The argument there is no proof of God and therefore there is no God is faulty, and typical of rationalization of those in denial. Although it can be shown reasonably the existence of God makes the most sense of things, it cannot be proven in our minds. God is knowable, that is, His existence accepted, without being proven.
The content of my previous night's dream cannot be proven. This fact does not prove my previous night's dream does not exist. Of course no one needs to rationalize away the existence of a dream because they are in denial of it's existence.
"X has not been proven to exist, therefore X has been proven to not exist" is an invalid form of reasoning, and the motion contradicts such a form of reasoning. There was once a time when we couldn't prove that germs exist, but that doesn't mean we had proven the do not exist.
The most convincing argument the opposition to the motion could have made is to dispute the claim "The existence of God cannot be proven"- thus making the motion a false premise and therefore void. However, the motion seems to want us to accept that "The existence of God cannot be proven" as an axiom, and if we do so then the motion is necessarily true.
"X has not been proven to exist, therefore X has been proven to not exist" is a fallacy. The inability to prove god exists is a given, if we're speaking of the Christian God here.
Fifteen more words required. Eleven more words required. Seven more words required. Three more words.
If you see a painting, can you PROVE someone painted it? No, but logically someone had to have painted it for it to be there. Lots of people who believe in God, such as I, only add fuel to the fire when they want to disprove common scientific beliefs. I believe in the Big-Bang theory, but that God created it... Any non-believer would like to ponder and enlighten on what created the infinitely dense point that made you and I? Many a people have also argued on God's creation of our universe and the lack of power to do so. We cannot fathom this unworldly power that God posses; imagine it like this: you are suddenly thrown into the life of a mayfly, whose average lifespan is around 5 minutes for the female species. I, another mayfly, come up to you and say there are other beings that can live up to 100 years or more, and have the ability to make life outside a womb. You say impossible. It seems impossible, but that's what many people said centuries ago when they thought if we could go to the moon. We can never fully understand everything around us. BUT! This reasoning can be applied to other controversial topics, such as evolution, which I believe certain parts of. Many atheists and agnostics are quick to laugh at believers for not believing into the idea, but guess what? Nobody was around to watch evolution. It is a theory. [I just chose evolution since it was a reoccurring theme on the 'No' side] (Albeit, many people don't believe in evolution because they believe we came from monkeys. False. We came from a common ancestor.) Going back to the original claim, just because we cannot prove he exists, doesn't mean he does NOT, and vice versa. That is what faith is for. To put that trust that he is. If you don't believe, you do you. However, it is disrespectful and close-minded to say believers of any religion are mentally ill. Are we going back to the days of when we pointed out each other's characteristics and made assuming thoughts about them? Newsflash, we already had marches, civil wars, and World Wars for that. I am welcome for debate, but disrespecting one's belief or lack thereof is completely unacceptable.
Suppose god does not exist and the big bang created us all. How were we created so perfectly and with a world that suits us so perfectly and the resources that brought us hear today? I think that this is just weird to say that all this is just some amazing coincidence.
If He does not exist we will have no evidence for his existence
If we have no evidence for His existence it will not mean that He does not exist.
Also, we do not have any evidence for His non-existence, either. It is a very clouded argument, but I'm sure that humans will hold the answer someday.
In science you need to disprove something before you can say it is false. It's that simple. You either believe in science or you don't. People who claim the absolute nonexistence of God do not believe in science, they believe they are right.
With that being said, of course it's irrational to believe in God. The other side is right. It's irrational to trust something you can't prove. It’s always going to be irrational to believe in God, but that’s okay because we're irrational beings. We’re not robots and that’s why we won’t be able to shake off God.
To believe in God is to be human and to not believe in God is human as well. To condemn believing or not believing in God is to condemn humanity and themselves.
To the other side I say, be careful, for your absolute belief will turn you into the ignorance you are fighting against. The absolute assumption of God's nonexistence is in itself an irrationality that is equal to religion.
Before I say anything I'm going to state that am an agnostic atheist. There is no way to know for sure that an all powerful god created everything, and no way to know for sure that one exists. Sure, there are many pieces of evidence that state one doesn't exist, but who knows?
It is the primary function of the Gods of Asatru to hold back Ragnarok. Or Armageddon to you monotheists. The belief of Armageddon as part of "God's" divine plan is shared by the billions of followers of the top 4 name brand religions. It matters not if Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, Satan or what ever you want to call him exists or not. The fact that mankind has possesed the technology to destroy the world many times over, and billions of monotheists believe that Armageddon is the culmination of God's divine plan is enough to cause Armageddon to occur. After 2000 years this prophecy has not been fulfilled. Which proves Odin and the God's of Asatru exist and are stronger than Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah. And, that Jehovah and his followers are the bad guys.
Can be evidence of absence. If I say that there is a solid brick wall in front of you an you not only can't see it but you walk right through were I said it would be, would the absence of physical evidence prove that the wall does not exist? Of course.
Assuming we are talking about the Christian god (God), the absence of physical evidence is even more damming. This is because this god has the most spectacular claims of power, the largest of which is the claim that their god created the universe. Look at the power of our own sun, then multiply that by at least 100 billion as that is the lowest estimate of the number of stars in the Milky Way alone. Then multiply that number by 100 trillion as that is the estimated number of galaxies in our universe. Basically, we get the power of the sun multiplied by 1 followed by 24 zeros. If this vast amount of power was anywhere near us, it would not just be evident but impossible to ignore as it would be like having a nuclear bomb going off in your lap. The only way we could possibly survive being near such a vast amount of energy would be if some kind of shielding was present. Problem with that is, this shielding would need physical form like the lead shielding used to keep us safe from large sources of radiation.
Another example of how the spectacular claims help disprove God is the claim that god created space and time. First off, if space did not exist, then their god would have no space to exist. Secondly if time did not exist, nothing could happen to cause it to exist. Let me give you an example.
The existence of time could be compared to a video being played. That starting time could be like hitting play on the remote. Problem is, if time did not exist, the the person with the remote would be on the scene, frozen in time and not able to hit play. This is because if time did not exist prior to God creating it, it would also not exist for God, so God could not create it.
Because there would be undeniable evidence, like the brick wall, to the existence of God, means that because this evidence does not exist, neither does God.
There is no proof of any god and if there is please tell me because the bible is just a bunch of made up wacky bullshit ok these are my opinion on this subject don't judge me ok thats just my thoughts and nothing can be real with out proof
In my opinion, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever. The bible doesn't give a legitimate proof how such a being could exist. Unless you can find some way to walk on water or to get a whale to somehow spit you out (it isn't even possible to go in, their filter feeders) then please do enlighten me. Otherwise, the only logical way forward is to stop believing in these made up characters.
It is just as hard to disprove God as it is to prove the existence of our almighty creator. You can easily look around and see miracle after miracle given to the world. Prophecies fulfilled, the Bible has time and time again proven that it is not only Prophetic, but historically, and statistically accurate.
Only someone as foolish as a toddler would believe in the concept of "God".. Once you are an adolescent and adult it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that there is no "God" of any kind, there is no "magic man upstairs" watching us. Praying does nothing. Get over it. Enjoy your life and do what YOU want, because guess what? God isn't real. If God was real, nothing bad would ever happen.. And if he is real and let's bad things happen, then he is a cruel entity who is NOT worth praising or even acknowledging. "Free will" blah blah, belief in God is a mental illness.
Religion in my opinion is basically mythology that has lingered into this era. Honestly evolution is much more appealing to me because there are so many fossils to prove it. The only reason I was told to believe in a religion is because the holy book told me too. With no scientific evidence to back up god I am much more inclined to belirve in no god. Of course there might be a slight chance he might exist but nevertheless right now there is so much more evidence against god.
But in all practical senses it does. Occam's razor tells us the sensible assumption is "no". Furthermore, any God that would threaten unimaginable, eternal torment for refusing to believe in their existence, and then not provide the slightest bit of compelling proof would have to be incomparably evil, which I think would, by definition, mean they are not God.
We do not know whether or not there is a way to prove God exists. There may be a way, but we just haven't found it yet. Back in ancient Greece, Democritus of Abdera thought of the concept of the atom, but he couldn't prove it. Years later we were able to discover his concept was true due. So there is no way we can definitely say that something cannot be proven. We can only say it hasn't been proven yet.
God can't be proven wrong. We will most likely never prove any god is fake. However, there are many unproven things that haven't been proven wrong. For example, can you PROVE that the flying spaghetti unicorn doesn't exist? No. But would we assume or believe that he does? No- of course not.
The existence of rainbow devil horn satan unicorn cannot be proven. This fact does not prove He does not exist.
It's a stupid argument.
If something cannot be proven it is logical to make the assumption it is not true/does not exist, until god has been proven to exist the rational and logical conclusion is that god simply does not exist.