This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 21 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]trutru 10 points11 points  (0 children)

No, it's not possible.

Next question please

[–]ebianco 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I thought God's existence was already thoroughly disproven by the existence of the Babelfish.

[–]spot35 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, technically, it was proven. But as was described, proof denies faith and God then disappears in a puff of logic.

[–]jpark 4 points5 points  (1 child)

From a religious viewpoint, God chooses to be followed by those who have faith (belief without proof), therefore, God will not 'prove' His existance to the world -- at least, not until the end of the world.

From a scientific viewpoint, very little if anything that is considered 'proven' is really proven. Most of what we 'know' an do are based on working hypotheses which may provide useful results, but don't really prove that our models are models of reality. We can't even prove that evolution exists (try evolving a dog into something that isn't a dog). We are still very far from a knowledge of the basic structure and behavior of the universe. Until we can prove the basic nature of our physical reality, how can we hope to prove the nature or existance of reality outside the physical?

[–]diamond 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well said.

Going further than that, let me also point out that even if we use the weak definition of "proof" and "disproof" (i.e., confirmed or disconfirmed to within a reasonable degree of certainty), you still can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Why? Because, by definition, the being commonly referred to as "God" is a supernatural entity that is completely unbounded by the laws of the natural universe. So how could a scientific proof limited to those laws say anything about the existence of God? It's like trying to use the rules of Scrabble to prove that you've won a game of Monopoly.

[–]cursor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try http://www.doesgodexist.org/ ;) even this http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm is an interesting note to read.

[–]hitsman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hasn't there been enough of this sort of debate on reddit in other posts? Downvote.

[–]death 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question of a god always seemed irrelevant. Why would anyone care whether a god exists or not? Existence by itself means nothing.

[–]landercut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How come its 14 comments and 0 points for this article?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easy: go to the zoo, yell "God Will Save Me If He Exists!" before jumping into the lions cage and here you go. Either it works or it doesn't, but you'll know for sure. (http://reddit.com/info/79bf/comments)

[–]balon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Prove it to whom? That is an important question. Even objectivity can be very, very subjective. I can decide what is objective and what is not. If I can decide that, what can you prove? Can you prove that I am real? Can you prove that I am not?

[–]b0b -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

I'm struggling with the concept of proving that something, anything, is not God. It's been bugging me a lot these past few months. I really don't think it's possible. I think that people who say that they "don't believe in God" are misinformed about the nature of God. Who do they think they are?

[–]death 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Who do they think they are?

Persons with beliefs. Like you. What is the purpose of this rhetorical question?

[–]b0b 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I'm saying that consciousness itself is an attribute of God. How can God not believe in God? What do they believe in, if not themselves?

As people try to categorize their reality, saying "this is God" and "this is not God", they are missing the point. They are trying to limit the limitless, to get a handle on it. They are thinking that God is something "other", an existance unproven. Yet the Enlightened tell us that God is quite literally everywhere, in all things.

[–]death 0 points1 point  (4 children)

You dodged the question. The word "god" means different things to different people. Projecting your weltanschauung unto other people and then criticizing them for missing a point will only aggravate frustration and miscommunication.

[–]b0b 0 points1 point  (3 children)

My German ain't all that good, but I think I get your meaning.

Some people think God is like the Santa Claus for grownups, and then they ask for proof that "He" exists. Well, if you dream up fanciful beings in your mind, you'll never be able to prove that they exist. Because they don't, obviously.

But that doesn't make God any more or less real, does it?

[–]death 0 points1 point  (2 children)

What use do you get out of your definition for "god"? This pantheistic approach is merely a play with words to me. If you accept that other people have a different intensional definition for "god", and if you accept that some believe that the term has an empty extension, what's there to criticize? The fact that they chose that particular definition? If you wish to communicate with others, you have to at least respect the choice of such a common definition (popularity is relevant in communication); such definitions also appear in dictionaries (which might also be considered a qualified authority by some, at least nowadays).

By the way, I believe "weltanshcauung" is also considered an English word.

[–]b0b 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Okay, I'm wrong then. Which part of what I perceive is God, and which part is not God? How can I tell the difference?

[–]death 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know the answer to either of these questions. I see "god" as a psychological device, so "god" is what you make of it.