For all those people who dont believe in god..........Can you prove he isnt real???

I see no evidence of a god being real...I see nothing that does not have a natural explanation, or man's handwriting all over it.

I see nothing to prove that there is any god, or goddess, or other godhead.

this is just an experiment brought to you by the letter 9 and the number F!!!

Go ahead.........make my day!!!

but lets really try to find am explanation for all this god stuff.........

If there is one.......we cant prove it.........but we not prove it????

Huh? Pardon, my eyes didnt quite hear you right...

ok you ready for this

hehehehehe


what makes you think that God

would not create a science and

rules of science

and being God would he not create

in accordance to the rules of science

so that those that truly believe truly believe

because of the science world have explained away

all of the miracles that God but in place

tus the faith of the believer is true faith

not faith by no other explanation


hehehehhehehehehe

I think we should all respect whatever indivduals views are on god. Athiests,Agnostics,Jews,Christians,buddhist,hindus,satanists,whatever the individual wants to believe as long as it doesnt harm anyone else.

Question 1. What started it all?

Question 2. Hitler thought he was right.
Ghandi thought he was right.
Were they equally right?
What is really right? Why?

Bobby Bouchee's mother, "Ah-Owwwwww". Confused and kerfluffled,
walks away with a woodee the woodpecker laugh saying so much more than words.......

I think this might all depend on how wide a birth a person is willing to give to the concept of ‘god’.

When people ask me if I can prove or disprove a god, I must ask them in return, “Which god?”

Mankind has invented many pictures of god. I feel that I can indeed disprove some pictures of god, especially one that are associated with lengthy and detailed doctrines that describe what their god is like.

It’s no secret that I completely dismiss the biblical God as being totally fictional. The only ‘evidence’ that we have that this God even exists is in the writings of the doctrine. Therefore if one can show that the doctrine itself is self-inconsistent, paradoxical, and doesn’t even match up with observations of the real universe, which is supposed to have been this God’s creation, then I feel justified in claiming that the God of the Bible has been disproved, in much the same way that most people accept that Greek Mythology has been disproved.

Of course this all comes down to what an individual will accept as ‘proof’. Some people cling to the idea that all of the self-inconsistencies, paradoxes, and incorrect predictions of God’s creation can somehow be explained away. It’s been my experience that such explanations are always circular and are based on a desire to believe rather than on a desire to be reasonable.

On the other hand, I think it’s pretty easy to prove that a pantheistic god exists. The pantheistic view in is that god is this universe. So not only can you see my god all around you, but you can touch her, feel her, taste her, hear her, and interact with her in a myriad of ways. She is very real. You can feel her blowing on your face in the breeze. That she exists is self-evident. That we are part of her is self-evident. That she can think and has a consciousness is self-evident. No proof necessary. The very existence and experience of the universe is proof that she exists.

However, now one might argue, “Well! What exactly is your definition of god?” This is especially true of people who can only think of god as being a separate egotistical being who is ‘outside’ of the sandbox of reality with a trowel in hand ready to reach in and fix up the sandcastles of his poor inept human pets.

I don’t believe in a sandcastle god. I see no evidence for such a mythical creature. If that kind of god existed there would be beautiful sandcastles everywhere on earth. To believe in such a god would require that the vast majority of men are totally rebellious to god. Yet we know that this isn’t the case despite the best efforts of fire & brimstone preachers who try to convince us otherwise. It simply doesn’t pan out. The vast majority of people we actually meet are NICE PEOPLE!

And as far as I’m concerned this is all the proof I need to know that the vast majority of mankind is not wicked. That negative view of mankind is simply unwarranted and clearly untrue.

So that’s where I stand on the idea of proving the existence of god. I believe that god is self-evident and needs no proof. She is omnipresent with us always. She has no ego and if you want a sandcastle you’re going to have to build it yourself. She provided you with the sandbox, but she’s not going to build your sandcastles for you. That YOUR JOB!

As far as a judgmental God of damnation who really created a screwed-up version of an inherently evil creature called man? Well, that picture doesn’t pan out in and of itself. Clearly mankind is not inherently evil. The vast majority of people are good, and this was always true, even during the most horrific world wars, the vast majority of people on earth didn’t even directly participate in those wars! Moreover, the idea that every soldier was an ‘evil’ person who genuinely wanted to be involved in those wars is obviously not true either. Wars themselves do not constitute a desire to do evil things.

The world just isn’t mostly evil, on the contrary most humans are overwhelmingly nice! Thus disproving the premise that is required to believe in certain pictures of judgmental gods.

The physics behind the anthropic principle strongly indicates the existance of a creator god, so strongly infact, that one of the two authors of the Anthropic principle became a deist based solely on his research. Out of all of the creator gods from all human religions, only the God of Christianity and Judaism exhibit the properites that would be required of such a god. Existance outside of the universe is required for a god to create the universe. A god could not live within the universe and create the universe, that is a paradox. A god who was capible of creating a universe would need unlimited power and awareness, which is credited to the God of Chrisitanity and Judaism only. Allah, the god of Islam, was deceived by Jews, which is one source of Muslim hatred of Jews. Only the God of the Bible is reasonable as the creator God, therefore of all existing religions, only the religions of the Bible are reasonably possible given logic and the physics involved.

The anthropic principle is circular. It's based entirely on the obvserved universe as the deisred outcome and therefore doesn't even consider the possiblity of other potential physics.

It's hardly a proof of anything.

It's really nothing more than an observation that we can only know what we can experience.

Abracadabra that is your opinion. However, the opinion of Nobel winning phyicists is that the physics behind the Anthropic priniciple are 100% accurate. Therefore, I really don't think that your biased opinion has any merit, but thank you for sharing it anyways.

And thank you for sharing your opinion.

For anyone who is intersted, the anthropic principle is basically saying that if the universe was't the way it is, then it wouldn't be the way it is.

Like duh? It's takes a nobel prize winner to figure that one out?

That's not what it says, perhaps you are thinking of another "Anthropic principle"?

The physics behind the Anthropic principle show how incredibly unlikely it is for life to exist. The range of the various forces that allow life (gravity, strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, etc) are so finely balanced, that a slight shift would make life impossible. The "Anthropic Principle" is the attempt by humans to explain why life exists, given what we know about this narrow bandwidth that allows life, without the mention of God. The authors of this research were atheists, one of them has since become a deist. Abracadabra either doesn't understand the "Anthropic Principle" or he is knowingly lying. The "Anthropic Principle" describes the possibly reasons why the universe exists the way it does, is a ligitemate subject of study, which is taken seriously by physicists and is not simple or silly as Abra suggests.

But proving a negative is a virtual impossibility anyway.

If I say to you, "Prove that you've been to a McDonald's at some point in your life," there may very well be ways you could do it. Or at least provide strong evidence to that effect.

If I say, "Prove you've never been to a McDonald's," then what? Unless someone has been following you around all your life, recording your every move, there is no real way to prove you've never been there.

Ergo, it should be much easier to prove something DOES exist (assuming it does, in fact, exist, and assuming the ability to produce said item as incontrovertible evidence), than that it does not.

I find nothing whatsoever to indicate the existence of any god. Can you prove he is real? No.

Can I prove he isn't real? No. But I have yet to see one thing to support the idea that he exists. That doesn't prove he doesn't exist, but this conclusion seems more reasonable to me.

If/when he shows up at my door with proper ID, I will rethink my position. Until then, I will continue to regard religion as nothing more than superstition with better funding.

I’m fully aware of the Anthropic principle as I have indicated before. I’ve attended several lectures on the topic as well as having read books about it. I had explained the flaw in the theory to you before but I’ll try to explain it again.



This is based on the unproven assumption that we could change one force without affecting the others. There is no proof of this premise. Therefore the Anthropic principle stands on unproven premises. So it can hardly be called a ‘proof’ of anything.

In fact, many scientists have reason to believe that it would indeed be impossible to change one of the forces without affecting the others. The universe may very well be like a carpet in a room where if you pull up one corner this will automatically have an affect on the other corners. If the universe is actually like this then the Anthropic principle fails.

I tend to favor the idea that the universe is indeed a complete whole, and that if any part of it is changed this would automatically cause other parts of it to change. This is why I reject the Anthropic principle as it is stated.

In any case, the Anthropic principle is actually nothing more than saying, “Wow! The universe is so complex it must have been designed by an intelligent source”. I actually agree with this conclusion even without the Anthropic Principle.

However, even if that conclusion is TRUE, it most certainly isn’t suggestive of the Christian view of God. To suggest so is totally absurd. On the contrary it would be much more compatible with the view that the universe itself IS god!

So even if I were willing to accept the Anthropic Principle as a ‘proof’ of intelligent design, it would fit in perfectly with my pantheist view of the world. I could use it to back up my belief in pantheism.

So to me, this isn’t even a religious question. The Anthropic Principle doesn’t favor Christianity in any way. That would be a totally unfounded conclusion. The Anthropic principle is completely independent of religion.

So why you even care is beyond me, because it’s not support for Christianity anyway.

I’m just pointing out the fact that the Anthropic principle is based on unproven premises. (i.e. it’s a circular argument).

And it’s not a religious argument anyway, since any religion could claim it as support for their picture of god.

Trying to use it to favor Christianity over other religious is absurd.

Male version of "peahen."

Why "pea"?

No idea!

Can't prove it. I know what I believe. It's called faith.

I wouldn't be too quick to say that. I think it all depends on what you are trying to 'disprove'.

If I tell you that I’ll never go in a McDonald’s in my entire life, and then I take you out to lunch at McDonalds, I think you could say that I have just proven a negative. That is to say that I have just negated something that I had claimed to be true.

I think the same thing can be done with a god. Especially if that god comes with a huge doctrine that explains what the god is like.

For example, if the doctrine claims in one place that god’s love is unconditional, and then in another place it lists a bunch of conditions to win god’s favor, then it is clearly self-inconsistent and false.

In other word, if a doctrine is claimed to be true about a god, and the doctrine is self-contradictive, then you can at least show that the doctrine self-inconsistent and therefore argue that it is false. Or at least illogical and an irrational picture of a god.

Of course, no one is to say that god can’t be irrational, but that kind of flies in the face of an unchanging god. A god that is self-inconsistent has no need to change because it’s completely chaotic to begin with.

So I think it is possible to at least show that some pictures of god are at least logically-inconsistent and this is usually the criteria we use to say that things are ‘false”.