Atheists: How can you prove God does not exist

[Dretlin]

You guys are overthinking it. Faith is simple. God is simple.

God is not simple at all. If the christen idea of god was as such, their most likely would not be tens of thousands of denominations. God is contradictory and morally archaic because it is the work of bigoted men.

And welcome to the forum!

[Asmodean]

Lemme be the last in a long line of people to say that we do not have to prove nonexistence of gods. That is the default position unless the concept has a purpose in the Universe, in which case it still has to be proven not to be purely hypothetical in nature.

Unless you can prove it or otherwise demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt, it's safe to assume "it" doesn't exist. For instance, the Dark Matter is one such. We know there is something there, but is it the hypothesized dark matter or does it have other properties? We don't know. Thus, we don't know whether or not dark matter exists and, if you feel the need to polarize it to two, that is a statement to the negative. (Note that Dark Matter is just an illustrative example before you start a massive subparticle physics game with me    )

[AntigoneRisen]

I do not need proof. Those making a positive claim (something exists) bear the burden of proof. I disbelieve their claim because it lacks evidence and logical consistency. This is a pretty standard viewpoint among Atheists.

However, I want to address your statement that I/we cannot disprove the existence of god. That's not entirely true. It depends very much on the definition of god being used. A very detailed definition of god might easily be disproven. A generic claim that some type of higher power exists cannot. However, in between these two extremes exists a continuum of varying degrees of specificity. The more specific the definition, the lower the probability that the entity exists.

I see this often in debates. A Theist will say to me, "You agree that a deity of some type may exist. You can't rule it out." Yes, I do agree that I cannot rule it out (disprove it). Then, the Theist jumps right to discussing the Bible. Oh, wait, hold on. I agreed that I couldn't disprove some type of entity, that doesn't equate to the more specific definition now being used when the Bible comes into play. If the person believes in Yahweh literally as defined by the Bible, with the actions described in the Bible, yes, I can disprove that 100%.

[AntigoneRisen]

But what if you're wrong?

What if you are wrong about Krisha, Isis, Osiris, Durga, or any of the other thousands of deities exists? I assure you that you are not living by the Egyptian Negative Confession, and if you are wrong about that, your soul will be consumed by Amit and cease to exist when you are judged in the Hall of Osiris by the Law of Ma'at.

This "what if you are wrong" bet-hedging is what is known as Pascal's wager. I actually used it at one point myself, when I was in my early teens. It is not logically valid. I can explain why if you really have an interest.

[AntigoneRisen]

But what if you're wrong?? There's a 50/50 chance that you're wrong and going to hell, so why not just to sure?

Really? The chance is 50/50? From where do you get that probability? Have you taken statistics? This is so improbable, it's like worrying that lightning will strike me 500 times tomorrow. The real probability of something is the result of multiplying the probabilities of each claim. The  probability of each claim is the number values you wish (in this case, 1) divided by the number of actual possibilities. The lower the denominator, the lower the probability.

God exists: Given the complete lack of evidence, I wouldn't give this a 50/50 shot at all. However, I'll humor you on it. 1/2
God is the Abrahamic deity: 1/3000 (actually, probably less, as the actual number of possibilities is infinite, the deity could be of a type never defined by any religion)
Hell exists: 1/3000 (you'd be surprised at the young age of the concept of hell...Judaism does not have it...probability likely far less than what I've given here)

You go on and on for each stated level of specificity (for each trait that you define the deity to have). Then, you multiply them all together. So, in our example, it would look like this:

1/2 * 1/3000 * 1/3000 = 1/18,000,000

Just with this small example, you are at a probability of 1 in 18 MILLION that it exists. (I'd give it as a percentage, but it has to be expressed in scientific notation.)

Now as to the why not...

You make all the false assumptions that Pascal's Wager (Pascal's Faulty Wager, I call it) makes.

1.) Belief is a choice. You can choose to believe even though you are not convinced.
2.) If a deity exists, that deity is singular, masculine, and is associated with Hell (ie: the Bible or Koran...Yahweh).
3.) The deity would care whether or not I believe in it.
4.) The deity would reward belief and punish unbelief in the afterlife. (Hint:  A deity could well exist without an afterlife existing. See also: sum total of possibilities)
5.) A deity meeting criteria 1-4 would accept me choosing to behave as if I believe simply to avoid punishment. ie: from self-interest

I simply will not abdicate my rational faculties, or pretend to, for such a remote possibility when the evidence is utterly insufficient (in fact, non-existent).

[Asmodean]

Nice! A person who can do some proper math. I approve  

[karadan]

Oooh, i like that one!

Do you mean the proposal "god needs malleable unquestioning souls to mend a fault in time/space".
I'm open to any suggestions of pseudo scientific terminology to improve it.

That, and the test being faith itself. All religious people actually going to hell because they failed the test to think for themselves.

That's an excellent beginning to a piece of great fiction, methinks.

Now you have to find a link between the soul and space-time.  

[karadan]

Massive post of awesome

Oooh, you are going to fit in well here.

Hopefully you'll stay longer than four posts.

[AntigoneRisen]

You don't go to heaven if you're good. You go if you believe. Don't underestimate belief. Belief can move mountains.

Yes, exactly, you do not go if you are good. (According to Christian dogma.) You can be a genocidal, raping, lying, cheating, stealing asshole and go to heaven if you accept Yeshua (Jesus) into your heart at the last minute. This literally means that if Hitler repented on his deathbed, he'd go to heaven, while Gandhi, who never accepted Yeshua but preached nonviolence to end oppression, would go to Hell. You call that morality or justice?

Let me be frank, here. You need to separate two things: proving a deity exists and convincing me to worship that deity. Even if you could prove Yahweh existed and I accepted that, I would not have the slightest inclination to worship him. (Unless you could prove He is most decidedly not as the Bible describes him.) Yahweh orders genocides in the Bible. He praises Lot for offering his daughters to a mob of rapists. He deliberately and repeatedly hardens Pharaoh's heart to bring about his "wonders" in Egypt, which include the slaughter of all the first born in the country, including cattle. He requires blood sacrifice in payment for sin (see below). The Ten Commandments spend the first 3 on satiating his ego, but never once say a thing about rape or assault. He prefers David to Saul simply because Saul failed to kill enough people for him. Saul left a few Almalekites alive, and Yahweh couldn't stand it. The wonderful King David purchased his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins. All the Biblical patriarchs were polygynists with concubines (sex slaves to whom they were not married...sexual slavery = lifetime of unending rape). He approves (see Midianites) of murdering young male children, and keeping the young female children who are virgins for sex slaves. Yahweh isn't moral. He isn't amoral. He is IMMORAL. I feel no need to worship such an entity.

When you understand how you (likely) view the Koran, you will understand how I view the Bible. The Koran has a greater density of violence, but the Bible wins for sheer volume.

As for belief moving mountains, that's easy to say. Unfortunately for you, it hasn't happened. No one can do it. If so, please feel free to amaze  us and put on a demonstration.


_____________________________________________________

Sin -

Yahweh is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient by Christian dogma. (All-knowing, ever-present in everything, and all-knowing.) He created things according to his divine Plan and saw that it was good. This means he deliberately executed a plan by which most humans who have lived will be eternally tortured. He decides what is - and is not - sin, and decides what the payment for sin is (else he is not omnipotent). Thus, he sent himself as his son to earth to shed his blood to pay himself what he required for sin. He deliberately designed it so that he'd have to. If you don't think that's the most illogical, ludicrous notion, we simply must agree to disagree.

[AntigoneRisen]

Massive post of awesome

Oooh, you are going to fit in well here.

Hopefully you'll stay longer than four posts.

[AntigoneRisen]

Nice! A person who can do some proper math. I approve  

Thank you kindly. I do have an aversion to statistics pulled straight out of...errr...thin air.

[karadan]

The wonderful King David purchased his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins.

Is that what went for hard currency in those times?  

By the way, you should do an introduction. I'm sure everyone would like to say hi.

[The Magic Pudding]

Now you have to find a link between the soul and space-time.  

Possibly, but I could just say it with a pious expression and look to the heavens.
This is a religious treatise, huge leaps of reason are de rigueur.
I haven't got a link between soul and space-time.
But some bullshit about the timelessness of the soul, making it the only thing able to patch the rift might do.

Power figures recruiting followers and demanding blind loyalty arouse suspicion.
What are they up to?

A battle with a Satan figure could be the cause of the space-time problem.
Everyone one likes a Satan figure.

[humblesmurph]

You guys are overthinking it. Faith is simple. God is simple.

I've read about fire breathing Christians who hate atheists and Christian Scholars who do a decent job of making the religion fit in with the real world, but the vast majority of Christians I have come across have been this variety.

I bet pc4lf is a good person (as I believe most people are good), but (s)he has probably never even thought about why (s)he is a Christian.  Maybe it's better that way.  Extremists are a scary lot indeed, but pc4lf, and people of similar ilk, are largely harmless (imo).

Christianity is simply a better version of reality for people like pc4lf.  Of course Christians can't prove that god exists, but atheists can't prove that having no faith is better than having faith.  

We are all "wrong" about something unprovable. Most of us think we are more attractive, smarter, and more ethical than what the consensus opinion would be of us.  Logically, not the same, I know, but quite similar for day to day purposes (imo).

[The Magic Pudding]

I've read about fire breathing Christians who hate atheists

 and Christian Scholars who do a decent job of making the religion fit in with the real world, but the vast majority of Christians I have come across have been this variety.

OK

I bet pc4lf is a good person (as I believe most people are good), but (s)he has probably never even thought about why (s)he is a Christian.  Maybe it's better that way.  Extremists are a scary lot indeed, but pc4lf, and people of similar ilk, are largely harmless (imo).

I haven't heard pc4lf say anything to make it seem anything but a troll.

Christianity is simply a better version of reality for people like pc4lf.  Of course Christians can't prove that god exists, but atheists can't prove that having no faith is better than having faith.  

I think there are a whole lot of arguments against this.
I think it can be proved to a reasonable person.
It can't be proved to some people who have been indoctrinated from an early age.

We are all "wrong" about something unprovable.

Some of us leave the unprovable open.

Most of us think we are more attractive, smarter, and more ethical than what the consensus opinion would be of us.  Logically, not the same, I know, but quite similar for day to day purposes (imo).

Many people are self conscious about appearance and other things.
I'll let smartness and ethics go for now.