Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

Is it possible to disprove that God exists?

...

No. But if if it was up to the non believers to prove the non-existence of things first we'do have to prove that all the imaginary possibilities are false before doing anything in a the real world, which would be ridiculous. So it's up to the one that says " X exists" to prove it, trying to invert this takes us nowhere. It's a stupid argument, and rather obvious and cliché as well.

Dunno, but fat fedoras would say yes

didn't you make this exact thread, like, 3 days ago?

I replied.

fucking stale and ignorant false dichotemy

Did God exist before man started writing about it

Also, that movie is stupid as fuck. The "white knight" that defends christianity is a moron and the "atheistic and opressive teacher" is not actually atheist, he's just a whiny Christian that got mad with how is life turned on and blamed God.

a) for every definition of god that actually have any significance for human life, yes it is.
b) for all other definitions of god, the disproval has little significant for human life.

Even it it's true. This still doesn't mean that he exists.
For Example: You can't disprove that there is a golden monster dildo right behing you, which you can not see but everyone else can.
Still doesn't mean it exists.

You're right and when something can neither be proven true or false it becomes yourmomwilldietomorrowifyoudon'treplytothispost.

Yh

Uh.

God does exist and I can prove it. You look at the 1st law of thermodynamics, which tells you energy has always existed in the universe.

It is therefore logical to say that time and space must have therefore been created by a supernatural force beyond human understanding. God is not Christian, islamic, jewish, hindu or any other religion but a more powerful force that I believe chooses not to intervene with life.

I don't think life just popped into existence. After all, you don't just walk down the street and find a house just appear one day.

So you admit you believe in something that can't be proven? Gullible faggot

No
But if you take parts of the bible as the literal word of god. Then you can prove the christian god isn't real.

when were you when 9/11 happened?

That's not actually logical at all.
You just jumped from what we know into a grand assumption of the supernatural.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Deist, but even I find your jump in thought and logic to be silly.

No, it's an unfalsifiable. This makes it a waste of time until evidence is available.

Most adults learn this once and move on. Are all threads like this made by children or are bait?

So you say that God is essentially the big bang ?

Agreed. Most people feel comfortable thinking their own logic is sound when it's really garbage.

This. /thread

Yes and I'll do it right now.

You can't see god and god has no effect that can be directly correlated to him. In fact his presumed effect can be more easily correlated to other events that can be observed to have occurred.

Therefore we can ascertain that god does not exist.

While this doesn't 100% disprove the god theory it does put the ball in your court to then prove me wrong and provide some evidence of his assumed existence.

Your move. How would you logically correlate the creation of the universe and everything in it within several days to a single entity even though the creation of the universe and everything in it has been theorized to have been caused by other means over an extremely long period of time?

The very notion that a cosmic being created the universe in seven days before days even existed is kind of stupid, don't you think?

Not only are you on the perfect site for you to find the answer but you're also on the perfect board, just scroll

There is no proof, but you cannot understand god.
so whatever you imagine god as / is
is incorrect.

>Be an illiterate faggot
>Say can prove existence of god
>"nigga look at dem thermodynamics 'n sheeeit"
>"nigga I think dat sheeeit be god na'mean? Cause god like always existed 'n thermodynamics always existed. Dats some 'mofoca logic rite there"

Kill yourself.

Something something fedora. Something something virgin. Something something hate your parents.

That right there is where the English translation of the bible fails to give the text justice. The whole "7 day creation" theory is complete bullshit, but the actual word used there is 'yowm' which has a more accurate meaning of a time period, or era's

Could be, user.

I've heard various similar opinions from occultists, theologians, and stoners, so you're not alone in your thinking.

Something something bible. Something something abstinent. Something something hate when i'm wrong.

I've been then when it happened

Something something I'm not sure if you got me there.

As someone who used to be an atheist, I found one of the most crucial things in my conversion was listening to some debates by William Lane Craig

Church brings me more joy than Sup Forums

Big deal. Most things will bring more joy than this place.

Something something not sure where this is going

I don't understand why people talk about religion let alone debate it. It's such a massive circlejerk. Idk what it is with today shitty generation of kids age 15-35 where all they can talk about is religion and politics. Holy shit it's such a boring world.

>joy
>Sup Forums

get out newfag

Something something

*unzips pants*

Something something me either and I'm getting tired. Something something have yourself a good night.

Something something you too.

:'(

All we want is answers.

It isn't possible to prove or disprove the existence of god, any god.
So basically this argument makes Zeus just as likely as Jehovah, which just goes to show how lacking of an argument this is.

Wtf? U can ask same for aliens... Why we must believe in this strange creature who called god?

> Is it possible to disprove that God exists?
Russel's teapot.

this thread again.

atheism equals psychological dependency on religions.

you can only be atheist if you are obsessed with people claiming God exists and does supernatural things everytime He wants.

Not necessarily. When comparing world religions, it's easy to see where most of them don't line up with what their texts say. And from a historical sense, the books of Luke and Acts are strictly sound

As an atheist I never think about god, actually.

If you look at how that laws of physics work, life just emerging is fairly high on the probability scale, no creator is needed really.
Also depending on how you interpret house, they can also emerge on their own. If a house is meant as shelter from the elements, a cave could reasonably be called a house.
Also yes the universe could be perceived as a closed system, but Earth isn't one. It receives energy from the sun on a continual basis.

>As an atheist I never think about god,

you just wrote a post about god.
you're just like those faggots claiming that "liking a feminine penis does not make you gay".

That is completely false. Have you ever read into the fine tuning argument?

Thanks Spock.

Well in that sense, you could claim that the bhagavad gita is just as sound, since it contains stories of kings who have some historical merit in India. Also does the actual historical correlations in those passages prove any divinity or just that christians existed during that time?
Which part do you claim is completely false?
And no, I haven't read the fine tuning argument.

don't think about a purple elephant

dude, why are you thinking about a purple elephant? this is what you think about in your free time? weird.

>If you look at how that laws of physics work, life just emerging is fairly high on the probability scale, no creator is needed really.

Purple elephants did not invent the Universe and the Laws of Physics

Don't you normally start your own thread for these posts?

The book of Luke is a first hand account of an ancient historian going around as one of Christ's disciples, where the book of Acts is the same author going around with Paul preaching the message of Christ. Sir William Ramsey followed every location written about trying to debunk Luke as a historian and found that everything he wrote about was 100% accurate

Well if you're coming at this from a goldilocks zone standpoint and claim that it is highly improbable to happen on it's own, think of the scale we are working with.
There is one hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone and approximately as many galaxies in the universe. Even if it is highly unlikely to happen, there is still plenty of chances for it to occur.
All it takes is the right building blocks and an energy source, like our sun.

But does that prove anything divine or just that some christians went around spreading their religion?

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if thecoupling constantrepresenting its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged,diprotonswould be stable; according to physicistPaul Davies, hydrogen wouldfuseinto them instead ofdeuteriumandhelium.This would drastically alter the physics ofstars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after theBig Bang

A first hand account of a critically acclaimed historian studying under Christ, and you're asking if that proves anything spiritual?

Let me ask you this, have you ever read the bible?

Nope, I ain't him (them).

This is begging the question though, this assumes that the equation needed to begin life can't change if the constants we know change. You're basically claiming that we know how mathematical physics work and we don't.
Well he can be critically acclaimed and correct on historical accounts and still be wrong on the existence of a god. All this proves is that a guy called jesus founded a religion.
And yes I have read the bible, from to back, back when I started questioning what religions actually were. I never found anything compelling in the book that inspired me to believe, only some understanding in how bronze age civilizations worked in the middle east at the time.

front to back*

You also can't prove that God is not a 300ft pedophile named Steve with the head of a hippo what created the world to rape kids.

Also if God was real isn't it kinda odd he only stopped doing these massive world altering miracle only once we had the ability to record history with any accuracy.

Martian Rees illustrates that if 6 dimensional constants were altered even the slightest, life as we know would not exist

Where do you get your morals?

This is only true if we claim to know all about how mathematical physics work and we arguably don't know that.

the problem with that is, if each one of those 6 constants were changed, then a life-form that did arise from the results would study it and say "if 6 dimensional constants were altered even the slightest, life as we know would not exist"

its not proof of a god, either way.

I'm not the user you asked, but it could be argued that since we are a social species, that succeeded through working together. Certain behaviors that would be detrimental to the group would be considered bad or immoral. The more complex our species became, the more complex our understanding of morals became.
The ten commandments are basically social contracts codified within a religion.

Luke records the feeding of the 5000. In ancient times, they only counted the men, so that's 5000 adult men. That's not including the women and children there. It states that they were given one fish and two loafs of bread to feed ~15000 people. And when they successfully fed everyone to a point that everyone was satisfied, they were able to fill multiple baskets with their leftovers. An ancient historian recorded this

I get mine from knowing what is right to do.

In fact, irrespective of any notions of gods, I have raped and murdered every single person I ever wanted to in the last 30 years of my life.

and that number is zero.

If god were proven not to exist, would that mean *you* would think rape and murder are just fine and dandy? Is the threat of eternal punishment the only thing that keeps you in line? If so, you are not a moral person. you're a suck fuck, and need help.

That's cool and all, but can you repeat that feat?
Also how large were the fishes and the bread?

I recorded for the future and I fucked your mom. 2000 years from now some idiot will take it as fact. Eat shit

This was not to prove the existence of God, but more so going back to your point that it was "highly probably" that life would have just happened. It merely suggests that it was done by the hand of a higher power so sustainable life would happen on earth

If God is all-knowing all-seeing and all-powerful then free will cannot exist. God would have to be intentionally creating us with a set path and all our decisions would already be known and made for us at our creation. So if God exists you don't. You're basically just a another villager in Skyrim.

I choose to believe God doesn't exist and if he does exist he created me to not believe that God exists and I have no choice in the matter because I don't truly exist.

But what is "right to do?" Where do you get that?

Technically yes. Practically, it'd be a no.

I would disagree. I would argue that it would be more likely to have free will under the Christian perspective

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Considering it was a child who offered up the food, it was most likely a small boys lunch

You literally contributed nothing. That sentence makes sense from both perspectives

Same user from this post The right thing to do, came from how we survived in groups in the past.

Well then how or why do we have a conscious

All it takes is actually reading the"Bible" to see it's garbage.

Free will doesn't really exist. On the other hand, the universe is not deterministic, so even an entity that knows everything and can influence anything without limits, would not neccessarily be able to predict the outcome. Think about it this way: When humans run simulations, they are theoretically all-knowing (have access to all data at all times), all-seeing (same thing) and all-powerful (can change any variable however they want). But we run simulations to get an outcome. If we already knew the outcome, we wouldn't have to run the simulation. So saying that a hypothetical God wouldn't have the need to run a simulation because he would already know the outcome is kinda like saying we don't need to run weather simulations because we already have all the data needed to create the simulation.

By the way, there are quite a few indicators that our universe might be a simulation. Interesting topic.

>Well then how or why do we have a conscious

same how or why any creature is conscious. the brain is a insanely complex neural web where electrical impulses between cell clusters can be used to ascertain situational awareness of the environment through senses, etc.

there's noting magical about it. Just complex.

Exactly.

Hominids discovered the use of fire and through that, easier access to the caloric amounts we would need to grow larger brains.
Both plants and meat are easier to digest when chemically changed on fire.
Once our brains got big and complex enough for us to become sentient, we started trying to explain our surroundings based on what we knew about the world.

Nice fedora

Here you witness the autistic fucktard who saves thumbnails

If God isn't truly all-knowing all-seeing and all-powerful then then they are just a very powerful person. They could be an extraterrestrial that created this universe under laboratory conditions. or they could be a computer programmer and we're a simulation.

Whatever analogy or prediction you want to come up with, a very powerful being is not God any more than a scientist staring down at a petri dish is God of the bacteria growing in it.

If you don't know the outcome of every single simulation before it is even run then you are not God. You're just a computer programmer. To be God you have to have perfect knowledge.

Perfect knowledge.

Otherwise you're just very powerful but you are not God.

Say hi to Santa for me, ho ho ho!

>universe was created somehow
>this event can be considered "god"
>likelihood of a being large enough to observe all aspects of their newly formed creation
>incredibly unlikely

the idea of a being watching everything i do, judging me while i do it, and forcing me to worship them? religion is founded solely because we're afraid of death. we want to believe we're special when we're nothing at fucking all.

Who proved he existed in the first place?

Atheists hate actual science.

Science Method about "unknown things" sounds like this:
- build an hypothesis, see what happens if it was actually verified, compare with real results.

Now, let's apply Science Method to the Gospel.

1- "Man feeds 5000 men (not counting women and children) out of two loafs of bread and one fish"
2- "Man instantly heals a variety of serious illnesses (blind eyes, leprosy, and so on) only using His will"
3- "Man claims he'll be alive again 3 days after death, and people claim He surprised them actually showing Himself alive and even eating some fish"

4- "Pharisees (enemies of that Man) were unable to document any fraud, and instead had grudges because He healed on holy Saturdays and He personally knew Abraham"
5- "Pharisees only complain about Himself talking like he's God, and a King, and these were the only accusations to have Him executed"
6- "Pharisees avoided to develop any kind of documentation about any alleged fraud/scam"

Seriously, first 3 points show a Man in total control of nature and laws of physics.

But -dafuq!!- points 4 to 6 show that the people most interested in debunking the scam only expressed baroque thoughts about religion definitions. And they were the intellectuals of the time.

The "Jesus is the Son of God" hypothesis is coherent up to every smallest detail (the 3+3 points above are only random examples).

The "Jesus was not more than an excellent scammer" hypothesis strictly requires an absurdly large number of prerequisites and preconditions.

By Occam's razor, the "Jesus is the Son of God" hypothesis should be scientifically taken more seriously than the usual Tumblredditor Faggotry Religion Debates.

(example -- Alexis Carrel, a Nobel, actually called for a formal verification of Lourdes miracles in order to make new medicine advancements -- clearly no selfdefined Scientific Atheist ever accepted)

>because an Atheist is simply a faggot scared to death that Catholicism is fundamentally true

>1st law of thermodynamics
The universe is potentially not a closed system, therefor the first law of thermodynamics would not apply. Nice try.