There are several arguments for and against the existence of God, but can we really prove or disprove the existence of God?

Asked by: froos4077
  • They do not exist.

    The fact that there is no evidence is proof that god(s) do not exist. Of course with no evidence, one can not prove that their god exists but contrary to popular opinion, the lack of evidence is proof that the god does not exist. God always have some extraordinary claim to their existence but if these claims were true, there would be physical evidence.

  • A god or gods would need to be proven to be disproved.

    The lack of evidence is proof of absence. If a person presents a extraordinary claim without proof, like he claims to have an invisible dragon in his closet, I have credible reason to disbelieve it, no evidence on an extraordinary claim that has never even been shown to be possible to be done or exist.

  • No, we cannot. Science still can't tell us why we're here and where we came from.

    There's more evidence in science for the existence of the Christian God than there is the opposite. As a Christian, I hear Atheist telling me to use my critical thinking. I say, "I do, I use it to debunk science."
    Scientist actually do a good job figuring out all the things the do, but they only see how the universe work. That's it.

    But they totally put a spin on their interpretation of what the see to make it sound like they can answer question like why we're here and whether there's a God or not.

    They don't know where the universe came from, because they don't know what happened before the Big Bang. This world is so eager for a reasonable, alternative explanation for why we're here that, it blindly believes things that don't follow basic logic, like the universe came out of nothing, and space / time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Which brings the basic question: if you don't know what happened before the Big Bang, how can you say for sure what existed before the Big Bang anyway?

    Just for a guy like Stephen Hawking to say, definitively, that there's no God doesn't make scientific sense, it's not logical. But scientist are human beings and human beings have agendas. Especially when it's their life's work and when their part of a systemic way of doing things. And when that way of doing things started to disprove the existence of God in the first place. What kind of agenda would a guy like Stephen Hawking have?

    Besides what happened before the Big Bang, there are a couple of hugely, important points about science that Secularist seem to miss:

    >>>Science can only see about 4% of what they know to exist. Dark energy and dark matter make up the most of what's out there. Now, of that 4%, science knows a very tiny fraction.
    >>>Science is notorious for self correction. It should go without saying because there're so many examples. A lot of research around food seems to be guilty of this practice. But other branches of scientific research can be stubborn when it come to making corrections.
    >>>Science currently admits dark energy and dark matter has it stumped. A new theory of relativity is needed to explain how gravity works at the galactic level. I see another huge gap in scientific knowledge.
    >>>Mankind as a whole has not been in existence for very long. Scientist themselves compare our appearance on the stage of existence to the last few seconds of the last day of the year. That year being the existence of the universe.

    So really when Stephen Hawking applies scientific thinking to the existence of the Christian God, is he actually applying scientific thinking to the possibility of that question being answered definitively by Mankind today? I don't think so.

    But what do we the public know. We were raised and educated to think science is always right.

  • This will be a continuous question for man kind to look for till the end of time. Ignoramus et ignorabimus

    The very nature of this is not physical.
    I'm not saying there is or there is not a god. Nor if it is a persona or not.
    What you say does not exist, interestingly, alot of thing in our lives truly don't exist.

    Energy, vectors, they are observable by a medium. Physics. Physical atoms, physical objects, and the record of the change is what we see. Not the energy it self.

    Information. You cannot prove that there is empirical evidence for information. They must be in a medium. Stone tablets, paper, 1s and 0s. etc. if they are not recorded then it will not exist. If i didnt write what i wrote here, there is no possibility to prove that this idea, these words even existed.
    and this will be important as we want to know how life truly began. Atoms and chemistry is nice. In some perfect situations amino acids can be made from a cesspool and lightning. Cool. Thats a step.
    But what makes life is not amino acids. Or chemicals. No macro molecules mean anything wihtout a proper order of genetic coding. And this beginning will be something we can not observe at this time. And so we don't have anything to prove or disprove God. Since it doesnt make any sense ( at this point) how life began without a conscious "intent".

  • Lack of proof does not mean something does or doesn't exist.

    Say we have an object in a box which we can't see. If, for some reason, we cannot open the box or interact with the box to prove an object is in it, that doesn't mean that the enclosed object doesn't exist. If you aren't able to prove something, it doesn't mean it exists or does not exist. There also is no formal proof to definitively say God does or doesn't exist. It is a matter of personal faith. A LACK OF PROOF DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING EXISTS.

  • Feeling, intuition and belief is not proof or disproof

    While I quite often feel the hollow emptiness of a barren Universe without a God, that does not make it true or untrue. My gut feeling and intuition tell me that there is no afterlife, but that does not make it a fact. The converse is equally true for someone who believes in God. A feeling, belief or intuition is not fact and never will be. In my opinion however, the religious perspective has more to prove than the non-religious one. I do not need to convince anyone of my point of view or change anyone's mind. Furthermore, I don't require anyone else to believe what I do in order to make an organization that I belong to survive or have value. If millions of atheists are saved by Jesus, all the more power to them. However, if millions of Christians abandoned their congregations, the effect would be much more stark.

  • It's not a question of fact

    The debate about God is one of belief. We all have freedom of thought which means no one can tell us our opinions are wrong. The debate about God is about opinion. Instead of arguing about whether God exists, we should be working together to make the world a better place, whether it's for God or if it's just for the world as a whole.

  • Right now, no.

    Now, I'm an atheist, but the answer to this question is No. No one could prove or disprove a God, because every argument has flaws. Humans are flawed, so they always have a loophole in their thinking. Whether you are atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, or whatever, you always have a weak point.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.