Can You Disprove God?

Fanman, Parro all you are doing is reaffirming your faith nothing more. No one can disprove god just as no one can disprove fairies but who would be so bold as to claim god or fairies as proven by their personal experience? When will you both understand that for an atheist to prove to you that fairies exist he would need as much physical evidence as we require from you that god exists. Can you not get your head around the fact that your belief in the bible has no relevance. I am not sure if I am mad even attempting to explain to you that the bible for an atheist is a book of myths and legends with no factual accounts or proof that god exists.

I was just answering a question. Don't get defensive because I was telling someone else why I believe what I read. Don't get upset that you cannot change my mind, I believe anybody that partakes in a philosophy forum is indeed trying to become more knowledgeable, and not just doing it to argue over opinion. Whether God exists or not is only that "a matter of opinion." In my opinion God exists." In your opinion "God is not". Why care who is right since neither side is provable. Instead we should be trying to aquire more knowledge and wisdom together.

I get annoyed Parro because the debate is entrenched in one description of god and all I ever hear in evidence for god is an archaic history book about one particular tribe sistuated in the ME. It's like an atheist constantly using Darwins book on the evolution of species and nothing else. Christians appear to have this attitude that no other description of god could possible exist. I do not want to change your mind I want you to keep an open mind and explore other possibilities.

Fanman, Parro all you are doing is reaffirming your faith nothing more. No one can disprove god just as no one can disprove fairies but who would be so bold as to claim god or fairies as proven by their personal experience? When will you both understand that for an atheist to prove to you that fairies exist he would need as much physical evidence as we require from you that god exists. Can you not get your head around the fact that your belief in the bible has no relevance. I am not sure if I am mad even attempting to explain to you that the bible for an atheist is a book of myths and legends with no factual accounts or proof that god exists.

I was just answering a question. Don't get defensive because I was telling someone else why I believe what I read. Don't get upset that you cannot change my mind, I believe anybody that partakes in a philosophy forum is indeed trying to become more knowledgeable, and not just doing it to argue over opinion. Whether God exists or not is only that "a matter of opinion." In my opinion God exists." In your opinion "God is not". Why care who is right since neither side is provable. Instead we should be trying to aquire more knowledge and wisdom together.

I get annoyed Parro because the debate is entrenched in one description of god and all I ever hear in evidence for god is an archaic history book about one particular tribe sistuated in the ME. It's like an atheist constantly using Darwins book on the evolution of species and nothing else. Christians appear to have this attitude that no other description of god could possible exist. I do not want to change your mind I want you to keep an open mind and explore other possibilities.

Well lets do it then.

Before we dispute god we must try and put away our preconceptions and prejudices. One of the most ancient of beliefs the Tao, accepts the essential nature of man is to invent god. Taoism admits this conflict and admits a primal force exists but that force remains intangible. We might believe in a god but in reality we never see this god so we invent and our inventions become dogmatic religions. We argue about descriptions rather than a concept. Gods become divisive rather than acting as social motivation. Each of us stands by our image or lack of image believing we hold the truth. If we accept that nature is our creator why should we place a human face upon it. The gods we deny or invent are a product of that force, a human desire to understand what we can not understand. Our conflict is with our ignorance not this primal force that created us. We can not disprove what we can not conceive of.

Xris, I don't agree... Nature is the system that perpetuates life upon earth. If we accept that nature 'created' life, and is god, then we automatically give nature an intelligence; because it 'decided' to create males and females; because it 'decided' that plants would use photo synthesis in order to live - making descisions implies intelligence. Then there is also the fact to consider that we are intelligent, therefore the logical question becomes, how did nature or a 'primal force' not being intelligent, create intelligent human beings? Where did it get the know how, was it all by chance? I mean, how far back do we go? Do you believe that nature created the universe? If so how, what energy source did it use? How does it regulate our solar system? The amount of questions are endless, with no evidence to support your supposition except your own opinion.

Good morning All,

I do not think you believe in fairies and I do not think you want to have a serious conversation. As far as the color (who paints the daisies) of daisies or any other plant is of course in the seed of their kind.[/quote]

Misty why are you claiming I am not serious? Angels have wings are they any different? Why should you find my beliefs unbelievable but expect me to believe yours? You want me to believe that god made everything in seven days but fairies don't paint the daisies.From an objective position you could be classified as being slightly flippant.

Xris,

Tinkerbell and such do not give any answers or reason why the universe IS. Fairies, leprechauns, are the current argument for atheists, and is nothing new. The concept of God and the bible do give humans some answers and hope. You can believe what ever you have come to discern is true for you but that does not negate other people to have the same right. Remember on another topic I asked you what happened to you and you told me about your best friend dying among other things? I was compassionate with you. When I told you about my child who died you offered no compassion, just in a hurry to attack. That is is difference between my belief and yours. You are so angry at your maker that you dump on your fellow humans. I cannot make you understand, that is between you and your maker. Xris, you come off sounding like a person with a heart of rock. You never TRY to understand what anyone else believes because you are on the attack at all times. Offer me something that brings some hope to the world without attacking those who try. Nothing you have argued about offers anything beyond that you are mad at God. I already know what you are going to say!

Misty we all have our sorrow and our stories. Did you tell me yours to get sympathy or make point? I believed it was only used to make a point so why should I give sympathy when you believe your god has no reason to interfere in any child's plight. When thousands of children die every day without gods assistance and you worship that god, why should I not be angry? I am not angry at god, he does not exist. I am angry at this strange attention christians have to a god that bares no resemblance to the proclaimed benevolent god you all claim exists. This arrogance I see displayed does increasingly anger more and more people. The days of the faithful being treated like the golden calf are over Misty. I suggest you get used to it. Fairies, angels who with any logical reasoning would treat one differently to the other?

Fanman I have tried to move this subject away from the same old christian argument but it obviously has had no effect on you. You and your christian friends can not imagine considering an alternative. It displays your dogmatic views as entrenched and with little chance of you ever looking outwards. It is tantamount to preaching rather than attempting to debate in a truly philosophical manner. The Tao have studied life and its mysteries for thousand upon thousands of years and you simply dismiss it with the brashness of any self respecting fundamentalist.

Parro, Did you see how long it lasted? Not even the slightest attempt to think out of the box and consider an alternative.

Before we dispute god we must try and put away our preconceptions and prejudices. One of the most ancient of beliefs the Tao, accepts the essential nature of man is to invent god. Taoism admits this conflict and admits a primal force exists but that force remains intangible. We might believe in a god but in reality we never see this god so we invent and our inventions become dogmatic religions. We argue about descriptions rather than a concept. Gods become divisive rather than acting as social motivation. Each of us stands by our image or lack of image believing we hold the truth. If we accept that nature is our creator why should we place a human face upon it. The gods we deny or invent are a product of that force, a human desire to understand what we can not understand. Our conflict is with our ignorance not this primal force that created us. We can not disprove what we can not conceive of.

Very well put and I understand your point. I think it is human nature to try to personafy things that we do not understand aswell. One concept that I have of God is that God is greater then myself, because of this concept I believe it is important to be humble and not deem myself the greatest thing that exists. It keeps me from thinking that I am better or more valuable then anyone else.

Xris, I think you'll find that I am more than willing to discuss the concepts of other gods. I put forward a few arguments and questions as to why I think that 'nature' (your concept) is not God. Why don't you respond to my actual post, instead of accusing me of being dogmatic? Askng and answering questions is the nature of philosophy, and that is what I am doing. It is your failure to even attempt to answer the questions and respond to the arguments I posed, which is hindering the philosophical debate. If you think that you can hide this fact by constructing ad hominem attacks and straw man fallacies then you are mistaken.

[quote="Xris"]Misty we all have our sorrow and our stories. Did you tell me yours to get sympathy or make point? I believed it was only used to make a point so why should I give sympathy when you believe your god has no reason to interfere in any child's plight. When thousands of children die every day without gods assistance and you worship that god, why should I not be angry? I am not angry at god, he does not exist. I am angry at this strange attention christians have to a god that bares no resemblance to the proclaimed benevolent god you all claim exists. This arrogance I see displayed does increasingly anger more and more people. The days of the faithful being treated like the golden calf are over Misty. I suggest you get used to it. Fairies, angels who with any logical reasoning would treat one differently to the other?

Thank you Xris for answering as expected. Yes, all have stories, like you did and enjoyed telling it. You received personal compassion. I was not seeking sympathy nor did I want it. What I wanted to find out is if YOU could be compassionate on a personal level and I learned you could not, so I do not believe your ranting about caring about millions of people. This topic is 'Can you disprove God' and you have not offered anything concrete. You don't acknowledge any truth, i.e. that plants color is in the seed. How can anyone take you serious when all you do is misinterpret what others say? Your anger leaps off the page everywhere I have seen you post. Xris, I never heard or seen Christians being treated like a golden calf, and they would not allow it because the golden calf represents wrong doing. If you put the energy you use to ramp and rave about the beliefs of others, making untrue accusations, making silly comparisons that have nothing to do with the topic, and make some real alternative belief you would be taken seriously. I will not answer you again if you don't present something relative to the topic. Stop being so predictable!!!!!!

Misty, so christian are not predictable? Please. I have tried altering the path of this subject away from the narrow confines of one faith several times but all I ever receive are the same self confessions of convinced christians. From an agnostic perspective it stifles debate and simple makes it battle of christians verses atheist. I am angry, tired and bored with christians constantly refering to one book as if it was sacred and could not be questioned. Yes I detest religion, is that a crime? I deplore everything about it. It is sanctimonious, damaging manipulative and intrusive. It has swept away cultures, killed millions and still demands respect as if has some kind of written authority. I am sorry for your loss but my sympathy will not help you. I do not grieve for my loss of friend, I grieve for his loss and his families.You have this strange idea that I lost my faith through loosing friends or family but you ignore my argument about gods failure to save millions of children. You indicated your dislike of me because I show no sympathy but you support the image of a god that can stand back for thousands of years with no indication that he cares for his creation.

-- Updated Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:31 am to add the following --

Xris, I don't agree... Nature is the system that perpetuates life upon earth. If we accept that nature 'created' life, and is god, then we automatically give nature an intelligence; because it 'decided' to create males and females; because it 'decided' that plants would use photo synthesis in order to live - making descisions implies intelligence. Then there is also the fact to consider that we are intelligent, therefore the logical question becomes, how did nature or a 'primal force' not being intelligent, create intelligent human beings? Where did it get the know how, was it all by chance? I mean, how far back do we go? Do you believe that nature created the universe? If so how, what energy source did it use? How does it regulate our solar system? The amount of questions are endless, with no evidence to support your supposition except your own opinion.

Who said it was chance? What is intelligence? Because you put your god up as the sole creator does not indicate that you are right. There is nothing in nature that indicates your god is the creator. You are making assumptions that our conscious ability is the the best or only one that could exist. You then assume that nature must have the same conscious ability and that gives you the authority to insert your god into a picture you have previously formed. You are failing to approach the subject from an objective perspective.

Xris, if nature did not create life by chance then how did it create life? You have created this 'god' called nature in your mind. Does the Mona Lisa indicate that it was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci? No it doesn't yet it was painted by him... In my opinion, intelligence is required to create intelligence. Therefore, I believe whomever or whatever created us, is an intelligent being.

Xris, if nature did not create life by chance then how did it create life? You have created this 'god' called nature in your mind. Does the Mona Lisa indicate that it was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci? No it doesn't yet it was painted by him... In my opinion, intelligence is required to create intelligence. Therefore, I believe whomever or whatever created us, is an intelligent being.

Did you read my post?

Before we dispute god we must try and put away our preconceptions and prejudices. One of the most ancient of beliefs the Tao, accepts the essential nature of man is to invent god. Taoism admits this conflict and admits a primal force exists but that force remains intangible. We might believe in a god but in reality we never see this god so we invent and our inventions become dogmatic religions. We argue about descriptions rather than a concept. Gods become divisive rather than acting as social motivation. Each of us stands by our image or lack of image believing we hold the truth. If we accept that nature is our creator why should we place a human face upon it. The gods we deny or invent are a product of that force, a human desire to understand what we can not understand. Our conflict is with our ignorance not this primal force that created us. We can not disprove what we can not conceive of.

Very well put and I understand your point. I think it is human nature to try to personafy things that we do not understand aswell. One concept that I have of God is that God is greater then myself, because of this concept I believe it is important to be humble and not deem myself the greatest thing that exists. It keeps me from thinking that I am better or more valuable then anyone else.

Another concept that I have arrived at is the importance of respect of God. As a surfer I love the ocean I play in almost each day, if I am stressed surfing relieves me from it, but because I know the greatness of the ocean I respect it. I know that it could possibly kill me anytime I go into it. I give the ocean respect by not doubting it's greatness and power.

Which post are you referring to Xris?

Before we dispute god we must try and put away our preconceptions and prejudices. One of the most ancient of beliefs the Tao, accepts the essential nature of man is to invent god. Taoism admits this conflict and admits a primal force exists but that force remains intangible. We might believe in a god but in reality we never see this god so we invent and our inventions become dogmatic religions. We argue about descriptions rather than a concept. Gods become divisive rather than acting as social motivation. Each of us stands by our image or lack of image believing we hold the truth. If we accept that nature is our creator why should we place a human face upon it. The gods we deny or invent are a product of that force, a human desire to understand what we can not understand. Our conflict is with our ignorance not this primal force that created us. We can not disprove what we can not conceive of.

Very well put and I understand your point. I think it is human nature to try to personafy things that we do not understand aswell. One concept that I have of God is that God is greater then myself, because of this concept I believe it is important to be humble and not deem myself the greatest thing that exists. It keeps me from thinking that I am better or more valuable then anyone else.

Another concept that I have arrived at is the importance of respect of God. As a surfer I love the ocean I play in almost each day, if I am stressed surfing relieves me from it, but because I know the greatness of the ocean I respect it. I know that it could possibly kill me anytime I go into it. I give the ocean respect by not doubting it's greatness and power.

Understanding that there might be a great spirit of creation and respecting that is no different than me respecting nature Parro. I just admit that I have no name or description that would fit the evidence. I can only stand in awe and wonder. Men for thousands of years have faced the same question and the Tao has accepted that quandary. If you believe your god fits the poster, I must protest just as you would protest if I gave you an alternative. We argue over pictures not concepts.

-- Updated Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:27 am to add the following --

Xris, if nature did not create life by chance then how did it create life? You have created this 'god' called nature in your mind. Does the Mona Lisa indicate that it was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci? No it doesn't yet it was painted by him... In my opinion, intelligence is required to create intelligence. Therefore, I believe whomever or whatever created us, is an intelligent being.

I have not created a god called nature I have admitted nature created me. The Mona Lisa would still exist even if you did not know the painter. Creation and all its conflicting attributes do not paint a picture that we can identify the creator. You battle to fit your god into the evidence. You are told he is benevolent forgiving caring evident but so much of natures creation contradicts those descriptions. When you are really stumped you fall back on the same argument I use. I admit from the start I have no idea of the purpose of creation or what nature intended other than to wonder. Lets admit creation has intelligence can you if you had no bible give me a reason for our existence?