Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?

Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
twitter.com/AnonBabble

yes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

No one can disprove that OP sucks dick every day

Doesn't that actually just prove the exact opposite, that it was God that initiated all of creation?

What created god?

Yes, but the burden of proof falls on the theist. They're the ones who make the assertation of the existence of god in the first place.

That's what people with an education call a "cop out".

The failure to disprove something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Actually, no. Making any claim requires proof. The burden of proof lies with anyone who says "God does exist" as well as anyone who claims "God does not exist."

Both are equal claims. The best one can fairly say against the claim of God's existence is "you can't prove it" which can also be said to anyone who claims the opposite.

Can you disprove the fact that there is an ethereal floating pickle above my head that is invisible, intangible, and otherwise undetectable?

No. No, you can't. Pull your head out of your ass, you obstinate chucklefuck.

Literally no one has said that.

The burden of proof lies to the one that says god exists, not the other way around. You can't just make up thinkgs and expect people to believe you, people with at least some credibility.

Which one?

This shit again. Stop being a retarded fag user.

It's a quote, smartass

Again, this is false. The claim of God's nonexistence is STILL A CLAIM. Science doesn't get to pick and choose which claims require proof.

"It's a quote" is not a valid defense to an idiotic and irrelevant statement, dumbass.

Is it possible to disprove Gos is not me?

...

If I say I saw you blowing your uncle and your neighbor says he didn't see it, which one of us should have proof?

"It's a quote" might be the only relevant defense to "Nobody has ever said that."

Claiming God's non-existence would require proof of his existence in the first place moron.

God isnt just assumed to be real by default, no matter how much religion was drilled into us as children, or a society.

I wouldnt bother claiming something didnt exist if I already knew it didnt exist already.

You're either baiting or not using your fucking head.

No one is talking about seeing God, which is completely different from claiming his existence. Your comparison is shoddy.

There is a difference between saying "You can not prove your claim" and "Your claim is factually wrong."

Anyone who says "God absolutely does not exist" either needs to cough up valid proof or shut the fuck up and remember how science works.

Nope.

Positive assertion vs null assertion is delineated and terminated by Occam's Razor.

Nothing needs to be more complex than it needs to be until you can prove that it needs to be considered more complex for a reason.

In ALL instances, the hypothesis that a god or gods exist is entire unnecessary; therefore that is the proper assumption until such time as a situation can be presented in the same scope that would actually CALL for the existence of a god.

I assert to you that there is a pebble on this Earth that, when ingested, enables the one who swallowed it to fly. Are you going to seriously go swallow every pebble you encounter trying to test this assertion or are you going to ask ME to quantify it because it's my assertion?

I didn't say "ever". You added that word to fit your shitty comeback. If you actually read the post, it is in the context of this discussion alone and is worded accordingly.

Anybody who says anything absolutely is a Sith. We've been over this.

I think people who claim god exists are the same level of logically unsupportable as those who claim he doesn't, though those who believe he doesn't exist find themselves a little bit logically preferable due to the evidence available.

it is possible to prove God's existence.

for those that do not know how to prove God, neither can he be disproven


But it has no effect on your life to know...so?

I wasn't the person who said the original thing.

Just pointing out that saying something is a quote is a defense to saying somebody didn't say something.

>Claims there is a God
>YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT!!!!

>Claims there is no God
>No evidence needed my fellow gentlesir!

And this is why Atheists are just as retarded as Theists.

Agnosticism >>>>> Atheism > Theism

That's a nice post, but it doesn't change the truth and validity of my statement.

If you claim a pebble can make one fly, you need to prove it or gtfo. However, it is incorrect to say that "no pebble can make you fly," as it would also require me to go swallow every pebble.

You have no right to say x does or does not exist without proof.

Disproving the existence would be the same as proving the non-existence and you are missing the point: if you can't prove, it is just conjecture and meaningless. I'm talking about anything in the eyes of science, not just this discussion.
Besides, to prove "existence of god" you would need to define "existence" and "god", and both are treated as primal concepts.

It is impossible to beat this argument

Not when you are able to understand contextual implications in a conversation and statement. The comment should be read "Literally no one said anything to warrant such a response in this conversation thus far."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Not the person that previously posted

Just pointing out that saying something isn't an exact transcript is a troll defense, not a response. Especially when you also dont respond to what they're saying in general.

The point is this:

Saying X is true, without proof, is nothing but a theory. It doesn't matter if X = God is real, or if X = God is not real.

That logic works for smurfs too.

This.

Any attempts to prove or disprove are just trolls, because the answer lies in faith.


That being said:

>If God is all good, then God is not all powerful
>If God is all powerful, then God is not all good.

How can you disprove the existence of something that doesn't already exist or likely does not exist? I could make up any sort of make believe character and claim him to be real, and if you claim he doesn't exist then you will need proof?
Stop being retarded and use your fucking heads.


You're probably right about agnosticism being the more pragmatic and intellectually safer (hate to damage your ego and all), but you honestly dont need evidence when you're claiming that something doesnt exist IF IT HAS NOT been proven already. I know you hate to compare yourself to /r/atheism fedora fags, but they have this one over theists.

The only thing in theists favour is that the universe itself (before the big bang even) is totally unknown to us and a logical answer is that someone created it. But of course we cant know that for sure.

You can't disprove sonething that makes no prediction.

The existence of god is not a scientifc model, it does not predict anything.

You can't disprove the existence of god in the same way you cant tell if the result of potato minus pink equals dick is wrong. You would need a defined operation minus that accept vegetables on the left hand and colour on the right hand into the body part space. And the assertion "god exist" make no such prediction.

Theism is just causal assertions that are on the same level as "we all live in the matrix". Maybe its true, maybe its false, but it is defintely more of a cultural and social object than anything related to science and understanding the universe.

The discussion has reached it's peak in the early 20th century (god of the gaps). Faith doesn't require proof that is kind of the point.

> Faith doesn't require proof that is kind of the point
That doesnt stop faith from being utterly retarded.

God is just humanity oldest meme

God is a by-product of humans being a social-pack animal, were the ability to predict intent behind other pack members or rival tribes was key for survival (and in current society is one of the most important asset. Those who perform badly at this are the assburgers and autists).
Early humans put intent behind thing that did not have any, humanzed them (the sky is crying for the rain). Kids still draw faces on the sun and in the cloud.
God and religion was also a convenient way to cement a society and its tradition : dont eat pork cause lots of disease can be found in badly convserved meat (middle-east) dont eat humans (same reason) incest is bad (it make retarded babies) a woman should stay virgin before marriage (STDs and cucks). Priests/Shamans had the role that talk shows have todays : a place were you would listen and talk while meeting other like minded people of your community.
Middle age science and religion were actually much more in phase when today : It was the role of science to explore and explain the world created by god.

We can't disprove the existence of god. But we can thorously explain the history of the human belief in god and why humans belive in god on a biological level, independant from the existence of said god.


If you limit your definition of reality to "everything that can be measured and quantified", then god does not exist, has it is not measurable.

We cannot know anything about god other than that we cannot know anything about god.

No you can't disprove God, just like you can't disprove unicorns and dragons or salamander men under the ground

Yes you can. At least the god in the bible. God has the power to creat everything and do everything. This means he cant create something that he can lift like a huge rock. Also god knows everything but is only good. Since he knows everything you have no free will and everything you do is his wish so its not bad (for exampel Eve taking the aple in eden)

You're saying it like you already know it exists

>We cannot know anything about hairy space dragon other than that we cannot know anything about hairy space dragon.

>Actually, no. Making any claim requires proof. The burden of proof lies with anyone who says "God does exist" as well as anyone who claims "God does not exist."

Erm. No. Only the people who proclaim something exists have the burden of proof. Saying that god doesn't exist doesn't require any proof at all, because it's clear to all that he doesn't as there is no evidence he does.

e.g : I say all grass is bright pink, you say it isn't. the burden of proof doesn't fall on you to prove it isn't pink, because it clearly isn't.

People say that no one can prove the existence of sad faggots who have nothing better to do than copy paste the same shit over and over but here we are.

Proving things to people is a waste of time. God's existence or non-existence will not be affected even if a billion people decide to believe or not believe.
We know these stories are bullshit. People who want to believe them are stupid and who gives a fuck, let them have their fairy tales if it makes them feel warm.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
If there is no experiment that can be performed to detect the existance of God, then science must assume that it is not there.

You make this fucking thread every fucking day.
Just belive in whatever shit you want and fuck off.

We do not know whether hairy space dragons exist, but we could unless they were god.

But wasn't the Big Bang described in the Bible?

this

also see>let them have their fairy tales if it makes them feel warm
Sure. Pic related.

bait and shitty circular logic

No.

Gold in china. In order to prove the non-existence of gold in china, you would have to search every square centimeter of China and find no gold.

Cant prove shit either way.

Not really. Im not aware of any myth of creation in any culture describing the universe as single-point singularity root of an exponential growth before an energy imbalance led to the super-symmetry physics we have today.

...

Blind faith in science is just as unnerving.

There's also the problem that it's nigh on impossible to prove a negative case, at least absolutely. And absolutely is how you'd have to prove something like "God isn't" to stop people imagining He does.
But then, they'd just imagine something else. We need a re-write of that part of our instincts.
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for Man to create Him". And so many societies and/or cultures have. Just about all the ones I've heard of have, anyway.
People believe in God because they have a need to, not because He does. Convincing someone that his imagination is wrong is a big ask.

The Gambler's Fallacy is retarded. The gambler in this instance is mathematically correct in his thought process, provided he intends to play multiple spins.

That one always bugged me.

>let them have their fairy tales if it makes them feel warm.
Only if they agree to keep them to themselves.
Too many use religion as a means of increasing their own importance.
"Let's talk about religion", means "let's talk about MY religion".

dropbox dot kom /sh/hw7eqjk3vizs76j/AACmwrNJgyTbtr-cCs9issk9a?dl=0

You're wrong.
Using the roulette example, the odds of it being red is 50:50 or 1/2. The odds of it being red twice in a row is 25:75 or 1/4. The odds of it being red a second time after the first spin was already red is back to 50:50.

go pray to your fake god fag OP and fuck off

if god exists i get quads

Yes, gay marriage

One of my favorite quotes ever. Pic related.

Wrong

That's how uneducated argue lol

In the land of law sure. But nobody needs to prove it to you.

Maybe there is lmfao

Not to religious people, no. They've made belief in a god part of who they are. They won't be dissuaded because the alternative is acknowledging that they're incomplete people who need something to fill a hole in their souls.

You first need to provide a definition for God.


After this there are only a few options:
1) The definition is self-contradictory and the existence is ruled out. This ia a proof of non-existence.
2) The definition is not self-contradictory in which case the claimant can present evidence such an entity exists. Assume they present enough that there is a 50.01% chance of it being true and we use that level to say it has been prioven to exist. Then if the atheists refutes enough evidence to drop it below 50.01% then the athiests will have proven it doesn't exist as it no longer meets the burden of proof required to state it exists.

So it can be done depending on how one is defining certain terms.

I am a senior engineer involved in a highly classified, multi-billion dollar project sponsored by the governments of the United States, China, Russia, and India. I have no doubt that this project will be made well known to the public some years from now, and will change the course of human history. But I beleive that it is my duty to share some of what we have uncovered with the world immediately. I can't say much more about the project itself, but I can tell you that what we have discovered has changed our entire understanding of physics, and has completely overturned our understanding of the nature of reality. Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics are now able to be reconciled in a unified theory thanks to the revelations this project has uncovered. We are calling this monumental discovery, the piece of the puzzle that has been missing for so long, Log Theory. Log Theory states that there is nothing hotter than sucking a creamy log of shit out of Andy Sixx's asshole. His rich, fragrant log sliding effortlessly down ones gaping throat makes drowning in shit a fate one can only pray for. With a stomach full of hot logs I could die a happy man.

I can't disprove god, but i can disprove the relevance of a belief in god.
>cannot prove god, cannot disprove god
>infinite number of statements can be conjured that cannot be proved or disproved.
>we do not accept any of these things as truth
>this should be no exception.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

These fucking movies are so pathetic

fuck off with that same thread every day

here be Agnosticism

>Quoting Batman V Superman.
Biggest faggot in this thread no doubt

Religion is just answers to things humans cannot solve nor comprehend. As soon as we solve these things with Logic, Reason and Proof religion would be disproven and no longer needed. But remember there is the factor that some religions (I.e. Christianity) that could simply deny the facts and continue living a lie.

So really the question is:
> If religion is disproven will people accept the truth?

I think it's impossible to prove or disprove God, which makes it a useless undertaking to even argue about it since there can be no winners.
Do yourselves a favor and just let this thread 404
Also: sage

Because he quoted the theodicy? You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Saaaaaaage!

>Brining superhero movie lines into a discussion about god.
Thats a special kind of autism you got :)

it's spelled "The Odyssey" not "theodicy", dumbass.

Nothing creates God, it was already there before nothing and everything existed. Before itself and after.

No it's theodicy

The universe is too large for such a small number of measly humans to claim their religion is the one true religion and end all be all answer to every question being god is one of the most ludicrous and selfish things we as a species could do. Theres a god and he made us in his image? Why? Were shitty people and shitty things happen everyday. No divine intervention happens. Children die from cancer and cystic fibrosis and war and people are gonna argue that their god is the correct and all loving one. Religion has and always will be a manmade concept to control the populus into behaving for the sake of a peaceful afterlife. Because no human wants to accept the fact that when you die you just fucking die. Your body goes back and your time is up..... i know theres obviously no proof to what i said as in any arguments. But i choose to believe that people have always been shitty rather than a divine god poofed everything the way it is.

No, it's definitely ?The Odyssey".

Tried to use this with a God fag at work the other day and he did not know how to argue it baxk. He went with my suggestion being stupid as it's obvious that a teapot is man made so man had to have put it there. Could not back up his God with the same logic though.

>it's obvious that a teapot is man made so man had to have put it there
>man had to have put it there
>man

What the fuck are you even talking about

You can't disprove leprechauns.

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

Now you have to believe in leprechauns.

...

God exists because you can't disprove him.
- Yes we can, there are thousands of..
Nooo! That doesn't disprove god, he obviously intended for the results to turn out that way.
- Then what do you want from me?
Proof!

Disproving the existence of God is impossible, just as proving that God exists is equally impossible.

Even IF you could prove either one, there would still be those you could not convince. For example, the people who believe the world is flat, despite all the evidence and practical tests anyone can do by themselves to test the 'flat earth' theory.