[Choux]

You little ladies don't seem to know what the word **prove** means.

You BELIEVE that there is a GodAlmighty.

Most people don't BELIEVE that.

[NeedKarma]

Sassy T and DeMaria

outstanding answers .there is little to add . It has been a long time since anyone in science thought the simple single cell was a simple structure. The more humans learn the more we learn the complexity of what we had previously thought was simple .

Amen brother! I'm currrently working on getting physics, chemistry, and math striken from the american curriculum as they have been showing a tendency to get very complex.

[JoeCanada76]

it is the old standard dodge. They can make a negative definitive comment "there is no God" and then dismissively claim no need to prove a negative .What they really mean is that they "believe " there is not God. . They should not be making a definitive statement in the first place if they are not simularily willing to admit they have no better rational for their statement of non-belief than I have in my claim . I may say I "believe "God exists and when asked ,the bottom line is admit that it is a matter of faith .

Excellent post.

[Choux]

No one has proved that there is a GodAlmighty, ever. :)

[N0help4u]

Then why do you Credo and others KEEP say stuff like this??

I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.


The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.

I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.


Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty... the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.

[Choux]

People who have Faith(believe in GodAlmigty, etc)have to admit that it is indeed Faith, their belief, not fact. Religion is called Faith!

Their Faith comforts them and they enjoy it, but it is not fact to be forced onto others.

[lobrobster]

Where/what is the objective proof that a unicorn was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove a unicorn God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?

[lobrobster]

That is a non answer because just because we can not prove God exists does not mean there is no God.

This is correct.

The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?

Wrong question. It is hardly impressive that we cannot objectively disprove the existence of god, since there are millions and millions of things we cannot disprove the existence of. The question is, upon what evidence should we convince ourselves that there is a god?

[De Maria]

There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.

You made the statement, it is your burden to prove.

As for me, I have evidence for the existence of God. Do you have evidence for the existence of this thing you've alleged exists?

[N0help4u]

Whether the tooth fairy, the fang-toothed metagoer with long hair or the unicorn
CAN YOU PROVE THEY DO NOT EXIST?

[De Maria]

This is correct.

Agreed. Therefore you have admitted that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.

Wrong question.

No. It is an excellent question which you have answered above. There is no evidence that God does NOT EXIST.

It is hardly impressive that we cannot objectively disprove the existence of god, since there are millions and millions of things we cannot disprove the existence of.

Again, excellent logic. Again, you have admitted that you can't prove that God DOES NOT exist.

The question is, upon what evidence should we convince ourselves that there is a god?

Should you? I don't know what you mean by that particular phrasing of the question. It seems as though you mean, "by what evidence should you delude yourself...."

As for me, the evidence pointed me to the conclusion that God exists. The fact of our existence and the wonderful nature of our being, the wonders of creation, they all point to an intelligence far beyond ours.

That is the evidence that leads me to the conclusion that God exists.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[lobrobster]

Whether the tooth fairy, the fang-toothed metagoer with long hair or the unicorn
CAN YOU PROVE THEY DO NOT EXIST?

No, I cannot. But again, I fail to see why you find this to be an impressive argument.

[N0help4u]

Ditto
I fail to see why it IS the non believers MAIN argument and find it an impressive argument
AND THAT IS precisely my point!

[lobrobster]

Agreed. Therefore you have admitted that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.

Yes, I have. But for the umpteenth time, why do you find this to be an impressive argument for the existence of god? I have also admitted I can't prove unicorns don't exist. Are you impressed by that as well?

No. It is an excellent question which you have answered above. There is no evidence that God does NOT EXIST.

Um, this isn't quite what I said. I stated we can not prove that god doesn't exist, which is different from there is no evidence. We are treading on shaky ground here. While there is no direct evidence for either the existence or non-existence of any god (show me your evidence that Thor doesn't exist), there is loads of evidence to suggest the ancient literature proclaiming these gods existed were wrong on many accounts.

There is much evidence to suggest that we share a common ancestor with apes, that Noah's Ark was a fairy tale, that men cannot live to be 700 years old, etc. etc. Of course, none of this proves god doesn't exist and I assume you find solace in that?

[N0help4u]

Lobroster
YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.

[lobrobster]

Lobroster
YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.

Any logical atheist will admit that it can't be proven that god doesn't exist. The problem starts from your end, when religious people suggest they have proof tat god DOES exist. Things like the bible says so, my uncle was cured of cancer, or my car keys miraculously appeared after being missing 3 days, etc.

I'm not sure why some of you can't comprehend this simple logic. There are zillions of things we could postulate the existence of, which can't be proven one way or the other. But if I tell you the world is run by invisible green gremlins, then the onus is on me to convince you it is true. Somehow, you don't see it that way when it comes to the god you insist exists. It is no victory for you that I cannot prove He doesn't.

[NeedKarma]

Again, excellent logic. Again, you have admitted that you can't prove that God DOES NOT exist.

Then this is of course true for all gods isn't it?

[Credendovidis]

where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts? You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?

Due to the nature of "objective supporting evidence" there is no such proof for God being the power/force behind the creation of the universe.

Your question refers to a negative claim ( proof that God is not ) while the positive claim (proof that God is) has so far never been provided other than in subjective supporting argumentation. The lead question is therefore irrelevant.
There is no need to prove that God does not / can not / is not . There is need to prove that God does / can / is . No such proof exist, other than of a subjective nature !

===

YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.

The point is not that there is no proof either way. The point is that theists make an unsupported claim that they can not prove themselves. And now they demand from those who do not accept the theist' claim that they prove the negative version of the theist's positive claim. Totally ridiculous!

===

The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?

Why SHOULD anyone want to prove that something does not exist, as there is no objective supported evidence for the existence of it?
I have not seen anyone here who stated that "God" does not exist. The general skeptic line is that there is no objective proof for "God's" existence.
Your question is nothing else than a clincher, a poor and lame excuse for not being able to prove with objective supporting evidence that "God" does exist, although almost all theists indeed claim that "God" exists.

So why should people who do NOT claim that "God" does NOT exist now suddenly have to prove that "God" does NOT exist, specially taking into account that proving a "negative" claim is trillion x trillion x trillion times+ harder than a "positive"claim ?

Is your question in essence not actually an admission of total incompetence for - and complete failure of - actual support for your own deity?

:rolleyes:

·

[lobrobster]

If De Maria and NoHelp are trying to make the point that because it cannot be proven God does not exist, it means there is some possibility that God does exist, I'm actually Ok with that.

The problem is that they are trying to go one further and imply that this is an argument for the existence of God, which it clearly is not.

Look... The fact we we can't prove God doesn't exist, necessarily means there IS some possibility that a god of some sort does exist. To an unbiased person who thinks logically about it will conclude it is still unlikely as heck, but nevertheless must allow some possibility for it. Personally, I put the odds at being on par with fairies existing. In other words, almost zero, but I'll concede it's not quite zero.

[N0help4u]

If De Maria and NoHelp are trying to make the point that because it cannot be proven God does not exist, it means there is some possibility that God does exist, I'm actually Ok with that.

The problem is that they are trying to go one further and imply that this is an argument for the existence of God, which it clearly is not.

Look... The fact we we can't prove God doesn't exist, necessarily means there IS some possibility that a god of some sort does exist. To an unbiased person who thinks logically about it will conclude it is still unlikely as heck, but nevertheless must allow some possibility for it. Personally, I put the odds at being on par with fairies existing. In other words, almost zero, but I'll concede it's not quite zero.

No WRONG! I am not trying to say that your lack of proof proves anything other than you have no proof either so why is there an argument on so many boards to PROVE God exists?
That is my point. That we do not have to prove faith which requires believing any more than you have to prove unbelief.