Prove God doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.1167021]

I dare you /sci/. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.1167025]

no

[sage No.1167027]

goes in all fields

[Anonymous No.1167031]

[Anonymous No.1167030]

Teodicé

[Anonymous No.1167032]

prove me wrong athiests

[Anonymous No.1167035]

It's impossible to prove God exists as much as it is to prove he exists. Therefore Christians and atheists are both believing faggots, but it's more likely that the atheists are right.
This is why Agnostics > all.

[Anonymous No.1167041]

almost every scientist believes in some kind of god
but not that kind of god that religion describes
at this point noone can prove/disprove the existence of god
but believing in a religious god is just stupid....

[Anonymous No.1167045]

Should we talk about it in philosophical terms: The first mover, or in actual SCIENCE terms: why you are a retard :)

[Anonymous No.1167046]

>>1167041
So in other words, you can't prove that he does not exist, so you have failed.

[Anonymous No.1167050]

>>1167021

OK.

We know cat's exist yes? We know cat's are the most cute and loveable of all animals as even /b/tard's love cat's. The bible says that god created all animals... and yet dog's don't like cat's. We know from the movies that all dog's go to heaven so if there was a heaven cat's and dog's would be fighting all day. We know heaven is made of clouds and rain comes from clouds. So this means when people say that it'[s raining cats and dogs the animals that are fighting in heaven are actually falling from the sky. And yet no cats OR dogs ever hit the ground as many Chinese people look for them so they can make takeaway food to sell to students.

Checkmate you thiest retard. Check fucking mate.

[Anonymous No.1167051]

>>1167035
Once again, no. You can't disprove anything, so you should believe agnostic about everything. I'm guessing you aren't, so why do you think god deserves some "we just don't know" treatment?

[Anonymous No.1167053]

>>1167045
Am I a retard??
I never said I believed in God, or any religous crap. I just wanted /sci/ to prove that there is no God, and to see all the funny replies, now who's ther retard?

[Anonymous No.1167056]

>>1167046
typical Ad hominem logical fallacy troll, any else to offer?

0/10

[Anonymous No.1167061]

>>1167050
i lol'd and if you are a troll 9/10

[Anonymous No.1167062]

Magic doesn't exist.
The existence of God requires magic.
Therefore, God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.1167063]

>>1167051
Believe = be

[Anonymous No.1167075]

I dare you to prove he does.

[Anonymous No.1167090]

>>1167075
This

[Anonymous No.1167094]

>>1167046
are you retarded? religion never answered anything...
when you get sick where do you go to the fucking church or to a hospital

[Anonymous No.1167136]

I think the burdon of proof is on those who make a claim, not those who refute it.

[Anonymous No.1167150]

[Anonymous No.1167162]

>>1167136
you are making the claim that god doesn't exist. and theists refute this claim. how now brown cow?

[Anonymous No.1167166]

>>1167162
how do they refute it?

[Anonymous No.1167167]

Imagine a world where no supernatural notions ever came up.
Now snap out of it, I know it's a beautiful concept, but we have some thinking to do.
You have that world firmly in your mind? Good.

Now imagine someone telling people that there's a being that controls everything and that made everything.

Now imagine the reaction to such a person.

Hear billions of people laughing their asses off inside your mind at this clearly insane person.

The debate for gods existence requires former belief in gods existence.

One cannot observe nature with full understanding of it and deduce the existence of a god.

Therefore, a god only exists as a mental concept for people who are unable or unwilling to understand nature.

This is the way it is. This is the way it will be.

[Anonymous No.1167180]

>>1167162
They made the original claim.

[Anonymous No.1167183]

[Anonymous No.1167188]

First define 'God'.

[Anonymous No.1167196]

>>1167188
>>1167188
>>1167188
>>1167188
>>1167188

then we'll prove that he does not exist :)

[Anonymous No.1167197]

>>1167162
Our claim is not that god doesn't exist, but that there is not enough evidence to claim that a god does exist. The proof that we don't have enough evidence is the lack of any evidence whatsoever... Unless you want to provide some evidence and prove us wrong...

Didn't think so.

[Anonymous No.1167201]

[Anonymous No.1167204]

>>1167188
An omnipotent and omniscient being.

[The Tourist !!MU9MYo46Eyu No.1167205]

>3. No "religion vs. science" threads.

[Anonymous No.1167212]

>>1167205
you also gotta say "Saged & reported." brah.

[Anonymous No.1167214]

>>1167204
being omnipotent and omniscient is impossible

[Anonymous No.1167224]

>>1167205
>tourist
>in my /sci/????
GB2/mu/ YOU HUGE FAGGOT

[The Tourist !!MU9MYo46Eyu No.1167230]

>>1167224

[Anonymous No.1167226]

>>1167204
and why would you think that such a being exists
or let's say that it exists why would it make people? or even the universe are we toys to that god of yours?

[Anonymous No.1167240]

>>1167230
HURRY

[Anonymous No.1167241]

>>1167204
We haven't the ability to gain an understanding of what this is, the argument is meaningless.

[The Tourist !!MU9MYo46Eyu No.1167243]

>>1167240

[Anonymous No.1167258]

>>1167214
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.1167262]

>>1167258
the burden of proof is on you sir. since you insisted it is possible.

[Anonymous No.1167265]

[Anonymous No.1167267]

>>1167204
are you sure that such thing can really exist?
this definition sounds like a self contradiction it's like believing in magic

[Anonymous No.1167279]

>>1167258
im glad you asked
if you know everything (omniscient) then you know what you are going to do, e.g. whether that murder who just repented goes to hell of whatever. if you know that you are going to send him to hell then you have no choice but to send him to hell. thus making you not omnipotent. if you dont send him to hell then you are omnipotent but you arent omniscient because you didnt know you were going to do that.

QED no omnipotent AND omniscient god

[Anonymous No.1167283]

I can mathmatically prove there is no God.

God, all powerful (or so it is said) still can't divide by zero. Ergo, he can't exist as he is not omnipotent.

Yes. A ridiculous response to a ridiculous post.
I'm sick of these "Disprove God" threads. Go troll somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.1167294]

>>1167283
>>1167283
lool at last rule 37 disproves god

[Anonymous No.1167320]

>>1167294

:D

[Prove the IPU doesn't exist No.1167343]

I dare you OP. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.1167353]

>>1167021

Heres an idea, instead of asking us to disprove the existence, provide us with empirical proof that he does exist. Until then, GTFO of /sci/

[Anonymous No.1167365]

Furthermore, it isn't in the nature of science to DISprove something, so this argument has no point.

[Anonymous No.1167373]

>>1167365

/thread

[Anonymous No.1167381]

I am God. Any questions?

[Anonymous No.1167409]

>>1167381
is it lonely up there with everyone in hell?

[Anonymous No.1167411]

>>1167409
you mean with everyone smart in hell

[Anonymous No.1167415]

>>1167409

I am sorry, your mind at this stage cannot comprehend something that is beyond your limited capacity.

/clever answer bro.

[Anonymous No.1167536]

>>1167021
Not /sci/ related.

Let me clear something up for you:
/sci/ is about real measurable events, developments, and breakthroughs. It is non secular, non religious, and non selective.

People who post religion vs atheism are people who honestly believe that people discussing /sci/ shit actually give two shits about whether or not god exists.

To tell you the truth.

We don't give a fuck. If there is a god then that is up to the individual and it only ever falls into personal truth which is in no way objective truth and thus cannot be peer reviewed or studied independently.

As such, we do not care since personal truth is only ever religion and never for a moment science.
So take your shit back to whatever stupidity hole you crawled out from and shame upon anyone who replied seriously to this thread as it is clear evidence you fags need to lurk moar.

NAO

[Anonymous No.1167554]

I dont consider myself agnostic, I dont accept any god exists, or even that there is a possibility that one exists, because it doesn;t make any sence for one to exist, and I have never seen any evidence that makes me even consider that one exists.... but you cannot prove that god exists, and if i was given any evidence that leads me to accept there is a god then i will accept there is a god, but untill then i will continue to say there is no god

[Anonymous No.1167574]

here's your proof

[Anonymous No.1167580]

BURDEN OF PROOF MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW OF IT?

It's NOT our job to disprove your God Hypothesis, it's YOUR job to prove it right.

Fuck sake /sci/!

[Anonymous No.1167583]

[Anonymous No.1167592]

Yes OP, prove the nonexistance of something that can't be proven to exist.

Hey OP, prove there is no big flying piece of shit with the ability to talk in space.

Oh, also sage

[Anonymous No.1167616]

>>1167365
>>1167353

These

Also

>cat's
>dog's

Poor apostrophe.

[Anonymous No.1167635]

It is true that anyone who adheres to the principles of science must, in fact, be technically agnostic about the existence of god since we philosophically understand that we cannot prove a negative. However, science is not a method of understanding the world through absolutes, as we only create PREDICTIONS based on current data, data which is always subject to change and revisions. In other words, we never know anything with 100% certainty since we cannot know what will happen in the future.

With this in mind, based on the data that currently exists, there is no reason to believe in god because there is no evidence that would point to a god's existence. Theology isn't much more than a complicated system of talking about the scriptures and interpreting them to bend "god's" rules. 0 evidence = very, very low probability.

Also, not every scientist should be completely agnostic. Richard Dawkin's 1-7 scale should most likely be employed when it comes to deciding what your atheistic/agnostic leanings are. 1(there is definitely a god), 2 (there is most likely a god), 3(slightly higher than 50% chance that there is a god), 4(complete agnostic), 5 (slightly lower than 50% chance that there is no god), 6 (there is most likely no god), 7(definitely no god).

Any real scientist who believes in statistical reliability and making decisions based on practical data should be a 6, which reaffirms the unlikelihood of a god existing, but still adheres to the rules of science and making predictions (avoiding the fallacy of being a 7).

[Anonymous No.1167642]

>>1167365
Actually that's not true. Scientistis are always trying to disprove something, instead of proving. Negative statements are more powerful than positive ones as they reveal more information. Seeing 100 white swans certainly goes to demonstrate that there may be many white swans. But seeing 1 black swan (thereby disproving that ALL swans ARE white) gives us more information about what kind of swans exist.

[Anonymous No.1167666]

Science underestimates, religion overestimates. Neither will ever know.

[Anonymous No.1167673]

Arguing over whether or not God, a god, gods, or whatever is pointless. The strong version of atheism ('there is no God'), the most commonly thing called 'atheism' people is just as wrong as theism. For that matter, even positions in between are wrong.

First, in order to actually argue this point, you need a a coherent definition of what 'God' is. Coherent means that the definition must 'fit' within the system we're talking about. More simply, we could say that that it must be a consistent definition; one that does not contradict itself.

If we cannot provide a coherent or even consistent defitnition of what God is, arguing is pointless. The term 'God' in that context is meaningless (though the conception thereof might not be).

Further, if said definition is not falsifiable, then the question of God's existence is meaningless.

For example, I could say that I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. This statement is grammatically fine, but semantically empty. Something cannot be colorless and green. Ideas cannot have color (or no color) as they are abstract entities. Ideas do not sleep, as they are not in the category of living things that sleep. And nothing sleeps 'furiously'. All the words mean something individually, but as a whole, they mean nothing. And there's no point arguing over whether or not such a thing exists, as there is no actual meaning associated with the thing.

[Anonymous No.1167680]

First let's define God as hypothetical all-powerful being who created us and loves us, as according to the Christian faith - this God loves you provided that you're not a sinner.

Second, let's accept that bad things (evil) happens to good people (non-sinners). Let's also accept that if God exists, then so does Heaven, a place with no evil.

Now I pose to you the following questions that Epicurus asked (paraphrased):

1) Is God willing, but unable to prevent evil?
If yes,then he's not all-powerful, thus he does not fit the description above.
2) Is God able, but unwilling to prevent evil?
If yes, then he does not love non-sinners, thus he does not fit the description above.
3) Is God both willing and able to prevent evil?
If yes, then how come bad things happen to good people?
4) Is God neither willing nor able to prevent evil?
If yes, why call him God?

To counter-point any people trying to suggest that the existence of evil makes the world a better place somehow, that disagrees with the notion of Heaven, a place where no evil exists.