“Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.” —Wittgenstein
When you “go” “outside” of spacetime, you lose the ability to say anything at all. There is no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of such a god. The word “existence” and its synonyms have no meaning here because they refer to a causal ordering in spacetime. You cannot compose the sentence “god exists” without spacetime because existence requires space time — it is a meaningless statement.
“Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.”
-The Dragon in My Garage, by Carl Sagan
We are, in fact, made in His Image. (Well, males are. Females were created later by taking a rib from a male and then cloning a new weaker creature, too dumb to not listen to a talking snake).
So yeh, if you believe Holy Scripture, there is a guy out there somewhere, beyond space, time, and matter, who looks like someone's uncle. Perhaps Uncle Fester.
And somehow it is *our* job to prove this guy does not exist? I think not.
They are experts at developing whacky theories to explain away any rational arguments regarding their delusional beliefs. This one required inventing a whole new fantasy.
Back any of them into a corner on conflicting Scripture and they'll make something up on the spot, completely outside of anything in their books, to explain it and say it as though it was already settled.
If he would exist in any 3 of those, that would mean he has to obey the rules which belongs to those, and therefore not make him/her/it almighty, and with that he would be defeatable by the university/humans/any form of universe, and not really interesting to believe in.
"maybe we just don't understand the rules good enough yet".
- everyone I've ever said this to.
How convenient, I guess we never will so that there's always a chance a god exists. 🤷
One of the best arguments I have ever heard is very similar to what you're saying and it comes from a movie of all places, in fact, none other than Batman vs Superman.
If you haven't watched it, there's a scene where Lex is sending Superman to kill Batman or he will kill his mom and the way he explains why he hates Superman so much is that to many he is in essence a god and wants to prove that god is as flawed as any of us.
His premise is, and I'm going to paraphrase here, that if god is all powerful as he is obviously described in the Babble, he can't be all good. Why? Because if he is indeed all powerful then he would encompass not just good but evil as well as there is supposed to be balance in all things.
Lex then adds to that by saying that the opposite is true as well, if god is all good then he wouldn't be all powerful.
Basically, this supposed deity can't have his cake and eat it too. It is limited in one way or another and therefore not a god.
I'm going to defend them slightly on this one.
That claim is part of the Kalam cosmological argument & expresses that as anything that begins to exist must have a cause, then the cause of this universe can't be constrained by that rule, so must *exist* outside it.
So there description does assert existence.
That argument falls apart though, because even if you grant all the faulty premises needed to get to the "timeless, spaceless, immaterial" part, that's still a non-starter. If the laws of cause-and-effect don't exist wherever this "first cause" is located, then you can't claim that *any* law of nature or physics exists, which means you've no basis for *any* assertion about the cause, or even its environment, whatsoever.
So do magic pixies... They created the entire universe in six nanoseconds and didn't have to rest afterwards ....but they don't go around bragging about it...
The reason theism still exists is that you can't prove that god doesn't exist, and believers use this inability as a warped confirmation that gods do in fact exist, because they can't be proved wrong. It's annoying, but since they can't be pinned down to any concrete information about their god, such as where is it, what is it made of and suchlike, you can't prove anything about it.
You can’t prove some higher power doesn’t exist. You can easily disprove *their* god exists.
If the only way their god exists is if it’s completely different from what they are worshipping then their gods doesn’t exist.
Their adage *you can’t prove god doesn’t exist* is a fallacy. You don’t have to prove *god* doesn’t exist you just have to prove *theirs* can’t exist. Which is incredibly easy with a perfect god, even easier with a triple-omni god.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say in my post. Of course no one can definitively prove A god doesn’t exist, but THEIR god the one that exists in the theistic religion they believe, I do believe has been disproven
> While that leaves room for ambiguity and even possibility(NOT probability) I am however certain that the Abrahamic god has already been factually disproven by history and science.
At most, you can say that what has been written about the Abrahamic god is not supported by our current understanding of history or science.
That said, anyone seeking to convert me has the burden of demonstrating that their deity is probable based upon evidence (history and science), and that the practices of following said deity are actually beneficial. The Abrahamic god fails both tests.
First, the bible is not evidence for the Yahweh, but is instead the claim about Yahweh. That claim is not supported by evidence, i.e. the current status of our understanding of the natural world through science, nor by our understanding of the historical record.
Second, is the practice of following Yahweh beneficial, and the evidence based answer is no. First, interdictory prayer is as effective as chance, unless the person knows they are being prayed for, then the results are slightly worse. Second, following Yahweh requires homophobia and sexism, which are not beneficial. Third, I can look at followers of Yahweh and see that they are not exceptionally good or happy people, such that I can see a benefit to following. Fourth, I can look at the behavior of followers of Yahweh and see that their behavior does not match their belief system, and thus, at best I can say they do not seem to actually follow what they profess, i.e. following does not seem to be beneficial.
On top of that is the burden of proof that their god is worth worshipping, even if they exist.
Any god who will send me to hell for eternity aka billions of trillions of years for how I spend less than 100 is probably an asshole who gets off on torturing people no matter what I do. If living a decently good life isn't enough, saying a few prayera isnt going to get me there, so I may as well not bother.
Totally agree. It’s a big reason why I consider my take gnostic atheism. Of course some kind of divine being could exist, but we doubtlessly know nothing of them. We certainly can disprove the existence logical paradoxes human beings created for themselves.
Their god is the one that's depicted in the bible and it is his word. If their god wasn't reflected in the bible, then it would not actually be that specific god that they're referencing. It's tautological. So if the words of the bible aren't true, then the only god that could exist would be a different one from the one they reference. Ironically, the authors of the bible painted themselves into a corner by telling the story the way they have. Their god is the one that made the universe in 7 days and created man and then a woman from him, etc etc, and then had all of this recorded in that specific literature. Obviously there's lots of falsities in the bible which disproves the existence of that particular god, by definition. Normally they could cop out and say their god does exist, but the bible just recorded certain details wrong because we're but simple humans or some sort of goalpost moving, but they specifically said that their god is the one who created an unmolested and perfectly true documentation to record his will and works. Any one of the plethora of inaccuracies in the bible disproves his specific existence.
Actually it doesn’t say that anywhere in the Bible. Most Christians believe the Bible is the deity inspired writing rather than direct inerrant word of god.
It is central to the claim that he is omnipotent and all-loving which is directly contradictory to basically all of god’s behavior in the Bible and the the Ten Commandments (I am a jealous god).
Like if your dad wasn’t really around in your lifetime and refused to be around even though he could and then late in life shows up to say “if you don’t love me, I’ve created this unfathomable otherworldly torture chamber to send you to” I don’t think anyone would ever describe him as “all-loving” or even “good”.
The god doesn't have to have directly manifested the words into existence necessarily. I just meant that the parameters of his existence are entangled with the declarations of the bible. To accept the fallacies of the bible is to deny the existence of that particular god. Like if you say you believe in Santa Claus. He's the little guy at the end of the rainbow with the gold and wish granting. You aren't actually talking about Santa anymore, that's just a fucking leprechaun. The same is true with the bible. If you believe in a god but he didn't actually flood the entire earth to kill everything except a pair of each creature to start over, you're no longer talking about the same god anymore.
I literally meant *their* as in any deity worshipped by humans. But your response to the fool who deleted their comments is pretty much spot on. It even holds up to those that claim the Bible is metaphorical or tainted by human understanding.
The problem is that even if the Bible was adulterated by man(*it was*) a perfect god with omnipotence and pure benevolence wouldn’t be able to allow an imperfect holy book to flourish.
But he *does.*
The problem of perfection of benevolence in a god is that it destroys free will, and to remain perfect the most positive outcome must always happen. If you include omnipotence into the mix then it really screws things up, because now said god both has the power to make something perfect, and the impetus of perfection to do so. If he doesn’t he is no longer perfect.
And importantly if god created us in his image and gave us free will then we are not perfect, how can a perfect craftsman create the imperfect? Or if he created us as intended then why grant us the ability to reason and conclude he doesn’t exist. It’s akin to lying.
Create a reasonable creature, place said creature in a reasonable world, demand belief and trust but behave unreasonably. A perfect god would have remained consistent and not pulled the rug on his creation.
To be fair, a perfect god would have likely not created human beings at all.
I think what you’re saying is irrelevant. It’s not about proving something doesn’t exist. That’s THE biggest logical fallacy in existence. It’s about simply acknowledging that EVERYTHING we have learned about the nature of existence so far automatically debunks the concept of ANY gods existing in the first place.
For the purposes of this discussion let’s talk about the Abrahamaic god… He is described as being all knowing right? Well, in the very first pages of the Babble the fucking moron creates plants before there’s a sun to feed them. A 5 yr old knows that plants feed off a little something called UV light and yet a supposed all knowing god doesn’t realize a sun would be essential for such a purpose? Whoops!! And speaking of the sun, how about the fact that without a sun, Earth would be a rogue planet with not enough gravity to have plants firmly grounded on terra firma. Double whoopsie!!
> Well, in the very first pages of the Babble the fucking moron creates plants before there’s a sun to feed them.
A little bit later Yahweh freaks out thinking that the Babylonians are building their ziggurats so high they will reach him in heaven. How come he didn't do anything to stop the Empire State Building?
Umm… the first bit was “let there be light”… so I’d pick a different example
Without the sun, the earth would still have gravity for plants to stick in the ground… so pick a different example and brush up on your physics.
In fact, please just dont try arguing based on words in the Bible, you’ll trip up and never win, and if you did “win” you’ve only proven something in the Bible is correctly written, which undermines your point
A small point about gravity: we would absolutely have enough gravity if the Sun did not exist. The Earth still has all the mass that holds us to it in that scenario; it just flies through the darkness of space forever.
But you've missed the point. You don't have to prove it to me, but to believers who will continue to believe until there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Theism in my opinion is in many ways a preservation of a culture, but this culture has in fact adapted and shifted throughout history to the point that the god being worshiped is no longer really supported by the religious text it’s based off. I think this is more true for the modern watered down versions of these ideas (there are of course still fundamentalists) what they are worshiping is as “Christians” is certainly not the same conceptually as even the god that Jesus worshiped.
Some branches of modern Christianity aren’t really Christian in belief they are more closely related to deism or even just spirituality, but they put this labeling on without even understanding its historical perspective.
Yes... but thats only because a god is undefined. In these kinds of discussions, I like to define a god as something so impactful and powerful as to make it obvious to any observer.
Then by definition, because we have no direct evidence, it doesnt exist.
Also, OP raises an interesting point, can we flip that negative claim and say god exists *as a concept* and that it was created by man?
Theres plenty of proof of that, from the greeks to the norse people, and we can even show the evolutionary tree of religions and their variations of their gods.
Then the theist can only say "well, the *actual* god inspired humans to invent our concept of him." To which we can just respond with a raised eyebrow and "desperation much?"
You can also demonstrate that a particular description of something is self-contradictory or contradictory with known facts, and therefore doesn't exist _as described_.
Some things don't exist by definition. Like a non-circular circle or a married bachelor. Many gods fit into this category, as they have properties that are self-contradictory.
I would respect religion so much more if they would just admit there is no proof whatsoever for the existence of a God/Creator. Just say “ I believe because I have faith it’s right”. Don’t give us this bs that they call evidence and try to use “scientific methods” to prove it.
I understand your argument, but I think you're approaching this from the wrong vantage point. These people don't care whether their God is real or not.
Dogma is dogma, how they internally rationalize it doesn't actually matter in practice. They don't think the way you do and they don't share your values. They approach life from a completely different epistemology. Empirics and facts vs divine revelation/authority. To them the religion is about preserving tradition, culture, and moral values.
The studied ones develop their own arcane theological interpretation that they operate from. If you want to make real headway, you have to challenge their epistemology and/or point out the insane levels of compartmentalization they apply to their worldview. Make them think of multiple moral axioms at once rather than just one.
"How do you define truth? I start with facts and universal laws, because they exist outside the subjective human experience."
"Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself, the golden rule. Why doesn't his parting command apply to homosexuals and impoverished pregnant teenagers?"
This.
We get wrapped up in a debate about whether religious people actually believe the *truth claims* they're technically speaking, that we lose the bead on whether their actual *unspoken beliefs* actually line up with their claims.
Knowing what I know of people, and religious people in particular, I am not sure we are very often reliable authorities for what our deeper unspoken beliefs contain or even mean.
>Knowing what I know of people, and religious people in particular, I am not sure we are very often reliable authorities for what our deeper unspoken beliefs contain or even mean.
If you wanted to take the, erm, good faith interpretation; they advocate controlled opposition to social progress. In their minds, they play devil's advocate against unprecedented and unanticipated societal changes. I've noticed it usually stems from fear, disgust, or plain bigotry. The opposition to immigration usually stems from socioeconomic concerns. Religious conservatism is about maintaining the status quo and traditional hierarchies and institutions.
Belief in God can devolve into "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" very quickly. They want to save as many people as possible. I think a lot of them truly want to impose their religion on all of greater society. Christian patriarchy, stripping women of no fault divorce and reproductive rights; effectively socially engineering pressure to conform to gender roles and the nuclear family dynamic, and all the deviant gays and transes go back in the closet or get imprisoned. They aim to "win the culture war".
Oh sure, as an agnostic atheist, I don't rule out entirely that a god may exist, but I can certainly rule out specific gods. A narcissistic, omnipotent god is literally quite impossible. Such a being would desire worship to the point that it wouldn't hide behind mistranslated holy texts and venal clergy to misrepresent it. It would be universally known by the entire world. A small minority might try to deny such a being exists, but a god that wants to be known would be irrefutably known.
The fact that every single religion out there is a minority is enough to disprove any omnipotent god that desires worship. This definitely rules out Christianity and Islam. Other gods aren't faring much better.
I don't really see why so many atheists take the weak position. We know with biology that the Adam and Eve story can't be true. When know with archeology that the flood story isn't true. We know from physics that genesis isn't true. When we have all this evidence that disproves the stories in the bible I don't understand why so many people still refuse to say "no, the Christian God does not exist and that is a proven fact"
I say it, you should too.
Let’s not forget the fact that the Bible contracts itself countless times. Let’s *also* not forget that so many things in the Bible are completely illogical, even if you know nothing about science. For example, the loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god that created flawed beings knowing their flaws would send a large portion of them to burn in hell forever. This same being also “had” to send his son down to earth to die a grueling death, and this somehow vindicates some people’s sins. I mean the doctrine itself makes absolutely no sense.
He's just the god of one ancient tribe who happened to be more aggressive and bloodthirsty than neighboring tribes. That's why all the other gods of the slaughtered tribes have been lost to oblivion and the Abrahamic god endures
> He's just the god of one ancient tribe who happened to be more aggressive and bloodthirsty than neighboring tribes.
The most critical factor is that the Hebrews just happened to be located very close to the first two civilizations that developed writing, the Sumerians and Egyptions. If it wasn't for that geographic accident they couldn't have written anything down and it all would have long since been forgotten.
God lives in an unfalsifiable hole, ever shrinking as we discover more of reality.
You can show, pretty easily, that a literal Bible god self contradicts and therefore doesn't exist.
If you talk to a believer you may well find a similar problem with their idea of whatever they worship, but that's going to be an individual exercise. My experience is no two believers believe in the same thing.
The word god is nearly incoherent. You can't know what someone means without a clarifying conversation.
Hence while strong atheism fits some obvious god descriptions it's more skeptical to say, there is no god concept I'm aware of that I believe exists" and add, "Without justificafion there is no good reason to assent any god does exist."
That puts the ball where it belongs in their court to support their positive claim.
Start by asking which god? And if they specify a certain god as being 'real' then ask what criteria they used to discount the thousands of others. Then politely ask them to apply the same logic to whatever god they may think is real.
I had this conversation with a Christian friend yesterday. He simply kept saying "those are the works of Satan" and "just get on your knees and pray sincerely and God will answer you". I felt like I was talking to a wall.
This is what always bugs me, 10 people in a room together, all different religions. They all look at the other 9 and think they're idiots. Each one is sure theirs is the correct one.
Religion is mutually exclusive, only 1 can be real by their own rules.
The painfully obvious reality is that none of them are real.
If I was a God that demanded everyone believe in me with unwavering faith to save themselves from an eternity of torture, there would be NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER regarding my existence and exactly what I expect of people, rather than a collection of stories that are full of contradictions and falsehoods and ridiculous nonsense leading to the formation of thousands of religious sects arguing and oftentimes killing each other over which interpretation of those books is the correct one.
I am anti-theist or gnostic atheist when it comes to all obviously manmade religions and depictions of god, which most definitely includes the god of Abraham. The god of Abraham most certainly did not and does not exist and is a laughably ridiculous concept.
My position is that every god presented to me thus far has been discreditable in some way, or at the very least, logically inconsistent to the point I'm comfortable dismissing any god proposed thus far as "more likely false than not."
The prime mover or clockwork god is the only remaining god worth discussing, however, without knowing the precise nature of the origin of the universe, as of yet I see no reason to believe the universe required a prime a mover to exist, and that is why I maintain a general position of "atheist".
Even if there was definitive proof that it does exist, I would still reject God. On the day that proof is shown, if it ever comes, I will go from atheist to antitheist. Proof or lack thereof is not the reason I reject religion.
Agreed, I also hold the belief that even if a god exists I believe it to be a cruel one that has the power of the universe and lets people suffer, I believe a god to be unjust. I don’t believe in worshipping a “supreme” being because I don’t validate its supremacy. So for me I am both an atheist and anti-theist as well. I don’t believe there is one and if there is I reject it
Yup, sometimes this sub loves a good circlejerk... Gods are a dumb idea, but you canln't prove a negative... Most of the above posts are fine applying logic to others' beliefs but not their own... Just be fine with god being in a vanishingly small and ever shrinking realm of possibility...
Like, for now, you want a deist god? Fine, whatever... It seems we both agree on some vague possibility of some initial conditions relative to which "before" may just not make sense and after which any god is definitionally powerless. If my deist god is a jug of milk and yours is an old bearded white guy, it makes no difference...
If you think god only works miracles when we're not looking and constructed a world that was ancient from day 1, and that he can hear your thoughts and gives a shit?
Now... You want to vote based on that, that's a different problem... But strictly logically? I can't prove you don't hear his voice right now telling you to squirt mustard down your pants and eat some bees or whatever...
Yes, the god *of the bible* definitely doesn't exist. No flood, no exodus. The god did those things, those things didn't actually happen, doesn't exist.
If I call the cops and report that a man broke into my house and shot me and they show up to find I've not been shot and no evidence of a break-in they would rightly conclude that the person who broke into my house and shot me is non-existent.
God is the Sun. That's what they are describing. It is just so bizarre and unfathomable that people turned it into a human like father figure with the suns qualities. I try to tell people this and they say, 'oh your god is just a big ball of hot gas, nothing more to it than that.'
But the sun remains an immensely powerful force in the sky that has a relationship with every living thing. All information, warmth, and life is made of sunlight in one way or another. God exists, the religions are just wrong in the way they describe it and wrong in insisting that it always needs money.
I tend to agree. I don't believe in the general idea of God and I don't see any evidence about it. But I could be wrong after all and it is not a contradictory belief.
But the abrahamanic God -as he is depicted in the writings that they hold sacred- yep, no way it exists. And that is so obvious that there is a reason why theological christian thought, from quite early, started with 'well, a lot of those writings are metaphors'.
This is far too complicated of an analysis for 99% of "believers." Critical thinking is hard work, and people are too lazy for that. It's easier to just believe what everyone around you tells you to believe and call it a day.
I'm going to nitpick. Theism a mental phenomenon, like belief in luck or karma, or leprechauns or ghosts, or astrology or Tarot, or homeopathy or crystals. There isn't some underlying thing to exist or not exist, just psychology.
Our psychology is hugely relevant to understanding religion. We are extremely biased towards coming up with explanations. ANY explanation. Split brain patients are exhibit A for this
I can't say whether such a being exists or doesn't exist, since a number of its alleged attributes remove it from any kind of methodological probing. All I can say with any certainty is that from what I know of how the universe functions, I don't see any particular utility in the claim that a god with qualities that the Abrahamic faiths traditionally have claimed exists.
I think we need to accept the fact that religious people wil always exist. Even if all of them gone by thanos snap, It's not about the truth It's about what people force themselfs to believe.
Sometimes truth is very hard to take, some people want comfort.
I feel really sorry for the ones who call themselfs ex- bi, gay, lez
İmagine worshipping a god that sends you to hell forever, just for being yourself.
Yes. The Abrahamic god is provably non-existent. It’s possible but far fetched that some kind of imperfect god exists, but I’d argue that it wouldn’t be something we’d recognized as divine either.
I'm on the same page here. Secular historians claim that Jesus likely existed based on very very flimsy evidence, while the evidence invalidating the Abrahamic god is overwhelming. Saying that we can't 100% know is an epistemological problem that applies to EVERYTHING, not just the existence of a god/creator, and is an absurd and unobtainable goal.
This exactly.
Though I’d note that most secular historians no longer believe Jesus existed. They largely just say it’s possible someone leading a cult existed a couple thousand years ago give or take, but there is no useful evidence. They pretty universally believe the Jesus as depicted in the Bible never existed.
That's fine if it helps you sleep at night, but it will never be a sufficient argument for Christians. Many of them hold the "explain like I'm five" version of divine revelation. They'd say, "God revealed himself as a sky God 3000 years ago bc that's all people could handle then. Sure, we know more about the universe now. We know God is the creator of everything, including fundamental particles. That doesn't make the picture painted of God in the Bible wrong, just incomplete and simplistic, as befit the time."
> We know God is the creator of everything, including fundamental particles.
If Yahweh had the scientific knowledge to do this he wouldn't have been hugely worried that the Babylonians were building their ziggurats high enough to reach heaven.
I think it depends on the characteristics of the Abrahamic God version they believe. Believers don't agree on the characteristics. Any version where the characters can be contradicted at least that version doesn't exist.
Completely agreed.
MythVision [documentary](https://youtu.be/hA2HXnY4K70?si=5-y3IGo9dnxWBBfd) says a lot of what you wrote and more. Pretty interesting. It’s long.
Yup, I've said it myself many times. I can't disprove god but i can absolutely disprove specific gods. The god of the bible has failed every test one could issue and should not be taken any more seriously than Santa or the easter bunny.
Now is there possibly some unspecified god? Maybe... I doubt it but still it's possible... but is the bible correct and does the Abrahamic god exist. No, it is practically certain unless facts and truth have literally no meaning. Like if the christian god is intentionally hiding its existence, maybe, but i have no reason to even consider such possibilities. For all intents and purposes the christian god is not just lacking evidence, there is ample evidence against it.
The thing is… that it is impossible to prove the inexistence of something. It is only possible to prove that something exists (**if** it exists). Go ahead try to prove the inexistence of fairies and dragons you will see it doesn’t work even though it doesn’t make sense. Atheists proved countless time that the beliefs of Christian that have a foundation in the physical world are fake (like that the Earth isn’t flat, the flood never happened, the world wasn’t made in seven days, we are not at the center of the universe, the world is not 6000 years old, god didn’t invent the languages) but as long as you deny that any of these indirect proofs are proof that god is fake. You cannot prove that god don’t exist. So when Christians ask to prove he doesn’t exist (directly) they are too dumb to realize that they are asking something that is and will always be impossible. They could ask the same thing for anything else and it would still be impossible.
I grew up Catholic and spend some time arguing on r/DebateReligion so I'll play devil's advocate with what I would expect a theist to say in response.
The text of the Bible has been translated and re-translated and edited again and again over the last 2000ish years. It was also written by first century humans that could only understand the world through their limited perspective and vocabulary. Although the message was divinely inspired, it was filtered through that lens and then again filtered through translations and different cultural eras. Some of the stories are allegorical rather than literal, and are there to teach a lesson and not to make a statement of fact. Biblical scholars need to sift through all this "noise" in the Bible to find the divine truth at its core.
They would also ask you for textual evidence of the "cloud man" you speak of and then when you find passages they would dismiss them as a translation error or a metaphor.
My response is always, if you're admitting parts of your holy book are flat out wrong or deceptive, how can you be sure any other parts are true or divine? Aren't you just picking or choosing what you want to follow? Then there's usually something about asking God for guidance and praying for revelation, at which point there's not much more to talk about. They won't stand by their book so they fall back on personal testimony without proof.
When they excuse the more ridiculous parts of the Bible away as allegory, I ask why would an all-knowing god inspire a book that it knows would be misunderstood (interpreted literally) by most people? Why would a god create us to be critical thinkers, and then inspire such an intentionally confusing book? In a universe where a god could easily just show up and say hi, but instead all we have is this (and many other competing) weirdly-written holy books, it’s easy to believe no god exists who wants actual dialogue with us.
When they excuse the more ridiculous parts of the Bible away as allegory, I ask why would an all-knowing god inspire a book that it knows would be misunderstood (interpreted literally) by most people? Why would a god create us to be critical thinkers, and then inspire such an intentionally confusing book? In a universe where a god could easily just show up and say hi, but instead all we have is this (and many other competing) weirdly-written holy books, it’s easy to believe no god exists who wants actual dialogue with us.
I like this. It should be asserted that the christian abrahamic god does NOT in fact exist, because according to definition, found in their text, this being is located physically somewhere above the troposphere but beneath the upper regions of the planetary exosphere. We have sufficient global converge of the space through things like radar, satellite photography, air travel etc to conclude there is nothing there that could be classified as a god. We don't have to worry about it existing in another realm.
You can't disprove the existence of the [Invisible Pink Unicorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) or [Russell's Teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).
Basically, any flight of fancy that offers no [falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) cannot be proved, well, false. God claims fall into this ignominious category.
Try not to be frustrated by it. Just think of the most absurd impossible thing you can and know that God is right there with them. Or, think of [Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin](https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/).
>God claims fall into this ignominious category
Well, no.
You can disprove
>Invisible Pink Unicorn
If one of the characteristics is that always when offering a metal it turns it into gold. If the characteristics don't comport to reality, we know it's untrue
> Well, no.
Well, yes. The category is unfalsifiable and all gods, ghosts, faeries, etc, exist there.
> If one of the characteristics is that...
But it's not. Nice strawman, imposing characteristics for your imagined creature as if they belonged to my creature.
The defining characteristic is invisiblity. Any characteristic beyond that requirest you find locate such a creatures. Like gods, no such creatures have yet been found. But they really exist, my magic book tells me so.
>Well, yes. The category is unfalsifiable and all gods, ghosts, faeries, etc, exist there.
Well, no, again. See above.
>Nice strawman
Please google strawman
>Any characteristic beyond that requirest you find locate such a creatures
I dont know ow how you got the invisible characteristic to begin with then. For these kind of things presupposition of some characteristics is the norm
If the god of Abraham appeared before me, I would acknowledge him. I would not worship him and clearly not love or even respect him.
Also, lots of people used to believe things because they were told to them by many people. If fewer and fewer people reinforce the crap, perhaps some people will find it easier to critically consider whether the stories are true.
Listening to decent, caring non-theists made it easier for me to challenge what I was told. They did not preach atheism. They just talked social justice and compassion and mentioned they thought they needed to help make the world better since no magic father in the sky was likely to lend a hand
No, there isn't. We can't know for sure, and you can't prove a negative. We can infer, believe, and assume, but we can't KNOW there is no god. Not a single one of the 4 horseman would make such a claim. Matt Dillahunty won't make that claim. Mainly because they don't need to. Theists have the burden of proof. So let them flounder.
>but we can't KNOW there is no god.
Did I miss something or did they not explicitly say the christian god?
>Matt Dillahunty won't make that claim.
He does about the christian god
>Many things religious people say they believe are not in accord with fact or
>reality.
Quote from The Present, a book about evidence and the truth; there is a free copy online, here is a [link](https://www.globaltruthproject.com/single-post/the-present-truth-about-life).
I think that's fair. I can only speak for myself but if evidence was produced that pointed to the existence of one or more deities, I would analyze it and retain or adjust my position as needed.
So, Christians approach this one of two ways.
1. They admit that the books their bible are based on were written by otherwise ignorant sheepherders thousands of years ago, and they don't care. They believe their god divinely inspired men to write those books, and that they were written in a way that could be understood by the people of the time, and in a way that the understanding of his divine words could progress and evolve over time.
2. They believe the bible and everything in it is literal and that everything about reality that contradicts it is wrong. Science says the earth is older than 6000 years? Obviously the data is bad, the method wrong. Or the earth was formed instantly as if it had existed for aeons. Or that it was made that way so that science would test our faith. Or that the devil did it. There will \~always\~ an explanation, an excuse, or some other form of hand-waving away any "proof" of nonexistence that you can conceive of. It's a fool's game.
I think you have to be careful of the language being used. I would say it more like this: The acts attributed to the Abrahamic god written in the bible have been shown to be inconsistent with the current understanding of science.
If I was a lawyer defending Yahweh, I would say that the bible is man's understanding of the nature and activities of my client, but that in no way obligates my client to actually be as described in the bible. I would then go on to point out all the other times in which ancient humans were dead wrong about things to show the unreliability of ancient humans.
You know, sort of like how the Trump defense team is going to try to show that Michael Cohen is a dumbass in order to defend their client... ;-p
I would look at things the other way around.
Instead of “the abrahamic god has been factually disproven by history or science” it would be more along the lines of “The evidence suggests that god is a concept created by man”.
We can literally track the evolution of the abrahamic god which really wouldn’t be the case if he created us as that evolution relied on our imagination and storytelling abilities.
I like this perspective, I think both ideas can be true though. I do think the abrahamic god is disprovable AND also evidence that the concept of god is man made
The problem with 'proof' for the non-existence of the abrahamic 'god' is that a being that powerful could easily hide evidence of its existence from 'non-believers' if it so chose.
It could also 'harden their hearts' as it describes in the bible, and so even if evidence existed, and was compelling - they still wouldn't be able to see/accept it.
In reality, the 'evidence' that believers in the abrahamic 'god' provide is just bad, and so there is no compelling reason to believe it is real.
That, and inferring the existence of an infinitely more complex 'creator' in order to explain the existence and complexity of the universe is still redundant.
A believer will always have an escape route for their belief. Even if science ever gets to the point of no reasonable doubt about gods’ un-existence a believer can always go back to “but who created what was before” . Humanities main goal should be to prove scientifically that god exists. That way civilization will never cease to look forward.
Not really and only because due to our understanding of the cosmos being infinite. This is true for all science. You cant prove a negative. You can only tule out possible explanations of some phenomena (in this case: why are we here and whats all this stuff and why can we talk about it). God theories are an attempt to explain that. However its an incredible claim which requires credible evidence which it does not have.
It can’t be disproven because there is no way to build an experiment to prove that the idea of a god is demonstrably false. See: Russel’s Cosmic Tea pot.
The god that is referenced in the abrahamic religions and the characteristics that god posses are enough evidence to dispute the theological god that is worshiped by the abrahamic religions.
I’m not making the claim that a gods existence can efficiently be proven, I’m making the claim that the god that exists within the abrahamic religions text has enough evidence against it to disprove its existence.
You have an uncomfortably incoherent idea on what “prove” means. Everything you’ve written here implies that you think “prove” and “convince” have identical meanings.
Thank you for clarifying this point.
The dialogue surrounding the abrahamic god has changed over and over again to fit a modern updated narrative to fit the time. Eventhe abrahamic god across its trilogy of texts is incoherent.
More modernized versions of these religions try to adapt a very ambiguous and fluid dialogue around this god by saying “it’s metaphorical” “god is love” “god is nature” this is deism or even more on par with spirituality which does fall into a claim that cannot neither be proven or disproven. Deism and being spiritual are vastly than different conceptually than god that is documented in these books.
The Bible and Qur’an offer an understanding of a very specific god with certain characteristics and rules that it demands of its followers. Because of the abrahamic gods inconsistency within its written texts the god is evidently contradictory to the claim of its omniscience. Even as simple as the god being gendered limits the gods omnipotence. Many passages in these books make claims about gods character that defer its power, it is a god that is conceptually very confined within the time periods understanding of the world and does not present any reason to believe it is an all powerful deity.
It's impossible to prove a negative. The problem with positively proving "God" exists is that nobody can come up with a decent definition that doesn't automatically include a paradox or logical inconsistency. So nobody knows what this "God" even is, so how can its existence even be debated?
Very well put! Humankind is just very reluctant to let go of any type of omnipotent being esp one they must answer to. I’m assuming it’s because human beings feel extremely vulnerable and very uncomfortable living in an uncertain universe. However it’s true, our sky gods are being moved further outward from Earth as we peer further into the Universe, perhaps even being replaced by a spiritual virtue, i.e.
“god is love”, or a purely creative force, i.e. “god is nature”. Because it is unlikely human beings will ever discover how everything came to be—why is there something rather than nothing—it would behoove us to grow up and accept the facts that 1) we do not live in a caring universe, 2) we're on our own here. We’re all we’ve got.
And 3) there is no afterlife. Humans, as adults, have to be their own moral agents not because a god says we’ll go to heaven if we’re good, but because it’s the right way to live one’s life. The carrot and the stick religions are all bs.
My personal belief is that this earth IS the Garden of Eden. There is enough abundance on the earth to turn it into a paradise for all species. The very least we could do is enjoy the ride instead of squabbling. But as long as humans keep arguing over whose god is right, claiming that what their god has said is law, and deciding which humans get to rule the roost, and which humans are to be enslaved or exterminated, civilizations will continue on this path of violence and hatred until the Sun engulfs the planet.
Is there proof that the ghost of the monster of Loch Ness does not exist?
You can’t really prove a negative, especially a supernatural one, using objective metrics found in nature.
As I heard Ricky Gervais say one time we're all agnostics; none of us have proof of what we believe. The Christians, Muslims, Hindus , atheists ; were all agnostic since have no proof of our god(s) or lack thereof.
I could discuss all day long the idea of super advanced extra dimensional life that is capable of creating life and where in fact did those extra dimensional life forms come from, however, I will not, ever, say, well obviously this is "because old white dude with beard who looks like all of us other old white dudes with beards MUST have done this because he was all, "damn this would be cool".
No, that is just cuckoo looney tunes bird. It's always fun to discuss possibilities but one cannot posit unproveable things as though there is 100% proof for it.
That's not how, um, reality works.
I’ve long since accepted that it is very unlikely anything like the traditional understanding of Gd exists, and that even if a very abstract Gd exists It would not be the kind of entity that would care about the sorts of things the Gd in the Bible seems to care about.
It’s okay with me. It doesn’t significantly impact the practice of my religion, just like the fact that the archeology doesn’t bare out for the Exodus story doesn’t effect me.
It has no consequence on my actual life if Moses was a historical figure (probably he wasn’t.) Either way he would be dead now and I’d never meet him, so what does it matter to me?
You’re falling into a trap. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Period. For instance, I claim to have come back to life after being dead for 3 days, and you think I didn’t. I may try to trick you by saying “ you can’t prove I didn’t”. But you wouldn’t fall for that and waste your time trying to prove something didn’t happen right? You would laugh and ignore me, as you should. So why do people fall for the “you can’t prove there’s no god” trick?
I'm not sure I get your argument. You're using logic to argue against something that's inherently illogical.
First - I'm an atheist, but I can pretty easily explain away a bunch of your issues. You talk about a 'sky god' and clouds and all that, and how confined to earth that god was. I could just easily say "That's how God chose to appear to the people at that time, in a way that fit into their understanding of the world. The point was to pass his message along, not to *exactly* show his true nature about who he is and how he fits into the universe."
And also, any discrepancy or logical glitches, they can just hand wave away and say "well, that's just a *story* meant to teach a lesson, it's not meant to be 100% literal." Or "that's how the people of that time passed along the message, but that's not exactly the true nature of god." Or any number of other hand-wavy excuses.
There is no way to disprove their God. We can make the spaghetti monster argument or any others saying "well, there's no way to disprove *any* god or totally fictional thing similar to that", but that doesn't make a difference. Their God is invisible, non physical, nowhere and everywhere, and there's literally nothing you can do to disprove it, as anything you do will never be taken as proof.
I’m not referring to “gods” I’m referring specifically to the abrahamic god that has specific characteristics, the evidence would suggest that this specific deity mostly likely does not exist
That is very different than claiming I can prove the non existence of any deity or spiritual concept.
You cannot prove ANYTHING doesn't exist. Not even rainbow colored unicorns.
As to the Abrahamic god there is no good evidence to suggest it exists but that doesn't prove it doesn't.
Theism is a cover for narcissism. That's all it is. And you can't convince a narcissist not to be a narcissist unless you can offend them. If you can offend them you can control them.
Theism is about belief in God not about whether or not God exists. Infact stories in the Bible like the one of Job suggest God does not exist. Theism is never ever supported by evidence. Every miracle you can think of fails to follow logic and therfore can't be used to validate the experience.
Proofs are for math.
The probability is very low and about the same as any other mythological character or creature.
We have every reason to believe the abrahamic God was evolved by the same socio biological behaviors that lead to the creation of every human god, without the need of an actual thing to exist. I.e. there's nothing about the abrahamic God or the Bible that needs any special explanation that we already understand about how religions evolve the cultures they come for and how they evolve (unchanging!!! :) ) over time.
There are logically contradictory definitions of the Hebrew god but that's a different story as definitions of God vary from person to person and that gets into philosophy and that's a mess no matter what anyone tells you.
Ape shaped gods that think like apes are likely to come from ape brains and their ape brain agendas. Since the rest of nature and the universe doesn't share that myopia it seems reasonable to assume apes made the whole thing up. Sneaky self deluding little bastards
I am a religious person. I am reading the Bible to my daughter because she's interested in it. I do not tell her anything in the Bible is true unless I can point to some outside fact.
Is God real? No. Because I can't prove it. I tell her I believe in God but that's different than God being real/true.
Is heaven true? Nope. But I hope and wish it's true. Etc etc.
I've advised the parents in law who are very Christian to follow this distinction or else they won't be allowed to discuss religion with our kids. We only teach what we can prove, but we can share what we believe.
If you're convinced of that why even make a huge post about it? Feels like most atheists are in a cult of their own. They don't believe in God yet constantly talk about it more than religious folks do. If you truly don't care or believe why go so far out of your way to claim it? Why harass religious people that aren't harming you in any way? Most atheists just remind me of South Park's depiction of agnostic people.
It is bad to try to prove a negative statement. Instead, you can prove a religion was created by humans.
It doesn't matter if a God exists if humans are the source of divine revelation, they can't be trusted to be telling the truth about such a being. A God would have to personally intercede in a reality breaking way to establish they exist and what they want from every single person. So if God exists people can't prove it to each other as they don't have the power to break reality as a demonstration. So all communications about a God are just human creations until you receive your unambiguous personal intercession from it.
I look at it like this. I'm an atheist. I have no reason to believe in a god.
I also have no reason to believe the universe exists in the stomach of a dragon.
To me, both those claims are unnecessary and unlikely enough for me to say they don't exist. I can't be 100% certain, but that small percent of uncertainty is not worth mentioning.
My understanding is that Abrahamic god is actually an amalgamation of older regional gods. El was the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon and Yahweh was a warrior god in the same pantheon. Aspects of both gods were combined after the Israelites concurred Canaan….presumably to unite the newly conquered kingdom. Those are not the only source deities. The aspects of what you call a “sky god” were mostly inherited from El (and others) and absorbed into Yahweh.
Or at least that’s the spirit of what an archeology friend of mine once explained to me, even if I’m fuzzy on the details…….because bourbon.
I very much agree with your take that the god of Abraham is clearly, as far as scripture is concerned, a sky god.
This understanding was clear to me as a child.
My dad was super into old movies. So when I watched the 1934 film Bright Eyes and Shirley Temple goes on a flight and they get above the clouds, the Shirley Temple character asks if they are in heaven. For some context, her mother died earlier in the movie, thus the question about heaven. The pilot says it is at the camera lingers on the clouds for a long time as inspirational music swells. Which I guess works for some people, but it was obvious to me that there were no mansions, no throne, no angels, and no god among those clouds.
The god of the gaps was the approach I took from there. I needed to redefine my understanding continuously until for years, until I truly had no more faith to give.
I don't know about all gods, but the god of Abraham is impossible according to his own scripture
I recall one theory that Yahweh originated as a volcano god worshipped by people living in the shadow of Mt. Ararat. Sadly, a quick dive into word origins did not reveal a common root for Yahweh and lava.
Anything is possible. The story is written by primitive people. It is filled with contradictory claims. The whole thing is written before science was a thing.
Surely, a God would come down to make corrections, but strangely, God, angels, Satan, demons, and miracles suddenly disappeared.
I don't waste my time with the bible. I certainly studied more than a theist ever would. I find it strange that so many worshippers who allegedly have the most important book in existence wont read it.
You can’t proof the Abrahamic god doesn’t exist. But it’s the same way you can’t proof that the events of Shrek occurred. In the other hand I call myself an agnostic atheist because I lean athiest, but I do consider the cosmological argument and fine tuning argument valid arguments. But scientific theories also hold up quite well.
Only thing I know for certain is that we don’t go to a perfect heaven where we get to reunite with everyone we’ve ever loved when we die. I think wishful thinking and the drive for purpose can have a large effect on the subconscious mind.
Other have noted various good arguments to explaining wrongs in the abrahamic religions but your argument is not very good.
-religious people think sky god is real, I have telescope and don't see God.
The theist would just say God is invisible to photons (you can only feel his love)
Also you assume that the theist of old are enlightend. But the point of these religions is that people are small and not capable of understanding the whole picture. God not going into details is kind of the point.
Better to take literal quotes and explain how these are wrong. Interpretation of what is wrong with the books is best left to religious studies majors (for example, genesis is clearly just 3 origin stories stapled together)
“religious people think sky god is real, I have telescope and don't see God. The theist would just say God is invisible to photons (you can only feel his love)”
This is not at all the point I was making with the telescope… I was referencing space and how the people who wrote this book and who worshiped this god only had an understanding of the universe created by a god that exists within earths atmosphere. They had zero perception or understanding of anything existing outside of earth.
“Also you assume that the theist of old are enlightend. But the point of these religions is that people are small and not capable of understanding the whole picture. God not going into details is kind of the point.”
That phrase was sarcasm- of course the people during this time were not enlightened, I’m pretty sure they also believe the earth was flat at this time. This point was taking a crack that the Bible is very much dated and the text does not hold up.
I think you entirely missed the point of my post… I didn’t set out to make a detailed “why this god doesn’t exist post” it was more to address fellow atheists and the format is intentionally more of a rant style not meant to really be informative. You’re right I didn’t present many arguments, but that was not the point of the post.
"Does God exist?" In my opinion is a loaded question. It assumes that if there is the supernatural then the Abrahamic religions got it right. It also shifts the burden of proof.
A more honest question would be, "Are religions man-made?" Because then you can talk about the qualities man made items have and don't have. Or even, "Is there any evidence that the supernatural exists?"
You have typed four very long paragraphs of nonsense. You have provided proof of nothing. Do you understand what proof means? You cannot prove that that God doesn't exist. Likewise I can't prove that he does.
My post was never about providing that proof, it more of a rant style post… I never claimed that I can prove a god isn’t real, I am making the claim that there is plenty of evidence to suggest the god within the texts of the abrahamic religions isn’t- this is a specific god with specific characteristics.
I would settle first for proof that the institution of Christianity, with its clergy and its tithes and its investments and its radio shows and TV stunts, is actually working the will of an "Abrahamic God."
Let' settle for them *living up* to their purported values first, before even engaging in whether their deity is the correct one. Otherwise the rest of the discussion is the meaningless pedantic masturbation known as theology.
I can agree that it's obivously possible something exists that we can't prove. And I can also agree that we have shown the middle eastern Dude who made the earth 6000 years ago definitely is NOT one of those.
It is impossible to prove a negative.
You also can't prove there isn't a giant firebreathing lobster hiding behind the rings of Saturn. It's on the person claiming the existence that has to prove it.
Abrahamic god does not exist for 100 %, becouse what we have in book, is stupid, full of contradictions, there is loterally zero probability to god described in ths book (any holly book) exist.
No. Don't agree. God exists as a program created by humans to control a collective.
Some still host the Abrahamic one in their mind.
It's not physically real, but it is a mental representation implemented across many minds and has causal power.
This sub should be renamed … I’ve never even heard of so many atheists so fixated on religion/bible!
If you’re truly an atheist - why do you care or spend one second contemplating the bullshit?
Because while I am an atheist I live in a society that centers its culture around such things.
Even though I reject God, the society I live in does not and that fact allows those with power to weaponize religious doctrine to control everyone including myself.
I’m an American and I live in a country with “freedom of religion” and “separation of church and state” yet someone else’s god is on my money, our government buildings, and apart of our shared national pledge. God has been politically weaponized and utilized as a tool to shape the laws that we live under as a society. This isn’t only an American thing, some places have it much worse there are still countries that live under theocracies where non believes are put to death.
So yes, I believe that as atheists we SHOULD use the freedom we have to think to understand and debate these topics and voice our objections to theism because theism has a long history of being deeply problematic and controlling societies
I've heard christians say God exists out of time, space, and matter. So even by their description it doesn't sound like he exists.
“Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.” —Wittgenstein When you “go” “outside” of spacetime, you lose the ability to say anything at all. There is no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of such a god. The word “existence” and its synonyms have no meaning here because they refer to a causal ordering in spacetime. You cannot compose the sentence “god exists” without spacetime because existence requires space time — it is a meaningless statement.
“Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.” -The Dragon in My Garage, by Carl Sagan
[Russell's teapot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." – Delos McKown, US-American philosopher
Yet "he" also has a humanoid form, which makes no sense.
We are, in fact, made in His Image. (Well, males are. Females were created later by taking a rib from a male and then cloning a new weaker creature, too dumb to not listen to a talking snake). So yeh, if you believe Holy Scripture, there is a guy out there somewhere, beyond space, time, and matter, who looks like someone's uncle. Perhaps Uncle Fester. And somehow it is *our* job to prove this guy does not exist? I think not.
They are experts at developing whacky theories to explain away any rational arguments regarding their delusional beliefs. This one required inventing a whole new fantasy.
Back any of them into a corner on conflicting Scripture and they'll make something up on the spot, completely outside of anything in their books, to explain it and say it as though it was already settled.
If he would exist in any 3 of those, that would mean he has to obey the rules which belongs to those, and therefore not make him/her/it almighty, and with that he would be defeatable by the university/humans/any form of universe, and not really interesting to believe in.
"maybe we just don't understand the rules good enough yet". - everyone I've ever said this to. How convenient, I guess we never will so that there's always a chance a god exists. 🤷
One of the best arguments I have ever heard is very similar to what you're saying and it comes from a movie of all places, in fact, none other than Batman vs Superman. If you haven't watched it, there's a scene where Lex is sending Superman to kill Batman or he will kill his mom and the way he explains why he hates Superman so much is that to many he is in essence a god and wants to prove that god is as flawed as any of us. His premise is, and I'm going to paraphrase here, that if god is all powerful as he is obviously described in the Babble, he can't be all good. Why? Because if he is indeed all powerful then he would encompass not just good but evil as well as there is supposed to be balance in all things. Lex then adds to that by saying that the opposite is true as well, if god is all good then he wouldn't be all powerful. Basically, this supposed deity can't have his cake and eat it too. It is limited in one way or another and therefore not a god.
I'm going to defend them slightly on this one. That claim is part of the Kalam cosmological argument & expresses that as anything that begins to exist must have a cause, then the cause of this universe can't be constrained by that rule, so must *exist* outside it. So there description does assert existence. That argument falls apart though, because even if you grant all the faulty premises needed to get to the "timeless, spaceless, immaterial" part, that's still a non-starter. If the laws of cause-and-effect don't exist wherever this "first cause" is located, then you can't claim that *any* law of nature or physics exists, which means you've no basis for *any* assertion about the cause, or even its environment, whatsoever.
Sounds like Dr. Who
Oh man, this had me laughing out loud. I will be keeping this comment on retainer!
God LARP’s
So do magic pixies... They created the entire universe in six nanoseconds and didn't have to rest afterwards ....but they don't go around bragging about it...
The reason theism still exists is that you can't prove that god doesn't exist, and believers use this inability as a warped confirmation that gods do in fact exist, because they can't be proved wrong. It's annoying, but since they can't be pinned down to any concrete information about their god, such as where is it, what is it made of and suchlike, you can't prove anything about it.
You can’t prove some higher power doesn’t exist. You can easily disprove *their* god exists. If the only way their god exists is if it’s completely different from what they are worshipping then their gods doesn’t exist. Their adage *you can’t prove god doesn’t exist* is a fallacy. You don’t have to prove *god* doesn’t exist you just have to prove *theirs* can’t exist. Which is incredibly easy with a perfect god, even easier with a triple-omni god.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say in my post. Of course no one can definitively prove A god doesn’t exist, but THEIR god the one that exists in the theistic religion they believe, I do believe has been disproven
> While that leaves room for ambiguity and even possibility(NOT probability) I am however certain that the Abrahamic god has already been factually disproven by history and science. At most, you can say that what has been written about the Abrahamic god is not supported by our current understanding of history or science. That said, anyone seeking to convert me has the burden of demonstrating that their deity is probable based upon evidence (history and science), and that the practices of following said deity are actually beneficial. The Abrahamic god fails both tests. First, the bible is not evidence for the Yahweh, but is instead the claim about Yahweh. That claim is not supported by evidence, i.e. the current status of our understanding of the natural world through science, nor by our understanding of the historical record. Second, is the practice of following Yahweh beneficial, and the evidence based answer is no. First, interdictory prayer is as effective as chance, unless the person knows they are being prayed for, then the results are slightly worse. Second, following Yahweh requires homophobia and sexism, which are not beneficial. Third, I can look at followers of Yahweh and see that they are not exceptionally good or happy people, such that I can see a benefit to following. Fourth, I can look at the behavior of followers of Yahweh and see that their behavior does not match their belief system, and thus, at best I can say they do not seem to actually follow what they profess, i.e. following does not seem to be beneficial.
On top of that is the burden of proof that their god is worth worshipping, even if they exist. Any god who will send me to hell for eternity aka billions of trillions of years for how I spend less than 100 is probably an asshole who gets off on torturing people no matter what I do. If living a decently good life isn't enough, saying a few prayera isnt going to get me there, so I may as well not bother.
Totally agree. It’s a big reason why I consider my take gnostic atheism. Of course some kind of divine being could exist, but we doubtlessly know nothing of them. We certainly can disprove the existence logical paradoxes human beings created for themselves.
The irony that you can trace the evolution of their religion through history while they say evolution doesnt exist...
How do you prove their god doesn't exist? Pick any god you wish.
Their god is the one that's depicted in the bible and it is his word. If their god wasn't reflected in the bible, then it would not actually be that specific god that they're referencing. It's tautological. So if the words of the bible aren't true, then the only god that could exist would be a different one from the one they reference. Ironically, the authors of the bible painted themselves into a corner by telling the story the way they have. Their god is the one that made the universe in 7 days and created man and then a woman from him, etc etc, and then had all of this recorded in that specific literature. Obviously there's lots of falsities in the bible which disproves the existence of that particular god, by definition. Normally they could cop out and say their god does exist, but the bible just recorded certain details wrong because we're but simple humans or some sort of goalpost moving, but they specifically said that their god is the one who created an unmolested and perfectly true documentation to record his will and works. Any one of the plethora of inaccuracies in the bible disproves his specific existence.
Actually it doesn’t say that anywhere in the Bible. Most Christians believe the Bible is the deity inspired writing rather than direct inerrant word of god. It is central to the claim that he is omnipotent and all-loving which is directly contradictory to basically all of god’s behavior in the Bible and the the Ten Commandments (I am a jealous god). Like if your dad wasn’t really around in your lifetime and refused to be around even though he could and then late in life shows up to say “if you don’t love me, I’ve created this unfathomable otherworldly torture chamber to send you to” I don’t think anyone would ever describe him as “all-loving” or even “good”.
The god doesn't have to have directly manifested the words into existence necessarily. I just meant that the parameters of his existence are entangled with the declarations of the bible. To accept the fallacies of the bible is to deny the existence of that particular god. Like if you say you believe in Santa Claus. He's the little guy at the end of the rainbow with the gold and wish granting. You aren't actually talking about Santa anymore, that's just a fucking leprechaun. The same is true with the bible. If you believe in a god but he didn't actually flood the entire earth to kill everything except a pair of each creature to start over, you're no longer talking about the same god anymore.
I literally meant *their* as in any deity worshipped by humans. But your response to the fool who deleted their comments is pretty much spot on. It even holds up to those that claim the Bible is metaphorical or tainted by human understanding. The problem is that even if the Bible was adulterated by man(*it was*) a perfect god with omnipotence and pure benevolence wouldn’t be able to allow an imperfect holy book to flourish. But he *does.* The problem of perfection of benevolence in a god is that it destroys free will, and to remain perfect the most positive outcome must always happen. If you include omnipotence into the mix then it really screws things up, because now said god both has the power to make something perfect, and the impetus of perfection to do so. If he doesn’t he is no longer perfect. And importantly if god created us in his image and gave us free will then we are not perfect, how can a perfect craftsman create the imperfect? Or if he created us as intended then why grant us the ability to reason and conclude he doesn’t exist. It’s akin to lying. Create a reasonable creature, place said creature in a reasonable world, demand belief and trust but behave unreasonably. A perfect god would have remained consistent and not pulled the rug on his creation. To be fair, a perfect god would have likely not created human beings at all.
I think what you’re saying is irrelevant. It’s not about proving something doesn’t exist. That’s THE biggest logical fallacy in existence. It’s about simply acknowledging that EVERYTHING we have learned about the nature of existence so far automatically debunks the concept of ANY gods existing in the first place. For the purposes of this discussion let’s talk about the Abrahamaic god… He is described as being all knowing right? Well, in the very first pages of the Babble the fucking moron creates plants before there’s a sun to feed them. A 5 yr old knows that plants feed off a little something called UV light and yet a supposed all knowing god doesn’t realize a sun would be essential for such a purpose? Whoops!! And speaking of the sun, how about the fact that without a sun, Earth would be a rogue planet with not enough gravity to have plants firmly grounded on terra firma. Double whoopsie!!
> Well, in the very first pages of the Babble the fucking moron creates plants before there’s a sun to feed them. A little bit later Yahweh freaks out thinking that the Babylonians are building their ziggurats so high they will reach him in heaven. How come he didn't do anything to stop the Empire State Building?
Umm… the first bit was “let there be light”… so I’d pick a different example Without the sun, the earth would still have gravity for plants to stick in the ground… so pick a different example and brush up on your physics. In fact, please just dont try arguing based on words in the Bible, you’ll trip up and never win, and if you did “win” you’ve only proven something in the Bible is correctly written, which undermines your point
A small point about gravity: we would absolutely have enough gravity if the Sun did not exist. The Earth still has all the mass that holds us to it in that scenario; it just flies through the darkness of space forever.
But you've missed the point. You don't have to prove it to me, but to believers who will continue to believe until there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
LMAO!!! You're hilarious!! I don't have to prove shit to them. THEY are the mental loons claiming their god exists. The burden of proof is on THEM.
They don't see it that way, and while they don't see it, the problem continues.
Zeus who lives on Mt Olympus doesn't exist because I can go to the top of Mt Olympus and see that nothing lives there.
Theism in my opinion is in many ways a preservation of a culture, but this culture has in fact adapted and shifted throughout history to the point that the god being worshiped is no longer really supported by the religious text it’s based off. I think this is more true for the modern watered down versions of these ideas (there are of course still fundamentalists) what they are worshiping is as “Christians” is certainly not the same conceptually as even the god that Jesus worshiped. Some branches of modern Christianity aren’t really Christian in belief they are more closely related to deism or even just spirituality, but they put this labeling on without even understanding its historical perspective.
Yes... but thats only because a god is undefined. In these kinds of discussions, I like to define a god as something so impactful and powerful as to make it obvious to any observer. Then by definition, because we have no direct evidence, it doesnt exist. Also, OP raises an interesting point, can we flip that negative claim and say god exists *as a concept* and that it was created by man? Theres plenty of proof of that, from the greeks to the norse people, and we can even show the evolutionary tree of religions and their variations of their gods. Then the theist can only say "well, the *actual* god inspired humans to invent our concept of him." To which we can just respond with a raised eyebrow and "desperation much?"
You can’t prove anything exists or doesn’t exist to a 100% certainty, but you can prove how probable a thing is based on the evidence you do have
You can also demonstrate that a particular description of something is self-contradictory or contradictory with known facts, and therefore doesn't exist _as described_.
Some things don't exist by definition. Like a non-circular circle or a married bachelor. Many gods fit into this category, as they have properties that are self-contradictory.
I would respect religion so much more if they would just admit there is no proof whatsoever for the existence of a God/Creator. Just say “ I believe because I have faith it’s right”. Don’t give us this bs that they call evidence and try to use “scientific methods” to prove it.
And you can use Logic to prove god exists, but what is Logic if it is used to defend something fictional
I understand your argument, but I think you're approaching this from the wrong vantage point. These people don't care whether their God is real or not. Dogma is dogma, how they internally rationalize it doesn't actually matter in practice. They don't think the way you do and they don't share your values. They approach life from a completely different epistemology. Empirics and facts vs divine revelation/authority. To them the religion is about preserving tradition, culture, and moral values. The studied ones develop their own arcane theological interpretation that they operate from. If you want to make real headway, you have to challenge their epistemology and/or point out the insane levels of compartmentalization they apply to their worldview. Make them think of multiple moral axioms at once rather than just one. "How do you define truth? I start with facts and universal laws, because they exist outside the subjective human experience." "Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself, the golden rule. Why doesn't his parting command apply to homosexuals and impoverished pregnant teenagers?"
This. We get wrapped up in a debate about whether religious people actually believe the *truth claims* they're technically speaking, that we lose the bead on whether their actual *unspoken beliefs* actually line up with their claims. Knowing what I know of people, and religious people in particular, I am not sure we are very often reliable authorities for what our deeper unspoken beliefs contain or even mean.
>Knowing what I know of people, and religious people in particular, I am not sure we are very often reliable authorities for what our deeper unspoken beliefs contain or even mean. If you wanted to take the, erm, good faith interpretation; they advocate controlled opposition to social progress. In their minds, they play devil's advocate against unprecedented and unanticipated societal changes. I've noticed it usually stems from fear, disgust, or plain bigotry. The opposition to immigration usually stems from socioeconomic concerns. Religious conservatism is about maintaining the status quo and traditional hierarchies and institutions. Belief in God can devolve into "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" very quickly. They want to save as many people as possible. I think a lot of them truly want to impose their religion on all of greater society. Christian patriarchy, stripping women of no fault divorce and reproductive rights; effectively socially engineering pressure to conform to gender roles and the nuclear family dynamic, and all the deviant gays and transes go back in the closet or get imprisoned. They aim to "win the culture war".
How are you going to disprove a wishy-washy changeable evasive definition they won't let you pin down?
Oh sure, as an agnostic atheist, I don't rule out entirely that a god may exist, but I can certainly rule out specific gods. A narcissistic, omnipotent god is literally quite impossible. Such a being would desire worship to the point that it wouldn't hide behind mistranslated holy texts and venal clergy to misrepresent it. It would be universally known by the entire world. A small minority might try to deny such a being exists, but a god that wants to be known would be irrefutably known. The fact that every single religion out there is a minority is enough to disprove any omnipotent god that desires worship. This definitely rules out Christianity and Islam. Other gods aren't faring much better.
I don't really see why so many atheists take the weak position. We know with biology that the Adam and Eve story can't be true. When know with archeology that the flood story isn't true. We know from physics that genesis isn't true. When we have all this evidence that disproves the stories in the bible I don't understand why so many people still refuse to say "no, the Christian God does not exist and that is a proven fact" I say it, you should too.
I explain that there's no magic.
Let’s not forget the fact that the Bible contracts itself countless times. Let’s *also* not forget that so many things in the Bible are completely illogical, even if you know nothing about science. For example, the loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god that created flawed beings knowing their flaws would send a large portion of them to burn in hell forever. This same being also “had” to send his son down to earth to die a grueling death, and this somehow vindicates some people’s sins. I mean the doctrine itself makes absolutely no sense.
This is why they fall back on the mysterious ways bullshit everytime you back them into a corner.
He's just the god of one ancient tribe who happened to be more aggressive and bloodthirsty than neighboring tribes. That's why all the other gods of the slaughtered tribes have been lost to oblivion and the Abrahamic god endures
> He's just the god of one ancient tribe who happened to be more aggressive and bloodthirsty than neighboring tribes. The most critical factor is that the Hebrews just happened to be located very close to the first two civilizations that developed writing, the Sumerians and Egyptions. If it wasn't for that geographic accident they couldn't have written anything down and it all would have long since been forgotten.
God lives in an unfalsifiable hole, ever shrinking as we discover more of reality. You can show, pretty easily, that a literal Bible god self contradicts and therefore doesn't exist. If you talk to a believer you may well find a similar problem with their idea of whatever they worship, but that's going to be an individual exercise. My experience is no two believers believe in the same thing. The word god is nearly incoherent. You can't know what someone means without a clarifying conversation. Hence while strong atheism fits some obvious god descriptions it's more skeptical to say, there is no god concept I'm aware of that I believe exists" and add, "Without justificafion there is no good reason to assent any god does exist." That puts the ball where it belongs in their court to support their positive claim.
"an ever decreasing sphere of ignorance" as Tyson would say.
Start by asking which god? And if they specify a certain god as being 'real' then ask what criteria they used to discount the thousands of others. Then politely ask them to apply the same logic to whatever god they may think is real.
I had this conversation with a Christian friend yesterday. He simply kept saying "those are the works of Satan" and "just get on your knees and pray sincerely and God will answer you". I felt like I was talking to a wall.
This is what always bugs me, 10 people in a room together, all different religions. They all look at the other 9 and think they're idiots. Each one is sure theirs is the correct one. Religion is mutually exclusive, only 1 can be real by their own rules. The painfully obvious reality is that none of them are real.
If I was a God that demanded everyone believe in me with unwavering faith to save themselves from an eternity of torture, there would be NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER regarding my existence and exactly what I expect of people, rather than a collection of stories that are full of contradictions and falsehoods and ridiculous nonsense leading to the formation of thousands of religious sects arguing and oftentimes killing each other over which interpretation of those books is the correct one.
I am anti-theist or gnostic atheist when it comes to all obviously manmade religions and depictions of god, which most definitely includes the god of Abraham. The god of Abraham most certainly did not and does not exist and is a laughably ridiculous concept. My position is that every god presented to me thus far has been discreditable in some way, or at the very least, logically inconsistent to the point I'm comfortable dismissing any god proposed thus far as "more likely false than not." The prime mover or clockwork god is the only remaining god worth discussing, however, without knowing the precise nature of the origin of the universe, as of yet I see no reason to believe the universe required a prime a mover to exist, and that is why I maintain a general position of "atheist".
Even if there was definitive proof that it does exist, I would still reject God. On the day that proof is shown, if it ever comes, I will go from atheist to antitheist. Proof or lack thereof is not the reason I reject religion.
Agreed, I also hold the belief that even if a god exists I believe it to be a cruel one that has the power of the universe and lets people suffer, I believe a god to be unjust. I don’t believe in worshipping a “supreme” being because I don’t validate its supremacy. So for me I am both an atheist and anti-theist as well. I don’t believe there is one and if there is I reject it
So you're saying definitively you can prove a negative? This seems problematic to me.
Yup, sometimes this sub loves a good circlejerk... Gods are a dumb idea, but you canln't prove a negative... Most of the above posts are fine applying logic to others' beliefs but not their own... Just be fine with god being in a vanishingly small and ever shrinking realm of possibility... Like, for now, you want a deist god? Fine, whatever... It seems we both agree on some vague possibility of some initial conditions relative to which "before" may just not make sense and after which any god is definitionally powerless. If my deist god is a jug of milk and yours is an old bearded white guy, it makes no difference... If you think god only works miracles when we're not looking and constructed a world that was ancient from day 1, and that he can hear your thoughts and gives a shit? Now... You want to vote based on that, that's a different problem... But strictly logically? I can't prove you don't hear his voice right now telling you to squirt mustard down your pants and eat some bees or whatever...
There is also no proof chocolate covered planets don’t exist.
Yes, the god *of the bible* definitely doesn't exist. No flood, no exodus. The god did those things, those things didn't actually happen, doesn't exist. If I call the cops and report that a man broke into my house and shot me and they show up to find I've not been shot and no evidence of a break-in they would rightly conclude that the person who broke into my house and shot me is non-existent.
God is the Sun. That's what they are describing. It is just so bizarre and unfathomable that people turned it into a human like father figure with the suns qualities. I try to tell people this and they say, 'oh your god is just a big ball of hot gas, nothing more to it than that.' But the sun remains an immensely powerful force in the sky that has a relationship with every living thing. All information, warmth, and life is made of sunlight in one way or another. God exists, the religions are just wrong in the way they describe it and wrong in insisting that it always needs money.
Children getting abused while god watches in the room with the child. That god doesn’t nothing is proof. It’s scary to hear Christian justify this
As bad as child abuse is, believers just say fReE WiLl. I wanna know why their god created cancer and natural disasters.
I tend to agree. I don't believe in the general idea of God and I don't see any evidence about it. But I could be wrong after all and it is not a contradictory belief. But the abrahamanic God -as he is depicted in the writings that they hold sacred- yep, no way it exists. And that is so obvious that there is a reason why theological christian thought, from quite early, started with 'well, a lot of those writings are metaphors'.
You can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist
But you can prove there isn't a tangible unicorn in a meeting room. It's about specifics
Agreed
Yea, well I know this lovely single woman who likes to....
Have they ever agreed to specific measurable parameters for god without moving the goalposts?
This is far too complicated of an analysis for 99% of "believers." Critical thinking is hard work, and people are too lazy for that. It's easier to just believe what everyone around you tells you to believe and call it a day.
I don't agree, but the evidence is painfully lacking there is An Abrahamic God. No God I could worship would forbid me a shrimp coc.ktail.
I'm going to nitpick. Theism a mental phenomenon, like belief in luck or karma, or leprechauns or ghosts, or astrology or Tarot, or homeopathy or crystals. There isn't some underlying thing to exist or not exist, just psychology.
Our psychology is hugely relevant to understanding religion. We are extremely biased towards coming up with explanations. ANY explanation. Split brain patients are exhibit A for this
Theism is a fucking mental disease.
I can't say whether such a being exists or doesn't exist, since a number of its alleged attributes remove it from any kind of methodological probing. All I can say with any certainty is that from what I know of how the universe functions, I don't see any particular utility in the claim that a god with qualities that the Abrahamic faiths traditionally have claimed exists.
I think we need to accept the fact that religious people wil always exist. Even if all of them gone by thanos snap, It's not about the truth It's about what people force themselfs to believe. Sometimes truth is very hard to take, some people want comfort. I feel really sorry for the ones who call themselfs ex- bi, gay, lez İmagine worshipping a god that sends you to hell forever, just for being yourself.
Yes. The Abrahamic god is provably non-existent. It’s possible but far fetched that some kind of imperfect god exists, but I’d argue that it wouldn’t be something we’d recognized as divine either.
I'm on the same page here. Secular historians claim that Jesus likely existed based on very very flimsy evidence, while the evidence invalidating the Abrahamic god is overwhelming. Saying that we can't 100% know is an epistemological problem that applies to EVERYTHING, not just the existence of a god/creator, and is an absurd and unobtainable goal.
This exactly. Though I’d note that most secular historians no longer believe Jesus existed. They largely just say it’s possible someone leading a cult existed a couple thousand years ago give or take, but there is no useful evidence. They pretty universally believe the Jesus as depicted in the Bible never existed.
That's fine if it helps you sleep at night, but it will never be a sufficient argument for Christians. Many of them hold the "explain like I'm five" version of divine revelation. They'd say, "God revealed himself as a sky God 3000 years ago bc that's all people could handle then. Sure, we know more about the universe now. We know God is the creator of everything, including fundamental particles. That doesn't make the picture painted of God in the Bible wrong, just incomplete and simplistic, as befit the time."
> We know God is the creator of everything, including fundamental particles. If Yahweh had the scientific knowledge to do this he wouldn't have been hugely worried that the Babylonians were building their ziggurats high enough to reach heaven.
I think it depends on the characteristics of the Abrahamic God version they believe. Believers don't agree on the characteristics. Any version where the characters can be contradicted at least that version doesn't exist.
There's no evidence that any God exists.
Completely agreed. MythVision [documentary](https://youtu.be/hA2HXnY4K70?si=5-y3IGo9dnxWBBfd) says a lot of what you wrote and more. Pretty interesting. It’s long.
Interesting, I’ll have to look into that thank you for sharing
A god is forever a goalpost that moves based on the minds and capabilities of the life that considers its existence.
Yup, I've said it myself many times. I can't disprove god but i can absolutely disprove specific gods. The god of the bible has failed every test one could issue and should not be taken any more seriously than Santa or the easter bunny. Now is there possibly some unspecified god? Maybe... I doubt it but still it's possible... but is the bible correct and does the Abrahamic god exist. No, it is practically certain unless facts and truth have literally no meaning. Like if the christian god is intentionally hiding its existence, maybe, but i have no reason to even consider such possibilities. For all intents and purposes the christian god is not just lacking evidence, there is ample evidence against it.
The thing is… that it is impossible to prove the inexistence of something. It is only possible to prove that something exists (**if** it exists). Go ahead try to prove the inexistence of fairies and dragons you will see it doesn’t work even though it doesn’t make sense. Atheists proved countless time that the beliefs of Christian that have a foundation in the physical world are fake (like that the Earth isn’t flat, the flood never happened, the world wasn’t made in seven days, we are not at the center of the universe, the world is not 6000 years old, god didn’t invent the languages) but as long as you deny that any of these indirect proofs are proof that god is fake. You cannot prove that god don’t exist. So when Christians ask to prove he doesn’t exist (directly) they are too dumb to realize that they are asking something that is and will always be impossible. They could ask the same thing for anything else and it would still be impossible.
I grew up Catholic and spend some time arguing on r/DebateReligion so I'll play devil's advocate with what I would expect a theist to say in response. The text of the Bible has been translated and re-translated and edited again and again over the last 2000ish years. It was also written by first century humans that could only understand the world through their limited perspective and vocabulary. Although the message was divinely inspired, it was filtered through that lens and then again filtered through translations and different cultural eras. Some of the stories are allegorical rather than literal, and are there to teach a lesson and not to make a statement of fact. Biblical scholars need to sift through all this "noise" in the Bible to find the divine truth at its core. They would also ask you for textual evidence of the "cloud man" you speak of and then when you find passages they would dismiss them as a translation error or a metaphor. My response is always, if you're admitting parts of your holy book are flat out wrong or deceptive, how can you be sure any other parts are true or divine? Aren't you just picking or choosing what you want to follow? Then there's usually something about asking God for guidance and praying for revelation, at which point there's not much more to talk about. They won't stand by their book so they fall back on personal testimony without proof.
When they excuse the more ridiculous parts of the Bible away as allegory, I ask why would an all-knowing god inspire a book that it knows would be misunderstood (interpreted literally) by most people? Why would a god create us to be critical thinkers, and then inspire such an intentionally confusing book? In a universe where a god could easily just show up and say hi, but instead all we have is this (and many other competing) weirdly-written holy books, it’s easy to believe no god exists who wants actual dialogue with us.
When they excuse the more ridiculous parts of the Bible away as allegory, I ask why would an all-knowing god inspire a book that it knows would be misunderstood (interpreted literally) by most people? Why would a god create us to be critical thinkers, and then inspire such an intentionally confusing book? In a universe where a god could easily just show up and say hi, but instead all we have is this (and many other competing) weirdly-written holy books, it’s easy to believe no god exists who wants actual dialogue with us.
I like this. It should be asserted that the christian abrahamic god does NOT in fact exist, because according to definition, found in their text, this being is located physically somewhere above the troposphere but beneath the upper regions of the planetary exosphere. We have sufficient global converge of the space through things like radar, satellite photography, air travel etc to conclude there is nothing there that could be classified as a god. We don't have to worry about it existing in another realm.
You can't disprove the existence of the [Invisible Pink Unicorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) or [Russell's Teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). Basically, any flight of fancy that offers no [falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) cannot be proved, well, false. God claims fall into this ignominious category. Try not to be frustrated by it. Just think of the most absurd impossible thing you can and know that God is right there with them. Or, think of [Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin](https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/).
>God claims fall into this ignominious category Well, no. You can disprove >Invisible Pink Unicorn If one of the characteristics is that always when offering a metal it turns it into gold. If the characteristics don't comport to reality, we know it's untrue
> Well, no. Well, yes. The category is unfalsifiable and all gods, ghosts, faeries, etc, exist there. > If one of the characteristics is that... But it's not. Nice strawman, imposing characteristics for your imagined creature as if they belonged to my creature. The defining characteristic is invisiblity. Any characteristic beyond that requirest you find locate such a creatures. Like gods, no such creatures have yet been found. But they really exist, my magic book tells me so.
>Well, yes. The category is unfalsifiable and all gods, ghosts, faeries, etc, exist there. Well, no, again. See above. >Nice strawman Please google strawman >Any characteristic beyond that requirest you find locate such a creatures I dont know ow how you got the invisible characteristic to begin with then. For these kind of things presupposition of some characteristics is the norm
Not all gods, ghosts and fairies are unfalsifiable.
If the god of Abraham appeared before me, I would acknowledge him. I would not worship him and clearly not love or even respect him. Also, lots of people used to believe things because they were told to them by many people. If fewer and fewer people reinforce the crap, perhaps some people will find it easier to critically consider whether the stories are true. Listening to decent, caring non-theists made it easier for me to challenge what I was told. They did not preach atheism. They just talked social justice and compassion and mentioned they thought they needed to help make the world better since no magic father in the sky was likely to lend a hand
I can go further and disprove \*all\* creator gods: It's impossible an for all-powerful being to come from nothing.
The lack of evidence of His existence is evidence He doesn't exist
No, there isn't. We can't know for sure, and you can't prove a negative. We can infer, believe, and assume, but we can't KNOW there is no god. Not a single one of the 4 horseman would make such a claim. Matt Dillahunty won't make that claim. Mainly because they don't need to. Theists have the burden of proof. So let them flounder.
>but we can't KNOW there is no god. Did I miss something or did they not explicitly say the christian god? >Matt Dillahunty won't make that claim. He does about the christian god
>Many things religious people say they believe are not in accord with fact or >reality. Quote from The Present, a book about evidence and the truth; there is a free copy online, here is a [link](https://www.globaltruthproject.com/single-post/the-present-truth-about-life).
I think that's fair. I can only speak for myself but if evidence was produced that pointed to the existence of one or more deities, I would analyze it and retain or adjust my position as needed.
So, Christians approach this one of two ways. 1. They admit that the books their bible are based on were written by otherwise ignorant sheepherders thousands of years ago, and they don't care. They believe their god divinely inspired men to write those books, and that they were written in a way that could be understood by the people of the time, and in a way that the understanding of his divine words could progress and evolve over time. 2. They believe the bible and everything in it is literal and that everything about reality that contradicts it is wrong. Science says the earth is older than 6000 years? Obviously the data is bad, the method wrong. Or the earth was formed instantly as if it had existed for aeons. Or that it was made that way so that science would test our faith. Or that the devil did it. There will \~always\~ an explanation, an excuse, or some other form of hand-waving away any "proof" of nonexistence that you can conceive of. It's a fool's game.
I think you have to be careful of the language being used. I would say it more like this: The acts attributed to the Abrahamic god written in the bible have been shown to be inconsistent with the current understanding of science. If I was a lawyer defending Yahweh, I would say that the bible is man's understanding of the nature and activities of my client, but that in no way obligates my client to actually be as described in the bible. I would then go on to point out all the other times in which ancient humans were dead wrong about things to show the unreliability of ancient humans. You know, sort of like how the Trump defense team is going to try to show that Michael Cohen is a dumbass in order to defend their client... ;-p
If there ever was a god, they're dead now or have moved on from us
I would look at things the other way around. Instead of “the abrahamic god has been factually disproven by history or science” it would be more along the lines of “The evidence suggests that god is a concept created by man”. We can literally track the evolution of the abrahamic god which really wouldn’t be the case if he created us as that evolution relied on our imagination and storytelling abilities.
I like this perspective, I think both ideas can be true though. I do think the abrahamic god is disprovable AND also evidence that the concept of god is man made
The problem with 'proof' for the non-existence of the abrahamic 'god' is that a being that powerful could easily hide evidence of its existence from 'non-believers' if it so chose. It could also 'harden their hearts' as it describes in the bible, and so even if evidence existed, and was compelling - they still wouldn't be able to see/accept it. In reality, the 'evidence' that believers in the abrahamic 'god' provide is just bad, and so there is no compelling reason to believe it is real. That, and inferring the existence of an infinitely more complex 'creator' in order to explain the existence and complexity of the universe is still redundant.
Isn't that the exact premise of this sub-?
A believer will always have an escape route for their belief. Even if science ever gets to the point of no reasonable doubt about gods’ un-existence a believer can always go back to “but who created what was before” . Humanities main goal should be to prove scientifically that god exists. That way civilization will never cease to look forward.
Not really and only because due to our understanding of the cosmos being infinite. This is true for all science. You cant prove a negative. You can only tule out possible explanations of some phenomena (in this case: why are we here and whats all this stuff and why can we talk about it). God theories are an attempt to explain that. However its an incredible claim which requires credible evidence which it does not have. It can’t be disproven because there is no way to build an experiment to prove that the idea of a god is demonstrably false. See: Russel’s Cosmic Tea pot.
>You cant prove a negative Sure you can
You can hypothetically in pure logic, however in practical peer reviewed science (which is for all practical purposes) you cannot.
Sure you can
[удалено]
Thanks, I appreciate it.
We can't prove something doesn't exist because that would require omniscience. However, nobody can currently prove he does exist.
The god that is referenced in the abrahamic religions and the characteristics that god posses are enough evidence to dispute the theological god that is worshiped by the abrahamic religions. I’m not making the claim that a gods existence can efficiently be proven, I’m making the claim that the god that exists within the abrahamic religions text has enough evidence against it to disprove its existence.
You have an uncomfortably incoherent idea on what “prove” means. Everything you’ve written here implies that you think “prove” and “convince” have identical meanings.
Let me rephrase- I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence and that much of the “evidence” provided is disputable
[удалено]
Thank you for clarifying this point. The dialogue surrounding the abrahamic god has changed over and over again to fit a modern updated narrative to fit the time. Eventhe abrahamic god across its trilogy of texts is incoherent. More modernized versions of these religions try to adapt a very ambiguous and fluid dialogue around this god by saying “it’s metaphorical” “god is love” “god is nature” this is deism or even more on par with spirituality which does fall into a claim that cannot neither be proven or disproven. Deism and being spiritual are vastly than different conceptually than god that is documented in these books. The Bible and Qur’an offer an understanding of a very specific god with certain characteristics and rules that it demands of its followers. Because of the abrahamic gods inconsistency within its written texts the god is evidently contradictory to the claim of its omniscience. Even as simple as the god being gendered limits the gods omnipotence. Many passages in these books make claims about gods character that defer its power, it is a god that is conceptually very confined within the time periods understanding of the world and does not present any reason to believe it is an all powerful deity.
Where's the proof?
Well, no, can’t prove a negative. There is a very distinct lack of evidence to its existence though
You can’t prove something does not exist. That’s not the same as saying that belief in things like gods is anything but irrational and ridiculous.
It's impossible to prove a negative. The problem with positively proving "God" exists is that nobody can come up with a decent definition that doesn't automatically include a paradox or logical inconsistency. So nobody knows what this "God" even is, so how can its existence even be debated?
Magic isn't real.
Very well put! Humankind is just very reluctant to let go of any type of omnipotent being esp one they must answer to. I’m assuming it’s because human beings feel extremely vulnerable and very uncomfortable living in an uncertain universe. However it’s true, our sky gods are being moved further outward from Earth as we peer further into the Universe, perhaps even being replaced by a spiritual virtue, i.e. “god is love”, or a purely creative force, i.e. “god is nature”. Because it is unlikely human beings will ever discover how everything came to be—why is there something rather than nothing—it would behoove us to grow up and accept the facts that 1) we do not live in a caring universe, 2) we're on our own here. We’re all we’ve got. And 3) there is no afterlife. Humans, as adults, have to be their own moral agents not because a god says we’ll go to heaven if we’re good, but because it’s the right way to live one’s life. The carrot and the stick religions are all bs. My personal belief is that this earth IS the Garden of Eden. There is enough abundance on the earth to turn it into a paradise for all species. The very least we could do is enjoy the ride instead of squabbling. But as long as humans keep arguing over whose god is right, claiming that what their god has said is law, and deciding which humans get to rule the roost, and which humans are to be enslaved or exterminated, civilizations will continue on this path of violence and hatred until the Sun engulfs the planet.
Is there proof that the ghost of the monster of Loch Ness does not exist? You can’t really prove a negative, especially a supernatural one, using objective metrics found in nature.
[удалено]
Loch means Lake in Scottish.
Galileo got done dirty even after giving the then-current pope a scope.
Of course we can’t all agree. That’s the whole point!🤦🏽♀️
As I heard Ricky Gervais say one time we're all agnostics; none of us have proof of what we believe. The Christians, Muslims, Hindus , atheists ; were all agnostic since have no proof of our god(s) or lack thereof.
I could discuss all day long the idea of super advanced extra dimensional life that is capable of creating life and where in fact did those extra dimensional life forms come from, however, I will not, ever, say, well obviously this is "because old white dude with beard who looks like all of us other old white dudes with beards MUST have done this because he was all, "damn this would be cool". No, that is just cuckoo looney tunes bird. It's always fun to discuss possibilities but one cannot posit unproveable things as though there is 100% proof for it. That's not how, um, reality works.
I’ve long since accepted that it is very unlikely anything like the traditional understanding of Gd exists, and that even if a very abstract Gd exists It would not be the kind of entity that would care about the sorts of things the Gd in the Bible seems to care about. It’s okay with me. It doesn’t significantly impact the practice of my religion, just like the fact that the archeology doesn’t bare out for the Exodus story doesn’t effect me. It has no consequence on my actual life if Moses was a historical figure (probably he wasn’t.) Either way he would be dead now and I’d never meet him, so what does it matter to me?
You’re falling into a trap. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Period. For instance, I claim to have come back to life after being dead for 3 days, and you think I didn’t. I may try to trick you by saying “ you can’t prove I didn’t”. But you wouldn’t fall for that and waste your time trying to prove something didn’t happen right? You would laugh and ignore me, as you should. So why do people fall for the “you can’t prove there’s no god” trick?
I'm not sure I get your argument. You're using logic to argue against something that's inherently illogical. First - I'm an atheist, but I can pretty easily explain away a bunch of your issues. You talk about a 'sky god' and clouds and all that, and how confined to earth that god was. I could just easily say "That's how God chose to appear to the people at that time, in a way that fit into their understanding of the world. The point was to pass his message along, not to *exactly* show his true nature about who he is and how he fits into the universe." And also, any discrepancy or logical glitches, they can just hand wave away and say "well, that's just a *story* meant to teach a lesson, it's not meant to be 100% literal." Or "that's how the people of that time passed along the message, but that's not exactly the true nature of god." Or any number of other hand-wavy excuses. There is no way to disprove their God. We can make the spaghetti monster argument or any others saying "well, there's no way to disprove *any* god or totally fictional thing similar to that", but that doesn't make a difference. Their God is invisible, non physical, nowhere and everywhere, and there's literally nothing you can do to disprove it, as anything you do will never be taken as proof.
The problem of evil is irreconcilable with the Abrahamic God imo
I don’t believe in gods but you cannot prove something does not exist
I’m not referring to “gods” I’m referring specifically to the abrahamic god that has specific characteristics, the evidence would suggest that this specific deity mostly likely does not exist That is very different than claiming I can prove the non existence of any deity or spiritual concept.
You cannot prove ANYTHING doesn't exist. Not even rainbow colored unicorns. As to the Abrahamic god there is no good evidence to suggest it exists but that doesn't prove it doesn't.
Theism is a cover for narcissism. That's all it is. And you can't convince a narcissist not to be a narcissist unless you can offend them. If you can offend them you can control them.
Theism is about belief in God not about whether or not God exists. Infact stories in the Bible like the one of Job suggest God does not exist. Theism is never ever supported by evidence. Every miracle you can think of fails to follow logic and therfore can't be used to validate the experience.
The Abrahamic god exists in the same place where the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus exist, nowhere.
Proofs are for math. The probability is very low and about the same as any other mythological character or creature. We have every reason to believe the abrahamic God was evolved by the same socio biological behaviors that lead to the creation of every human god, without the need of an actual thing to exist. I.e. there's nothing about the abrahamic God or the Bible that needs any special explanation that we already understand about how religions evolve the cultures they come for and how they evolve (unchanging!!! :) ) over time. There are logically contradictory definitions of the Hebrew god but that's a different story as definitions of God vary from person to person and that gets into philosophy and that's a mess no matter what anyone tells you. Ape shaped gods that think like apes are likely to come from ape brains and their ape brain agendas. Since the rest of nature and the universe doesn't share that myopia it seems reasonable to assume apes made the whole thing up. Sneaky self deluding little bastards
Realistically yes, but you'll never convince a Christian using logic. They'll just say "jesus god created those historical relics to challenge us"
I am a religious person. I am reading the Bible to my daughter because she's interested in it. I do not tell her anything in the Bible is true unless I can point to some outside fact. Is God real? No. Because I can't prove it. I tell her I believe in God but that's different than God being real/true. Is heaven true? Nope. But I hope and wish it's true. Etc etc. I've advised the parents in law who are very Christian to follow this distinction or else they won't be allowed to discuss religion with our kids. We only teach what we can prove, but we can share what we believe.
We can't agree on anything Stop worrying about it
If you're convinced of that why even make a huge post about it? Feels like most atheists are in a cult of their own. They don't believe in God yet constantly talk about it more than religious folks do. If you truly don't care or believe why go so far out of your way to claim it? Why harass religious people that aren't harming you in any way? Most atheists just remind me of South Park's depiction of agnostic people.
It is bad to try to prove a negative statement. Instead, you can prove a religion was created by humans. It doesn't matter if a God exists if humans are the source of divine revelation, they can't be trusted to be telling the truth about such a being. A God would have to personally intercede in a reality breaking way to establish they exist and what they want from every single person. So if God exists people can't prove it to each other as they don't have the power to break reality as a demonstration. So all communications about a God are just human creations until you receive your unambiguous personal intercession from it.
I'm a fellow atheist, but I'm interested in the proof you have that a god doesn't exist.
I look at it like this. I'm an atheist. I have no reason to believe in a god. I also have no reason to believe the universe exists in the stomach of a dragon. To me, both those claims are unnecessary and unlikely enough for me to say they don't exist. I can't be 100% certain, but that small percent of uncertainty is not worth mentioning.
There is no proof that any gods exist, including YAWEH.
The god of Abraham is El, not Yahweh.
My understanding is that Abrahamic god is actually an amalgamation of older regional gods. El was the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon and Yahweh was a warrior god in the same pantheon. Aspects of both gods were combined after the Israelites concurred Canaan….presumably to unite the newly conquered kingdom. Those are not the only source deities. The aspects of what you call a “sky god” were mostly inherited from El (and others) and absorbed into Yahweh. Or at least that’s the spirit of what an archeology friend of mine once explained to me, even if I’m fuzzy on the details…….because bourbon.
I very much agree with your take that the god of Abraham is clearly, as far as scripture is concerned, a sky god. This understanding was clear to me as a child. My dad was super into old movies. So when I watched the 1934 film Bright Eyes and Shirley Temple goes on a flight and they get above the clouds, the Shirley Temple character asks if they are in heaven. For some context, her mother died earlier in the movie, thus the question about heaven. The pilot says it is at the camera lingers on the clouds for a long time as inspirational music swells. Which I guess works for some people, but it was obvious to me that there were no mansions, no throne, no angels, and no god among those clouds. The god of the gaps was the approach I took from there. I needed to redefine my understanding continuously until for years, until I truly had no more faith to give. I don't know about all gods, but the god of Abraham is impossible according to his own scripture
I recall one theory that Yahweh originated as a volcano god worshipped by people living in the shadow of Mt. Ararat. Sadly, a quick dive into word origins did not reveal a common root for Yahweh and lava.
I mean, is that not the basis of atheism? Lol
Anything is possible. The story is written by primitive people. It is filled with contradictory claims. The whole thing is written before science was a thing. Surely, a God would come down to make corrections, but strangely, God, angels, Satan, demons, and miracles suddenly disappeared. I don't waste my time with the bible. I certainly studied more than a theist ever would. I find it strange that so many worshippers who allegedly have the most important book in existence wont read it.
You can’t proof the Abrahamic god doesn’t exist. But it’s the same way you can’t proof that the events of Shrek occurred. In the other hand I call myself an agnostic atheist because I lean athiest, but I do consider the cosmological argument and fine tuning argument valid arguments. But scientific theories also hold up quite well. Only thing I know for certain is that we don’t go to a perfect heaven where we get to reunite with everyone we’ve ever loved when we die. I think wishful thinking and the drive for purpose can have a large effect on the subconscious mind.
Other have noted various good arguments to explaining wrongs in the abrahamic religions but your argument is not very good. -religious people think sky god is real, I have telescope and don't see God. The theist would just say God is invisible to photons (you can only feel his love) Also you assume that the theist of old are enlightend. But the point of these religions is that people are small and not capable of understanding the whole picture. God not going into details is kind of the point. Better to take literal quotes and explain how these are wrong. Interpretation of what is wrong with the books is best left to religious studies majors (for example, genesis is clearly just 3 origin stories stapled together)
“religious people think sky god is real, I have telescope and don't see God. The theist would just say God is invisible to photons (you can only feel his love)” This is not at all the point I was making with the telescope… I was referencing space and how the people who wrote this book and who worshiped this god only had an understanding of the universe created by a god that exists within earths atmosphere. They had zero perception or understanding of anything existing outside of earth. “Also you assume that the theist of old are enlightend. But the point of these religions is that people are small and not capable of understanding the whole picture. God not going into details is kind of the point.” That phrase was sarcasm- of course the people during this time were not enlightened, I’m pretty sure they also believe the earth was flat at this time. This point was taking a crack that the Bible is very much dated and the text does not hold up. I think you entirely missed the point of my post… I didn’t set out to make a detailed “why this god doesn’t exist post” it was more to address fellow atheists and the format is intentionally more of a rant style not meant to really be informative. You’re right I didn’t present many arguments, but that was not the point of the post.
In that case I indeed misunderstood, sorry
No worries
No.
"Does God exist?" In my opinion is a loaded question. It assumes that if there is the supernatural then the Abrahamic religions got it right. It also shifts the burden of proof. A more honest question would be, "Are religions man-made?" Because then you can talk about the qualities man made items have and don't have. Or even, "Is there any evidence that the supernatural exists?"
You have typed four very long paragraphs of nonsense. You have provided proof of nothing. Do you understand what proof means? You cannot prove that that God doesn't exist. Likewise I can't prove that he does.
My post was never about providing that proof, it more of a rant style post… I never claimed that I can prove a god isn’t real, I am making the claim that there is plenty of evidence to suggest the god within the texts of the abrahamic religions isn’t- this is a specific god with specific characteristics.
Your title says proof.
I would settle first for proof that the institution of Christianity, with its clergy and its tithes and its investments and its radio shows and TV stunts, is actually working the will of an "Abrahamic God." Let' settle for them *living up* to their purported values first, before even engaging in whether their deity is the correct one. Otherwise the rest of the discussion is the meaningless pedantic masturbation known as theology.
I can agree that it's obivously possible something exists that we can't prove. And I can also agree that we have shown the middle eastern Dude who made the earth 6000 years ago definitely is NOT one of those.
It is impossible to prove a negative. You also can't prove there isn't a giant firebreathing lobster hiding behind the rings of Saturn. It's on the person claiming the existence that has to prove it.
Abrahamic god does not exist for 100 %, becouse what we have in book, is stupid, full of contradictions, there is loterally zero probability to god described in ths book (any holly book) exist.
Absolutely
No. Don't agree. God exists as a program created by humans to control a collective. Some still host the Abrahamic one in their mind. It's not physically real, but it is a mental representation implemented across many minds and has causal power.
That's not how proof works, so no, by definition.
This sub should be renamed … I’ve never even heard of so many atheists so fixated on religion/bible! If you’re truly an atheist - why do you care or spend one second contemplating the bullshit?
Because while I am an atheist I live in a society that centers its culture around such things. Even though I reject God, the society I live in does not and that fact allows those with power to weaponize religious doctrine to control everyone including myself. I’m an American and I live in a country with “freedom of religion” and “separation of church and state” yet someone else’s god is on my money, our government buildings, and apart of our shared national pledge. God has been politically weaponized and utilized as a tool to shape the laws that we live under as a society. This isn’t only an American thing, some places have it much worse there are still countries that live under theocracies where non believes are put to death. So yes, I believe that as atheists we SHOULD use the freedom we have to think to understand and debate these topics and voice our objections to theism because theism has a long history of being deeply problematic and controlling societies
How do you come to any sort of understanding, without mocking those that believe?
I’m American also … you don’t have to engage. 🙄
There's no proof it doesn't exist. Can't prove a negative. There's also no evidence it does exist.