0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
God has been disproven, within the bounds of reason at least. You can't always prove that something undetectable doesn't exist, but when it depends on impossible qualities, you can then rule it out. God relies on impossible qualities.
It is a well-known fact that the true god is made of pasta, but of a color and texture imperceptible to man. You can't disprove it, so it's one more to add to the infinite burden of the agnostic.
God is like the former case - he has impossible qualities which render him non-existent.
I've taken the main attributes of God and shown that they don't work.
Those who lack that ability will just see the gaps….
because you can shoot down all the humanly devised ideas of God that you know about, that must prove that God does not exist.
Back to Occam!
That is exactly how we prove the nonexistence of anything else we have invented, like phlogiston, caloric, aether, and so forth: we determine the properties it must possess and see if they are demonstrable or at least selfconsistent.The test clearly can't be applied to something we didn't invent or infer from a discovery. Does god fit into either of those categories? If so, then the test is valid. If not, what is the evidence for its existence? Back to Occam!
In a different thread, in which we were discussing whether something could come from absolutely nothing, JP pointed out that, scientifically, one could not argue that this was impossible, because, outside the Universe, which is the source of all our observations, there could exist circumstances in which something could come from absolute nothing.
You may, or may not agree with this, but there seems to be a similarity in that you are saying that because you can shoot down all the humanly devised ideas of God that you know about, that must prove that God does not exist.
...just as with those who claim to know with complete certainty that there is a God are self deluded to some extent.... those who claim to know with complete certainty that there isn't a God must be equally so.
A "God" who believes he is God is also deluded, because he cannot possibly know if he is God.
So you are arguing for the impossibility of knowing whether something exists or not, if it can't be defined
Too many assumptions. Back to Occam.