Proof there is no god.

[John Martin]

https://youtu.be/1EGDCh75SpQ

[Billys Boots]

https://youtu.be/1EGDCh75SpQ

Good stuff. 

[north_antrim_hound]

all this science to discredit a spiritual anchor to many

Instead of references and quotes of scientist and philosophers to strengthen the debate maybe we should be reading some scribe written closer to home to explain the mindset of the non beleaver

" limits of the diaphane "
      james Joyce

Sometimes logical transparency is a handicap

But respect must be given to all posters views, it's the Christian thing to do

[Zulu]

So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?

You already do... your entire experience of the world is subjective.
Firslty no you couldnt just make it up, you'd have to truely believe it. Ideally we could all do that but for me part of spirituality  is connecting with other souls so they'd have to believe it to, so thats when it gets complicated and where religion comes in to join us together, and leads on to your next point

Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?

Possibly they are all right who knows..... maybe you should join the Masons

My own belief is that religion is a way of answering the call of the spiritual and there are different ways of answering that call because it is subjective, although most religions do accomdate for this to some degree.
But then of course just by answering that call means that you believe one belief system is closer to the spiritual "correctness" than another. Its a bit of a conundrum I admit and if you want to take it to a black and white objective conclusion(s) you can say well there is either one correct, they are all correct, or none are correct.

But for me its alot more fuzzy than that since the source of the spiritual is subjective and we all have a personal relationship with God as we all see him in different ways even within religions (which actually most preach). Religion is a man made construction of that spirituality and only a guide to our personal spiritual journey.

Then again is this paradox proof or evidence of no God? Not for me. But if thats your point its not disimilar to saying that because Black Holes dont make sense logically then the entire model of the empirical universe that we understand must be wrong.
[/quote]

It's not entirely subjective though. The vast majority of what we do or experience isn't subjective, if I put my hand into a fire I'll burn my hand and it will hurt, the same would happen to everyone else if they did the same. There's very little that's subjective I would say. Linking to others is simply a numbers game and doesn't make a religion or God more or less likely.

Bottom line is nobody can categorically prove Santa Claus, Zeus, God or Budda doesn't exist so not believing in them is as valid as doing so. Under normal circumstances most people wouldn't accept believing in something based solely on faith so I find it hard to accept there is a God. Furthermore, if I told people who believe in God that I was visited the previous night by God and we spoke at length about various topics would they believe me? Would they take me at my word and if not, why not? If God exists why couldn't he visit me?

[tonto1888]

This was an interesting read musta been before

Tho how does a theory of atoms coming to gether prove there is no God? How could science prove there is no God

Science is a study of the physical (empirical) universe

God is a spiritual (non-physical) entity

How can anyone tie the two together?

Richard Dawkins makes a good stab at it and is an excellent debater but ultimately he relies completely on hypothetical arguments and the assumption of a materialist universe. Emanuel Kant would have (still does) made mincemeat out of arguments but sure its a way for him to make a (very decent) living.

there's no evidence for the spiritual entity
so therefore, even talking about it is silly

I think anyone sitting in a foxhole would try anything they could to save their ass

So then... does that make you silly?

IF your talking about scientific evidence then as I said of course there's none. But it seems like your suggesting that scientific evidence can discover everything about everything, it cant. What's the scientific evidence for maths?
Whats the scientific evidence for logic?
Whats the scientific evidence for morals?

And why would you suppose that tools (our senses) that are made for reproducing and surviving gave us a complete or even accurate picture of the cosmos at all?

whats the scientific evidence for maths?

Did they find some? I'm all ears?

I'm confused by what you mean when you say whats the scientific evidence for maths

[Owen Brannigan]

Archbishop Eamon Martin enters the argument by stating that 'Every Catholic position on concrete morals is argued from reason even when there exists a biblical warrant for that position.'

From The Irish Times:

Catholic Church's good deeds are being erased, says archbishop Eamon Martin defends religious role in education and healthcare

Tue, May 9, 2017, 01:00

Decades of service by countless nuns and priests in education and healthcare are being "almost obliterated by a revised and narrow narrative that religious ethos cannot be good for democracy", Catholic Primate Archbishop Eamon Martin has said.
He said there was a view that religious ethos stands "against the progress and flourishing of society and the rights of citizens" and that there was a tendency in some public discussion to give the impression that things related to faith were
"In fact every Catholic position on concrete morals is argued from reason even when there exists a biblical warrant for that position."

Archbishop Martin was speaking at the University of East Anglia in England on Monday night where he delivered the Newman lecture on The Church in the Public Sphere – a perspective from Ireland. His comments come after major controversy over the Sisters of Charity being given ownership of the planned new national maternity hospital, prompting calls for a total separation between the Catholic Church and the State.

There has also been a long-running debate over the church's patronage of more than 90 per cent of the State's 3,200 primary schools with many parents calling for more options as to where their children are educated. Archbishop Martin said it was "simply not true that the Catholic Church has a desire to create a theocracy in Ireland, North or South.
"However, the church does expect that in a true pluralist democracy or republic, religion and faith will continue to have an important part to play in the national conversation."

He was convinced "that the failures of the past must not be allowed to define us, but should instead help all of us in the public sphere learn lessons for the present about where church and society might today be similarly marginalising the poor, stigmatising the unwanted or failing to protect the most vulnerable".

The role of religion and faith in Irish society, North and South, had been "hugely impacted by secularisation and is evidenced by a steady decline in church attendance and in vocations to the priesthood and religious life," he said. "What began as a gradual drift of people away from Mass and the sacraments became a stronger current. . . Like other parts of Europe and the western world, more people in Ireland are living their lives without reference to God or to religious belief," he said.
Archbishop Martin cited the State's most recent census (2016), which showed the numbers identifying as Catholic had fallen by 132,220 since 2011 and that the numbers declaring no religion had risen by 198,610 in the same period. The figures, he said, confirmed "that we have moved, or at least are rapidly moving, from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith is one human possibility among others".

[armaghniac]

If anyone can prove there is no God by the end of the week, I will give them €100 and I will wear a Down jersey to the opening Armagh-Down championship game.

[Hardy]

What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?

[north_antrim_hound]

What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?

Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting

[armaghniac]

What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?

Jeebers, you'd want to be brave to play poker with a leprechaun.

[stew]

What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?

Do that is a no on the whole proof that there is ni God for the hundred quid then?

[Zulu]

What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?

Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting

I know it's been said before but surely the burden of proof is on the religious? You're saying the world was created by a God, those of us who don't believe that don't really know but accept the likelihood of science being able to explain it.

[Hardy]

That's the way it seems to work for these lads:

I can kill goats by staring at them.
- Hmm. That seems rather unlikely. Can you prove it?

Why should I? You prove I can't.
- Well, 1, I have no motivation to prove you can't. 2, it's impossible. By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's why in debate it's accepted that the onus of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. If he can't provide proof, reasonable people will generally ignore or reject his assertion. 

See! You can't prove it. I win.
- OK. Where can I find the sensible people in this village?

[omaghjoe]

That's the way it seems to work for these lads:

I can kill goats by staring at them.
- Hmm. That seems rather unlikely. Can you prove it?

Why should I? You prove I can't.
- Well, 1, I have no motivation to prove you can't. 2, it's impossible. By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's why in debate it's accepted that the onus of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. If he can't provide proof, reasonable people will generally ignore or reject his assertion. 

See! You can't prove it. I win.
- OK. Where can I find the sensible people in this village?

Read the thread title? Now where does that leave the burden of proof?

Do you understand the definition of faith and God?

If so why do you then persist with the empirical straw man scenarios?

[Hardy]

Good man, Joe. At least it's a new one. A thread title now changes the rules of debate.

Do I understand the definition of faith and God? I think so. What's that got to do with my point that it is neither necessary nor possible for the reasonable person, who has no reason to believe there is a god, to prove that there is no god. A learned epistemologist like yourself will have grasped, of course, that that's not the same as asserting that there is no god. I would no more feel the need to make such an assertion than I would to assert that there's no purple milk vapour in the atmosphere of Mars.

What's an empirical straw man scenario? Wait, don't answer. I forgot I'm not engaging with your very engaging non sequiturs.