Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

>Part 2.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Just because you can't disprove something, doesn't make it true. I can't disprove that flying unicorns roamed the universe 13 million years and neither can you.

Agree

God is unprovable, untestable, and unknowable. And is, therefore, an invalid theory.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Empiricism is a weak philosophy if it excludes belief in God.
God is very possible.

It doesn't make it false either

By the same logic just because you can't prove that flying unicorns roamed the universe 13 million years ago that doesn't mean that it's not true

Nothing wrong with a "god" being malevolent if one existed.

No, we've had this discussion more times than I can possibly count. No "Part Two" about it, we're easily in the billions. You cannot disprove it any more than you can Russell's teapot. That doesn't mean it's there.

To disprove god you need to prove religion's claims wrong. It will take time, but at some point, we will know enough about the universe to know that everything in the bible is complete bullshit.

as possible as the flying spaghetti monster
possible doesnt mean real

If you look at the complexity of universe, life on earth, all the amazing planets and natures phenomenon’s. And after that claim that there is this kind of god in the clouds, who hates homosexuals and pork etc. It’s total lunacy. If there is an omnipotent being that created us all, can see in to the future and so on, we will never be able to comprehend it, if you know what I’m saying.

it means you are a moron if you believe in it

Science kind of proves God exist.

You knkw like how that picture of a brain cell and what the universe might look like. Or how nebulas look like eyes. It exists on large scale and small scale. So why not consciousness? Id say probability leans that there is a being beyond our compression. Some call it God.

Stop wasting your time on stupid, pointless questions and focus on world around you.
Not the goddamn bible.

As are Universe-Farting Pixies.

nothing wrong at all, but its not the god religions picture
the god religions picture is impossible to exist as epicurus proves

Possible but not testable. Therefore any discussion on the matter is moot, as there will never be a resolution. And so the idea of a god is essentially worthless.

/thread

I served a rebuttal to like 2 of u assholes.. make sure u caught it please...

Agreed

>retard

Theoretically, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

That was roughly 100 years ago m8.

You've misquoted Epicurus. He argued an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god cannot exist in a world where evil exists. That quote is some cunt assuming the only god can be the one in monotheism, or that all gods are the fucking power fantasy Mary Sue that the Abrahamic faggots made up.

Empirical science is based upon abductive reasoning.
You can make abductive arguments for God even if it is not testable.

I'll believe beings beyond our comprehension but it's kind of narcissistic to believe that they would give a fuck what we do.

Possible to disprove organised religions as they are now

>Nebula's sort of look like eyes
>The entire universe is sort of like a cell
>This kind of proves god.

No it doesn't. Just because some things have a large scale comparison, doesn't prove anything.

ok so u are just here to prove that religious people are wrong? dosnt everyone already know that tho... we are talking about god. u are coming into a convo about a math problem and stating all the ways retards cant math worth a shit... which puts u on retard level....

unless it's logically contradictory eg. a square circle, an all-knowing, all-powerful entity

Abductive reasoning is only the beginning though. It is a way to postulate a theory, not to prove one.

do u actually know why science and religion don't mix tho? can you really explain it? most atheists leave it up subtext and let people who know the argument do the arguing, but they still wana argue anyways...so do you know how they don't fit together? which part of science says relgion cant be true and which part of religion says that science isn't true?

The absence of proof that man on a court is guilty is the evidence that he's not guilty.

The absence of proof that God exists is the evidence He does not exists by itself.

/thread.

you know how there are like horses and then there are like rhinos, so why not both. we could call them unicorns hurrr durrr

Depending on the geometry of the surface, you can have triangles with three right angles. It's not as simple as what you observe. However, we can make pretty good educated guesses.

Am i wearing a blue shirt right now? You don't know. Did my blue shirt create the universe? Probably not.

too much info taken from your own ass
you need to work a little harder on that bait friendo

The scientific method says it. Religion is man made and irrelevant. However God as a concept is untestable, and therefore cannot exists as a valid theory.

which info did I give? sounds a lot more like you cant rebuttal for shit... work on ur stalling faggot.

yea see. you didn't say anything. you just regurged shit uv heard. you don't know what ur talking about. go read up on this shit faggot.

assuming you know why other people responded something

admit you just got butt-blasted and had nothing else to say so you started attacking the person and not the argument

Yes, but all of your deductive arguments that "prove" a phenomena are still based in abductive reasoning (using an observation to form the most likely explanation).

Take for instance quarks and nucleons. A non-composite particle has a simple, spherical structure. Nucleons have a three-pronged structure, therefore nucleons are composite particles.

This ignores the fact that matter could have had a folded tertiary structure like a protein.

You then use abductive reasoning and recognize that the simpler explanation is that we have no other evidence of folded structures so it is more likely that nucleons are composite particles.

Even with proof, you still base your beliefs upon abductive reasoning.

You can say God is the most likely explanation for the universe due to it's improbability and the explanatory power of the statement.

Which is exactly what that quote did. God is a god named God but not all gods are named God.

Shit I've heard? Mate what field of physics did you say you were working in again?

people with a brain are always killing this thread....

I didn't attack anything. I did shoot down ur argument...
>buttblasted
lmao
it sure sounds like I have plenty to say there bud... what else u got?

you didnt shut down anything, here is what you said
>ok so u are just here to prove that religious people are wrong? dosnt everyone already know that tho... we are talking about god. u are coming into a convo about a math problem and stating all the ways retards cant math worth a shit... which puts u on retard level....

see, all you did was get anally annoyed and attacked the person, not a single word about the argument

cry some more faggot

explain how science and religion don't mix... don't just regurg shit that uv heard.. give the actual reasons. and no "you cant test that so not real" isn't scientific, its ignorant... and theres wars still happening so its hardly irrelevant, but that has nothing to do with the point anyways. plus if it wasn't relevant, you wouldn't be here failing to talk shit about it... try again faggot....

lol nice bait. I don't eat that shit tho. carry on faggot.
>mfw assuming u arnt actually that fucking tarded....

Have you ever studied in any STEM field? Or are you just here throwing shit, and rejecting any kind of intelligent discussion like it's one of your illegitimate nigger kids.

“I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.”

>derrière disgruntled

ur the one avoiding my request. you ended the "intelligent discussion". why don't they mix?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

...

spodermun iz dat u ?

Yes. He doesn't.

quads are always speaking the truth

How does it matter? Do you really think one should only disbelieve in things they can disprove?

"to suffer at the hands of an outlandish man for his outlandish claims about outlandish concepts, you must first be an outlandish fool"-me just now

I gave you a valid answer which you rejected. The core of science is about testable hypothesis. If someone presents an untestable idea, then it has no worth in science. The individual claims in religion such as Noah's ark, is testable. God is not.

burden of proof fallacy: The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever

I didn't reject it, u just didn't give any specific evidence as to how they don't mix. and science dose very clearly not say"if we don't know about it, it dosnt exist" so that's a shit argument. plus to someone whos religious, everything you said is wrong cus its not in the bible, them I would call a dipshit too... so you have no real evidence??? looks like it. youv proven my point.

Such shit bait. I didn't say that if we don't know about it then it doesn't exist. I said that if we can never know about it, then it has not valid place in scientific discussion. Regardless of whether it exists or not, because we will never know.

hahahaha I use logic to murder your stupid thread. the 2 atheists left in the room can have fun arguing with no one, im outskies. peace you crying bitches.

see u don't even know. u called me bait but u defend urself. u suck dick at debating kid. go to school, ur not sick ur faking it.

> and science dose very clearly not say"if we don't know about it, it dosnt exist"
Not the same user but anyway: Science is about describing nature quantitatively. Untestable claims are simply useless in a scientific sense. Science does not ask the question "Does x exist?" but "Is it useful to include the idea of x into our model?". God has no merit in that regard.

Be more black
It's not obvious enough that you're a nigger

Does nature exist?
>Yes.
Then at the bare minimun we have a God that rules over it. Nature itself.
>But isn't God a being made of spirit or some other shit?
Yes, depending on what you believe he is. What you believe or not doesn't change what he actualy is, but you can "perceive" him in every level, so you can have a "different God" for every moment of your life depending on what you need or see.
>But I believe God doesn't exist, because [science or some other rational explanation]
And you might be right. Thing is, given that you like rationality we get back to the God-Nature, because you can prove nature, so your God is the principle that makes nature exist and work, even if it is randomness.
>B-but, muh edgy atheist ideas.... am I not hip with the kids anymore?
Atheism is actually very good, not throwing shit at them. But don't try to act cool talking about other people's shit if you don't know jack. You are not special, you look stupid and bet people don't invite you to many parties because you are so stuck in the mud.

The biggest argument I have is that the bible contradicts itself by saying Jesus died for your sins but in the rapture, only those without sin will be saved. Jesus dying for your sins means any sins you commit are absolved because he takes the burden for you meaning if the rapture happened you'd be saved but it says not everyone will be saved. It doesn't make sense.

>God isn't just the catholic one.
That out of the way, let me explain what you said.
Jesus dying isn't a "get out of jail free" to go do everything you want, that's stupid.
The sin thing on the rapture isn't about people that never sinned, that's freaking impossible. It's about people that, even though they sinned, they know full well they did so, feel fucking guilty, and asks for forgiveness. Then you are judged if you are worthy of forgiveness, to only then be stripped of your sins and be saved (as it's stated).

well, there you go,
>God isn't just the Catholic one
God doesn't exist because people have taken other religions from the past and altered their beliefs to fit their mindsets. Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, are all based off other religions, you think they were the first religions to have a "savior" who rose from the dead?

Oh btw.
Sin isn't just "don't fuck 'till mariage". Sin is anything you do that makes you feel like shit afterwards. Like spitting upwards.

religion is a man made idea

>Implying every religion has any major discrepancy between their Gods.
They all have pretty much the same one.
Also, read .

like we haven't read that drivel

Is it wrong tho?

Disprove the existence of Thor or any other magical being.

>Use science to tackle spirit.
Fallacy.

its either an opinion piece or wrong

If I don't get dubs, got doesn't exist. Definitive answer, you're welcome.

>these plebs still try to disprove god
Read about Pascal's bet instead of those fake philosophers who just try to act intelligent.

Sure it is an opinion.
Like I said, every person can have a different idea of God based on their needs, experiences and/or philosophy. But since God, by definition, encompassed everything, not one of them is wrong in any form, they are facets.
I just feel that even using logic and rationality it's just blinding yourself to say that "there's none". I even demonstrated that even if nature is the only thing there is, there's a God there.

Physicist here:

>Yup, there's a god.

Not in the "I'm watching you, and judging you for masturbating" sense. [Which is where christcucks and islamic mudslimes lose me.] Also not in the "go fuck over every one for your own gain" sense [which is where kikes lose me]. But there is a god.

The mathematics of the universe is too god damn beautiful for it to have been 'accidental'. Especially seeing as every sapient being is a little piece of the universe capable of experiencing itself.

So there is a god. That god made us, and everything else. I'm pretty sure it made us so to give us the opportunity to learn about it, and become like it.

We're like an embryo of what our civilization, our people, could be. That is our purpose.

I rest my case.

Anyone who seriously thinks that you should believe in god because you have nothing to lose can only do so because he has already lost all of his self respect and intellectual integrity by even considering this twisted wager. If an opportunist is more likely to go to heaven than someone who can simply not make himself honestly belive in god then heaven is no place I want to spend eternity.

you are a disgrace

>The mathematics of the universe is too god damn beautiful for it to have been 'accidental'.
On the other hand, god wouldn't allow atrocity such as your stupidity to persist. SO there is no god.

>No mama, I dun wanna see

But any god capable of creating the universe must be at least as complicated in construction as the universe itself. This would make God the more complex option and therefore less likely than random chance.

> If an opportunist is more likely to go to heaven than someone who can simply not make himself honestly belive in god then heaven is no place I want to spend eternity.
That differs on other beliefs, but if you go ask a catholic father about this quote, he'll say that the opportunist is more likely to burn.

you didn't demonstrate anything other than your ability to label things, and your wanting to project those labels onto the way others think

i don't call it nature. it is mankind's body of knowledge of our understanding of how the universe works which is based on testable empirical evidence published in peer reviewed scientific publications over the years and thoroughly eviscerated by other scientists and this process process of worldwide research adding to this body of knowledge continues unabated.

you know the periodic table? humans can create elements which do not exist in your 'nature'. that's incompatible with your model of 'nature' and god

No, you can't. So stop bitching and become an agnostic.

lies

is it possible to disprove anything?

Believing it is fine but basing your life and moral choices on a book that tells you so is madness

If god existed we wouldn't have islam.

Then Pascals wager is useless because that's all it says. Sell your belief to the highest bidder.

Another interesting fact:
In the mathematical logic which every sience is using (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic) there exist statements which are neither true nor false.
This is proven by the famous en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
Thus it is always possible to argue that the Statement "God Exists" can't be proven or disproven.

im german, so im not sure why it would be...