) god. And the converse is true; it is very reasonable for an atheist to say “prove me your god”.
This, of course, isn’t limited to gods. The same goes for any complex claim at all, for which there is no evidence.
Note also that the above discourse forces us to conclude that if option B is true generally (about a NON-COMPLEX ‘unevidenced’ claim), option C is the true position in regards to any COMPLEX ‘unevidenced’ claim. And a god, having A NUMBER of defining traits, falls (for our usage of the term) under the “complex unevidenced entity” heading.
And that is one (there are more) reason to be an atheist, until the day that credible evidence for god’s existence is available.
4. Exception to the “appeal from ignorance” rule
The Appeal From Ignorance is just a fancy name for the above proposition that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”. Essentially, it means that it’s a fallacy to say “you can’t prove proposition P therefore NOT P is correct”.
I have already addressed that this rule does not apply to complex propositions. Mathematically and logically it cannot. But there’s another reason.
It is a well-recognised exception to the above Rule that where one would REASONABLY EXPECT TO SEE EVIDENCE FOR A PROPOSITION (if the proposition were true) and such evidence does not avail itself, we can conclude from its lack that the proposition isn’t true.
A simple example is this. You are in your room and, to your knowledge, your eyesight is in a good shape. You carefully inspect the room, every part thereof. You don’t see an elephant. It is fair to say that if there were an elephant (not the invisible kind in this case) in your room, it would be seen. But there’s no evidence for the existence of this elephant in your room. In this case, absence of evidence that there is an elephant in your room does amount to evidence of absence. We are entitled to conclude that there is no elephant in your room.
ReplyDeleteHow does this apply to a god? Well, insofar as the theistic gods are concerned (the ones that not only still exist but also allegedly involve themselves with human affairs), we could expect clear and credible evidence of a god meddling in our affairs. We’d expect prayers to be answered. We’d expect known laws of nature to be disobeyed by events on regular basis. We’d expect some evidence of this god doing things to earth and to humans.
And yet, no such credible evidence exists. Theists maintain that prayer works but this has been tested many times and there’s absolutely no statistical evidence of prayer working any more than a placebo pill. And these experiments have been done by Christians! Their excuse is often that “god works in mysterious ways” or that “God does what he wills to” or that “God doesn’t always answer prayers IMMEDIATELY”. Each of those excuses is fine, sure. But also, each of those excuses is consistent with “God doesn’t answer prayers at all; things happen and those who believe tend to assume that they’re the result of prayer. Things happen this way because THERE IS NO GOD”.
I could go on and on and on here. But I will not. And believe me, there are hundreds of more things that could be said on the subject. There’s the Bible and its complete internal and external inconsistency (with science, with nature, with morality, with itself). There are also philosophical arguments about the nature of the alleged god(s). There are arguments about the sheer number of untrue gods that people have traditionally believed in (and the apparent hypocrisy of disbelieving all bar one). There are arguments from evil and arguments from suffering. There are arguments about the moral and logical problems with the Christian concepts of good and evil, condemnation and salvation. There are arguments about free will (philosophy and science suggest it simply doesn’t exist). And many, many more.
Now, one more thing about prayer. A personal example, if you will. I work in a field where I don’t get paid regularly. Money comes in when it does and you have to make do between those times. You do this either by savings (if you can save) or by using credit. For the last few weeks, I had not been paid. Today, my wife threw a big fit about it. She in fact threatened that if money doesn’t come in very soon, she’s going to leave me! (I know my wife and I suspect she wouldn’t but she gets this way sometimes). She had not made this threat at all for a number of months, until today. And funny enough, about 2 hours after she made the threat, money appeared in my account. To me it’s just a coincidence. I had not prayed, I had not used the wishing well or any other superstition to make money come into my account. I also didn’t contact anyone and threaten lawsuit.
But if I were a theist I may have prayed today. I may have said “Heavenly Father, I rely on you. If it’s your will, can I please see some dough in that account? In Christ’s name, Amen”. Imagine that. I said that prayer and two hours later money appears in my account. What would I be blogging then? Have a think about it ;)
I hope you this post was clear and enjoyable.
Regards,
Allocutus
@allocutus (twitter)
www.onlinedebate.net
The burden of proof is upon the positive claim, that there IS a god, not on the negative that there is not.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Not us.
Atheism is 'I don't believe in god', not 'I believe in no god'.
Your question and your point is based on a basic and elementary misunderstanding of what atheism IS.
You - I would hope - do not believe in, say, fairies. Can you prove fairies do not exist? No. Is it therefore rational to believe in fairies? No it is not.
There is no evidence FOR a god, therefore it is not rational to believe in one. The burden of proof means we should not believe propositions for which there's no evidence.
If you want disproof, you have to offer up proof FOR the proposition of a god first, or, at the very LEAST define one in terms of deeds and qualities that can be examined. Without evidence it can still be instantly dismissed under the BoP but there would at least be something to grasp at.
Ok, I've read it and it sounds interesting. BUT.. they do not show proof. What you write is speculative and a misrepresentation of the attributes of God given the laws of Physics as we know then now in 2011.
ReplyDeleteThis stood out though
"There’s no evidence that an omnipotent and omniscient and uncaused entity created our universe. And there’s no evidence against that. Hence, the odds are again 50%"
This is one of the most honest conclusions an atheist has ever written and one of the reasons why I abandoned that pseudo rationalism. Why?
How can I possibly claim to be a man of reason, when I cannot support my disbelief or rejection of a deity(ies)? Hence atheism is a faith in that regard. As you say, the odds are 50%.
Both seem lost on the issue of God. That was my thinking back then.
How can I tell theists that there is no god, when I cannot back this up? They can offer me all kinds of arguments that I can accept or reject depending on its soundness. That is when I researched further.
Leprechauns, tooth fairies etc can be disproved. It is known that these concepts are inventions of the human imagination. God is different. Billions believe in this entity, whether as a singularity or a plurality. Each may express a personal experience that no one has even encountered with a leprechaun or tooth fairy. Now if you say God is the same as a human invention, then you have to provide the first cause, so to speak. Who invented the idea? Why? After that, then you must disprove the experiences believers of all faiths experience.
ReplyDeleteSacerdotus...You say this:
ReplyDelete"Leprechauns, tooth fairies etc can be disproved. It is known that these concepts are inventions of the human imagination. God is different. Billions believe in this entity, "
Is this because you ignored my post? I've addressed this already. The fact that a thing (eg the Greek atom) is contrived is no evidence against its existence.
And the reverse is true. The fact that millions of people believed in Werewolves isn't evidence of their existence.
@Allocutus
Sacredotus:
ReplyDelete"There’s no evidence that an omnipotent and omniscient and uncaused entity created our universe. And there’s no evidence against that. Hence, the odds are again 50%"
Also, the above is a quote-mine. You quoted a small part of what I said. The odds that an omniscient entity exists (if we assume that option B) are 50%. But the odds that the entity is also omnipotent are 25%. And so on and so forth :)
I don't have to provide evidence for disbelief in ANY god when there's no evidence they exist in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAtheists don't make any claims about gods at all. We have no tenets or doctrines, etc.... The only time we actually say there is no god is people who believe in a god try to present one. If you stop presenting gods, we will stop saying your god doesn't exist. Our non-belief is, in actuality, directed at actual claims of gods.
ReplyDeleteAtheists require a specific description of your god in order to not believe in him. If your god is a tree, we believe your god exists. We just see no reason to worship him, and if he has any rules, we see no reason to follow them.
Leprechauns cannot be disproven to exist.
ReplyDeleteJust because millions believe in a god, doesn't make it real. That is the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. There are millions of muslims, so why aren't you muslim? No human has ever shown any proof of a god. If you want to try, JREF will pay you one million dollars.
The first cause argument doesn't work because who caused your god. No, atheists don't have to provide a first cause, that's called god of the gaps. We don't insert a god where we don't know things. Science doesn't work that way. Abiogenesis is the best theory on the origin of life that we currently have. Go to talk origins website and learn. All your claims are logical fallacies.
You guys are missing the point. Whether you believe it or not, the suggestion that there is no god, god is imaginary, sky fairy or whatever is a claim. It is a "belief." Now to date not one of you has supported with concrete evidence this: claim, suggestion, idea or whatever it is you want to call it.
ReplyDeleteLeprechauns and other mythical cryptozoology creatures can be disproved as folklore that can be traced to someone or people.
Trying to do that with "God" is a bit harder because there are thousands, maybe millions of religions, so the origin of this being cannot be pinpointed to one specific point.
The fact there are thousands of religious sects is actually more supportive of a god not existing. Religions were made up just like Leprechauns, but they were too restrictive and primitive for the moral evolution of man. So, when some people were upset at the strictness or brutality, whatever, a new denomination or sect was formed. If there were a god, there would be only one religion and it would be clear to everyone. It wouldn't be written in some ancient obscure books that people change and rewrite over time.
ReplyDeleteNo, that there are no gods is not a belief in and of itself. If no one presented any gods, there would be no atheists. Atheism is the default position for whenever anyone makes a god claim.
There are around 3 billion people on earth who believe in Yahweh, in one denomination or another. there are around 4 billion who don't. You seem to suggest that 3 billion people can't be wrong, but 4 billion can.
ReplyDeleteNo, what I mean is that certain gods or myths can be traced to an origin. They developed from urban legends and folklore. Moreover, I was not asking to disprove what man calls God, Gods or a God. I was asking to disprove God period. So in other words, I am asking for proof that No God exists, not to disprove "Jesus, Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Allah etc." Just the generic concept or entity called described as God by any dictionary.
ReplyDelete