«Home

A Convincing Proof That God (the Creator Of The Universe) Does Not Exist?

We have encountered many atheists on this forum. It has been interesting discussing with them. I only have one outstanding issue:

I would like to see a convincing proof that God (the creator of the universe) does not exist.

Please, I am waiting,

Avatar
Newbie
35 answers

. . . I am still waiting for a convincing proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. . .

@huxley and the boyz

Come on!!! Do something here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I suggest that our scientific atheists quietly and honestly ponder the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences.

Wikipedia article -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experiences

They still have much to learn about reality.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Our scientific atheists have NOT been able to disprove (or prove) the existence of God.

I suggest that they desist from making further categorical statements about God.

They can neither defend their position nor their statements.

So much for logic and rationality!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@olabowale

This shows you have not been reading my posts the way they should be read. I have provided five proofs for the existence of God without reference to bible,koran or any such book.

I am waiting for the scientific atheists to provide a proof that God does not exist, without throwing weak punches at the five proofs, or making references to the bible or koran or any such book.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@imhotep

@Bawomol: You do not have to have a boggie man on top, in the sky, before God existence is proven to you. I can almost assure you that when were little, say 3 years old, a 6 ft tall person, or at least your father was like the greatest giant, ever existed, in your eye. But as you grow older, everything is in perspective, to its place and time. So since the whole universe, Galaxies, etc (space), have not yet been discovered, you can not be sure, in your littliest of knowledge, which is deluding you, that there is nothing beyond space and human reach. No matter how we try. Have you ever heard of Seven heavens? Yet the whole science world does not know how far is the closest of them, the first heaven is to the earth?

Penetrate the space, if you can, you can not penetrate it, (because it envelopes all things; man and jinn and all space vehicles, regardless how long it travels and what speed it has, it will never get to the boundary of where envelope begins.) except which among you He allows to penetrate further than whose who are denied (This is possible in allowance or denial by His power of Mercy and Judgement alone). (Surah Ar Rahman; From the Qur'an over 1400 years ago). It simply points out that man's power is limited, in this world and in the day of judgement, there will be just reward for those who denied His existence and those who add some others along in their worship, and then superior Mercy that is everlasting for those who He covers with Mercy instead of Justice, in their efforts, however weak, but it satisfies Him.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quite the contrary, May Kelly, I am a scientific theist who believes that science should be put in its proper place.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Can science answer these questions:

1) What is magnetism?

2) What is gravitation?

3) Where are the boundaries of the universe, what exists beyond those boundaries?

0
Avatar
Newbie

ALL WE SEE BEYOND AND ABOVE ARE PROOFS THAT HE EXIST

the only thing above us are magnetic fields, planetary bodies and galaxies. i still haven't seen a boogie man above.

0
Avatar
Newbie

How so? I don't see how or why you think they are dogmatic. It's even more puzzling considering the comparism you've made.

Wait, what? Okay, now you've confirmed my earlier suspiscions. I'm out.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Just that the arguments sounded dogmatic ( the same accusation leveled against Church/theist arguments). We want to see and touch the proofs, the scientific way.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You expected pictures?

Why not? If the subject was the existence of, say, a leprechaun or Zeus, would those words have been enough?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nice words. But words none the less. Not enough to convince anyone (beyond reasonable doubt) that God does not exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No. This is a nice way of dodging the question. We are discussing the rational claim of the atheists that 'God does not exist'. I think we deserve a 'rational' explanation of this, accompanied by a scientific proof. Simple

0
Avatar
Newbie

It appears you haven't understood my post. I should point out that at this point that it appears you're being asinine and simply appending the same catch-all to any response that is posted.

First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

0
Avatar
Newbie

Imhotep,

Imagine you are charge with a crime and taken to court. Don't you think it is the onus of the prosecuting authorities to prove that you committed the crime. If they cannot prove to the jury that you committed the crime you do not have to say a thing in you defense.

Likewise it is the onus of the theist to prove that a god exist.

Christians claim their god has the following attributes; omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent and omnibenevolence. It is logically impossible to have all of these attributes.

By the way, how did they know about these attributes from god?

0
Avatar
Newbie

imhotep, ii have a scientific proof that GOD does exist - but no scientific proof that GOD does not exist. Are you satisfied with the question - and please lets go to another question. you can consult a scientist for more proof you desire. and please forget this topic - let will take you no where - COS THERE IS NO PROOF - ALL WE SEE BEYOND AND ABOVE ARE PROOFS THAT HE EXIST.

0
Avatar
Newbie

We don't have to take your word for it that God is imaginary and mythological.

Give us a scientific proof, beyond reasonable doubt that God is imaginary, mythological and does not exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I doubt disbelief is based simply on sight. Just saying.

I try not to do this, but what the hell, why not. I wrote this brief summary a good while back:

"Matter is composed of elementary fermions, which makes protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter. I should mention that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.

Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

That's as brief and precise as I can make it, feel free to pick up a book on it or something. Kudos to R. Lippens as well."

Critique?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@bawol

the burden of proof is bound on the proponents of a new idea to show that it's true. the job of the atheist is to attack the shoddy beliefs of theists. the only proof theists have is "faith". how do u bring up physical evidence against "faith" especially involving an abstract entity. what are the parameters for which we can test the existence of God??. if so, bring it on. the tables have been turned brother

so you dont have faith abi?

it seems you are asking about the existence of God? well i think i have a simple question for you.

xtian: do you breathe in air?

atheist: yes

xtian: do you see the air you breathe?

atheist: no

xtian: do you see the evidnce of the air around us?

atheist: yes

conclusion: so the air does not exist becos i dont see it.

hi bawol

i am still asking you in the other thread, where did matter come from? how did it come to exist?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Then, Atheist should use his all-powerful logic to prove that God does not exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Christian: The Big Bang is impossible because you can't have something from nothing.

Atheist: Ok, so where did God come from?

Christian: God is omnipotent, omnipresent. He has always been. He doesn't need a creator.

Atheist: Ummmm, right. So the Big Bang needs a creator, but God doesn't. Good logic example there.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Check out what Exodus 21:17 says. Here it is. Do you live according to its precepts?

"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death"

0
Avatar
Newbie

There is no original without a fake, , there is nothing like "the big bang theory", I am sick and tired of science effort to prove everything. We should realize that we as humans can't explain everything,

0
Avatar
Newbie

Imhotep,

You may be right about the ether stuff but this was never accepted as scientific theory. If it was it was rejected as you mentioned. But that is the beauty of science; anything that does not stand the tests of evidence is rejected.

I mentioned CMBR because when scientist started looking for it, they were discourage in the light of the failure to detect ether. CMBR is similar to the idea of ether in that it occupied the entire universe. But it is not a medium. It is just the left-over from the BIG BANG.

So if you were looking for proof of the BIG BANG event CMBR is the thing.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Not quite. Luminiferous aether was held to be the [b]medium [/b]through which light propagates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether)

CMBR is not a medium, but a form of radiation.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You make a good point about ether but am afraid you have failed to understand how science works. Scientist make a speculation or hypothesis and then go out and look for supporting evidence for their hypothesis. If evidence is found, the hypothesis is accepted as a scientific theory. If not it is rejected.

Even after a theory is first accepted, the entire scientific community continously evaluates it through trials, replication and if it is found wanting it is immediately modified to accommodate the new evidence or rejected. Science moves by progressive forward, backward, then forward moves.

it is interesting you mention ether, because I am right in the middle of reading a book in which I came across this for the first time. It was widely believed that such a thing existed (so at that point, it was only a scientific speculation/hypothesis). But when tests could not find evidence for it, that hypothesis was rejected.

Incidentally, cosmologist have found something called Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation(CBMR) which has all the hallmarks of ether. This is the remnants of the Big Bang explosion and measures about 3K (kelvin). In fact, some of the radio and television interference on earth is cause by this radiation.

This is a great book. "Wrinkles in Time" by George Smoot. He won the Nobel prize for physics for his work in proving the existence of CBMR.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrinkles-Time-Witness-Birth-Universe/dp/0061344443/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202415135&sr=1-1

0
Avatar
Newbie

All well and good.

And I am saying : use this scientific method (our best tool for investigating reality) to prove that God does not exist.

Afterall, Michelson and Morley were able to show (indirectly) that there is nothing like a 'luminiferous ether' that James Clerk Maxwell believed to exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Imhotep,

Thankx for the compliment. Much appreciated.

I can very well defend my atheistic stand but it would be too long-winded and hard to maintain on a thread on a forum. I came to an atheistic worldview after many years as a christian. It was a long journey which would be hard to defend on a thread. Suffice it to say that if you are interested in looking into the defenses for atheism, you will have to do much of the work yourself. In fact I shall post some links later.

What drives me is the TRUTH and as humans we have no better tools for investigating reality than the scientific method. In the past when we relied of revelations we have gone disastrously awry as evident from things like slavery, the Inquisition, belief in a geo-centric universe etc.

Can you think of anything for which the scientific explanation, which may once have been the best explanation, has been rejected in favour of a faith explanation?

However, I am sure you can name many tens of things for which the faith explanation has been abandoned in favour of a scientific explanation.

That is the point I am making. Think HARD before you believe anything.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well written. But NOT the proof I seek. Does this mean that atheists cannot defend/justify their position?

Then why do they maintain a position they cannot defend/justify?? This is surprising.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Imhotep,

With most respect, I submit that you too are an atheist. You are an atheist with respect to the Buddhist gods, the Hindu gods, the Muslim god(Allah), Zeus, Mithras, Thor, Dionysus, Horus, the African Stone/Tree gods etc etc.

I too am an atheist with respect to the above gods, as well as the god of the bible. When you understand why you reject the above gods, you will understand why I reject your god.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The burden of proof lies with the party that asserts the positive. So if you assert that a god exist, it is your responsibility to provide proofs that such an entity exists.

The weak atheists asserts that there is no justification for a god-belief (given that theism is the belief in god). So a weak atheist simply says all existing justification do not meet the standard of proof, although there may be a god who is currently hidden from us.

The strong atheist makes a claim that given all the existing evidence, the probability for god's existence remains very weak.

Consider the following challenge;

Can you prove that there is no red-eye, green-tailed rhino sitting in the middle of your living room?

0
Avatar
Newbie

what proof again do you want - when you sleep - in your sleep find out were you come from, then i will be here 2morrow to give you proof. wait for me ok.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If you insist to get proof that GOD does not exist - then is because your alive - that's my parameter for which you can test the existence of God.

god exists because u are alive. u are alive because God exists. that people is what i call circular reasoning used by Christians. they have no proof of their own so they challenge others for proof

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.