Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=imKUTEWODms
youtube.com/watch?v=4PM8tYxo17U
youtu.be/XiqecisUux4
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

For the biblical god to exist he would have to be around forever, but nothing lasts forever so god cannot be omnipotent and therefore isn't a god.

Yes

There are are trillions of aliens cooler than you. Why would god wanna kick it with you.

Yes

now the thread is over

If you are a peer to God, yes. Otherwise, compared to God, you are nothing but a Sim in a game.

yeah nobody can prove it and if you can't prove it then shut the fuck up.
you can still believe it if you want but you shouldnt go around projecting it as truth while there's scientifically backed preexisting explanations then fuck you.

"What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating."

if God was real, this wouldn't exist
youtube.com/watch?v=imKUTEWODms
youtube.com/watch?v=4PM8tYxo17U

youtu.be/XiqecisUux4

Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

>absolutely?
no
>beyong a reasonable doubt?
yes

If you are reasonable you dont believe claims with no evidence.

Also remember that we are not trying to prove that there are absolutely no gods anywhere.

What a waste of dubs. How do we know something can't last forever?
We know so little of everything, we don't fully understand how everything started and all we can provide considering the end are theories.
I personally dont believe in god, but if we also believe in science we can't reject it either.
The only good attitude about the existence of god is: wait for it, it will take a long time, maybe for ever, maybe never.

burden of proof

You can't disprove that Donal Trump is a projection of Allah.

My nigga.
Why aren't more people reasonable like this?
Straight up, you can't know anything, it's human pretension to assume science is any significant amount more valuable in telling anything other than vaguely empirical results, which only report how things were at a point, not how they are or will be. We just assume that things work particular ways because it's convenient and simple, but as time goes on, we find we were usually wrong one way or another. God may or may not exist, but it's about as reasonable a belief as scientific conjectures.

You can disprove the claims made by specific religions. After so many disproven claims to any reasonable person it starts to hurt their credibility.

truth

mfw according to the bible god did way more harm than the devil

You can't disprove that you will suck cock before the end of the day

Ridiculous. Scientific results are reliable, not vague indications like your dishonest bullshit pretends. You are a shill.

Because "agnostic" is an insult among believers and atheists both, since it's not picking a side. Not what people want to see

luckily we can just disregard these "pure agnostics" as illogical.
its almost as cringy as people believing in flat earth.

Yep. We really overestimate our knowledge.

If you had any knowledge whatsoever in science you would know that what you say is bullshit. Science helps us understand what's around us, but math is afterall a human invention. It's not the things as they are, it's just a way to explain it, apply some logic to it. When we speak about god, mystery of life and so on math can't solve it all. It just proves that either our science system is wrong to a certain extent or uncomplete.

There's no such thing as forever. Name one thing in your life that will last forever?

Protip: you can't. Because everything is impermanent.

>Is it possible to disprove that God exists?
No
>Is it possible to disprove that unicorns exist?
No
>Is it possible to disprove that dragons exist?
No

Bruh.. It's not because there is nothing in my life that last forever that there isn't something out there that actually exists forvever.
For exemple, all this empty space in the universe. It's nothingness, but it's still a thing, it exist. Was it there forever? And also, can you really prove there is nothing that can exist forever. We don't know. Maybe there is, maybe not. You, me, nobody can tell.

>Is it possible to disprove that God exists?
yes it is because it is against laws of physics.

Forever means something is in the exact same state, forever. It doesn't change.

god changes throughout the bible, therefore god is changing, what changes is not permanent, what isn't permanent is not omnipotent

checkmate fucker

which laws of physics einstein

lmao, are you actually 10 pal. Who the fuck said to you that "forever" means in a static state.
And why do you refer to god as described in the bible? Maybe "god" isnt related at all to any religion we know?
So please, take your checkmate and shove it up your ass, your point is non existent, just like your capacity to understand anything outside the bible.

if something changes then it's not the same as it was before it changed, so it's not forever, the previous state is already dead / doesn't exist

>2017
>Not knowing Burden of proof

You can't prove Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist, neither the Invisible Pink Unicorn, neither those ethereal little fairies that live in my butthole responsible for the creation of the universe
/thread

...

That's a pretty cool philosophical concept, but that's all there is to it.
Let's take an exemple. God exists, he has lived for ever and will last forever. However at some point, he decides to get a haircut. And there we go, in an instant, he got a new one.
He changed, but does that make him less forever than before? He will still live forever, and even tho he changed, he is still the one he used to be, this god, forever.
Your point is once again irrelevant, things are or they are not, even if they change. The only question here is: if they are, will it be for ever?

>Name one thing in your life that will last forever?
Death.

ITT: people dont understand the difference between disproving something and proving something to be false.

>changed, he is still the one he used to be

That statement is false.

Your predicate says CHANGE = SAME AS USED TO BE

This is false statement.

Your nonexistent god is dead motherfucker.

>burden of proof
They dont have to

You know there is a difference between math and the way things actually fucking are?
So you tell me if you change, even by the slightest bit, you are not the same? That's pure stupidity.
The thing with god is that he is above our actual science, which makes it hard to prove he exists or not.

Because we are gods rock, designed in his image, we are his chanpion per se

No God would allow something like/b/ to exist.

...

when the fuck did people even start thinking this, agnostic isnt an inbetween is just a stance on knowledge

it isnt "not picking a side" because there is NO in between you either DO believe in a god or gods or you DON'T believe in a god or gods

>i am an agnostic atheist

...

>assume

no we dont assume shit beyond the 3 basal assumptions just about everything in science has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas all religions are just stories, or are you going to say its plausible that there is an invisible pink unicorn that makes my plants grow?

I can't prove to you that God doesn't exist, but I can prove to you that the Christian God as described in the bible hates you and free will is a lie. The Christian God is described as omniscient, meaning he knows everything that has, is, or will happen. If that is true he already knew every decision you have ever and will ever make, so your choices aren't really yours, this free will is a lie. Is he is omniscient, then he already knows if your going to "sin" and whether or not you'll ask forgiveness and whether or not you'll accept him as god. So if he knows what your going to do, before you do it, and still allows you to do it, and punishes you for it (ie eternal damnation in hell) he does not love you, he is not testing you (because it can't be a test if he knows what your going to do). It means he hates you, and finds you pain and suffering funny.
Or, he isn't omnicient, and then the Christian God doesn't exist.

So the fat stupid retarded people are like God? Your really dumb, and self centered

you can't, doesn't mean its not stupid that people worship something that can't see, hear, touch, taste or hear.

https://
discord
.gg
/9kkEZZb

Gods as a concept are impossible to disprove because they all fundementally require you to be dead for their existence to be proven.. Which is a pretty clever concept because nobody can argue it. However all logic points away from the existence of a God in the senses proposed in the Bible, Quran, etc.. I think it's fair to believe in a creator of some sort, but definitely not in a biblical sense, as it's clearly a product of man, and man's fear. I think the most feasible explanation for the universe is what we can already observe; matter is comprised of matter is comprised of matter. Meaning just as we are living within a solar system, solar systems are within us, and just as we are comprised of atoms, our universe is but an atom within something larger. I believe that to be true because the concept of finality is arguably much less believable than the concept of infinity in a multi-layered subjective structure. What we would consider the "End of time" or "End of the universe" could be a millisecond in a larger world, and so the cycle continues. What trips ME out, is consciousness. To me there seems to be no need for it, and thus that's the ONLY argument in my opinion for a God, although truly we are really just computers, biologically pre-programmed beings except.... sentient...

I know this entire thread is bait and all.
But seriously, were the makers of this movie not deeply ashamed when they made that argument? Like, they probably had an entire room of people writing this propaganda piece and this was an argument they felt was worth putting into the movie?
Jesus.

+1 for Morte

Almost every law. Biblical god, for example can create matter and energy and bend space time and other bullshit like that.

>In your life
>death
use your head

plus the fact that the whole premise was flawed, as there was no atheit but instead a man who ACTIVELY believed god existed but ACTIVELY hated him

the whole argument of the movie was "there are no atheists in foxholes" "atheists know god exists, they just hate him" and "but you cant disprove muh thing"

non-existence cannot exist

Kill yourself and find out

these

You can't disprove that I am the reincarnation of Elvis, while I can prove that you're a faggot!

I cant disprove the existance of god, but im pretty sure he doesnt want me to spend time worshipping him, if hed want me to, the almighty one would tell me to. and im pretty sure, he doesnt give a damn about us.

You can't disprove the existence of manbear pig.

I think people need their not to be a god just as much as people need one. the people who believe in him justify their actions based on 'his teachings' and the people whose don't believe in him justify their actions on the fact that their is no god and they can do whatever they want. You all need god whether you want to admit it or not. He's your excuse so you never have to face the reality that your life is empty and meaningless. That fact depresses you, for some reason, and so you seek to fill it with god or pleasure. God is important in controlling the masses whether you believe in him or not.

No m8. You can't disprove a concept that's based on faith.
It's the same as "if a tree falls down in the woods..."
The most you can do is just not believe in it, we can't disprove or prove something beyond our own knowledge.

Or to put it another way...can God pack a bowl so big that he himself cannot cash it? Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn?????????

that is fucking retarded.
you are retarded.

No large piles of unicorn gold or dragon shit = no unicorns or dragons

But can God create a cock so big that even OP himself cannot suck it?

Name one thing that science has ever done for mankind...check and/or mate!!!

You could force feed him bacon.

By your definition impermanence would last forever...

Is it possible to disprove the flying spaghetti monster exists?

Since you are typing on a computer you have to be at least partially human...

Hence you are clearly not nothing but a hound dog...

Ergo I have disproven you are clearly not Elvis!

This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen a theist make

It was a bunch of christian big wigs with money sitting around jerking eachother off with this argument thinking they'd actually made a decent point

I suppose those meatballs that rained down from the sky the last time I made an offering of Parmesan were a coincidence?

But God help us all if we find a large pile of golden shit!!!!!!!!!!

Gravity?

You're the one that says he exists, we were just sitting here looking at titties and you came in saying there is a god. Ok, prove it, it's not up to us to disprove all the crazy made up shit people come up with.

Racehorse 1 - many races, multiple wins, documented bloodline

Racehorse 2 - Just a name on the roster, no one's ever seen it before, no documented races, no owner listed.

Horse 1 is at the starting gate. Horse 2 is nowhere to be found. Which do you bet on?

you forgot to mention that if you don't bet on 2 you will burn in hell

No, science is just a man made set of laws to describe the rules that the Universe usually follows, on the big scale of things science may not even be followed in other areas of the Universe, and it's impossible for us to know the answer to the universe as feeble minded humans. Although Christianity is very flawed (flat earth, rapture, etc.) the existence of a God is very possible.
Think of it this way, you're playing a universe sandbox and for the most part (besides glitches due to us not being as advanced to cover these) everything follows Science except the fact that you're in another universe controlling these people who are arguing over the same thing.

"But they're just programs"
Well yeah, so are we. Our brains are just neuron pulses that trigger different events, we can easily be programs.

In addition, science is like a theorem in math. You can divide any number by any number until you get to zero. It's a hole in those rules. A paradox, even.

Bump

Three 2's in a row, even a double. Must be because racehorse 2 is a good choice

Proof is upon the one claiming the existence of something.

your response let's me know what I said is true hahaha

Betting is a sin under God

Russel's teapot. But disproof can also lie with the person claiming the nonexistence of something.
Similarly, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does anyone have an epistemological term for this so I can validate myself?

Trips don't lie

Upside down 666

This deserves alot more (you) this was a good read. Thanks user.

so does this

The thing is it isn't necessary to disprove that god exist.

To prove that God does not exist, one must first accept that he MAY exist. And by accepting this, you have already given credibility to Gods existence, which makes it impossible to prove he does not exist.

"I think therefore I am." As long as people recognize the possibility that there MAY be a God, then there is a God.

Of course God exists, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about him. He exists in our minds (regardless of his existence as the creator of our universe)

what was the point of the descartes? the phrase isnt even technically true as thinking only prove you exist on a conscious level literally everything else cannot be proven without basal assumptions, and recognizing possibility isnt proof, if someone recognizes that there may be unicorns on jupiter, that doesnt mean there are unicorns on jupiter

this fucker knows whats up

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

And we don't have to prove anything, since we weren't the ones who made the outlandish claim to begin with. The fact alone nobody in the history of mankind managed to even bring forth a decent attempt to prove his existence is proof enough of his non-existance.

>inb4 goalpost movers and "mysterious ways" niggers

Neck yourself.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for! I'll have to write this one down! The opposite of Russell's teapot haha

no you have them mixed up, argument from ignorance is when you claim that because something isnt understood it must be wrong

ex. " well it seems to me they are saying we came from monkeys, but there are still monkeys, so that must be wrong"

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
the fallacy which asserts a claim must be proven false is calls shifting the burden of proof

^^ this