No, those that do not believe God exists simply are saying that there is no evidence that supports his existence.
First, a mathemetical system powerful enough to do number theory cannot be described fully: Kurt Gödel proved this.
Second, _ how do you know _ that in a system that cannot possibly be described fully it’s impossible to prove “a negative” (by which phrase I presume that you mean “something does not exist”)?
Read what I wrote.
Your last sentence describes agnostics; I agree: they haven’t any burden of proof.
Atheists do not merely not believe that God exists; they assert that God doesn’t exist. That assertion comes with a burden of proof.
They assert God does not exist because they argue there is no evidence to support his existence.
Proving the existence of God isn’t like when Marie Curie discovered radium and posted scientific evidence. Furthermore, scientific evidence has proofs, where the evidence has lead to make a proof.
In the words of Karl Popper (one of the greatest philosophers of science in 20th century) said "“In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory”
Therefore, science and religion have something in common. There are no provable absolute truths. We have a philosophical view of something, but will never be 100% sure it is the truth. But, given that reason leads to philosophy and philosophy leads to truth, we can have a pretty good idea of what is going on in a certain topic. The burden of proof is admittedly much higher in Science.
In closing, your question is flawed, but is heard many times. Thomas Aquinas wrote a five element proof that has been the framework for your question for many centuries. You can read the philosophical reasons that may lead to truth, but if you can’t see the truth because you don’t have scientific evidence, it is called lack of faith. I"m not saying thats bad or anything, but people have been asking this question for millenniums.
To get Christian on you, when people and priests asked to see proof from Jesus, he said the only proof you will see is the sign of Jonas. This was a bit of an odd response at the time, but a prophetic phrase leading to the death and resurrection in 3 days. But, honestly many miracles were performed with over 5000 witnesses of the miracles and over 500 witnesses of the resurrection. The testimony of these individuals can also lead to your proof, but is mostly only believed by people who call themselves Christians.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm
"I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
It doesn’t matter why they make their assertion. Once someone makes an (_ any _) assertion, they have the burden of proving it.
Lack of evidence of existence isn’t evidence of nonexistence.
simple, in those dark corners where you don’t know what’s true or not true, there’s no way to prove or disprove anything. the best you can do is guess, but you cannot “know” in the sense that there is no way for logic to reach those corners. You have no way of knowing if proof of god is sitting in that corner or if there is no evidence of god in that corner. to prove a negative you would have to know everything about every corner, impossible from within.
anyway, any discussion of “god” and “proof” (in the logical sense) is ridiculous. proof requires use of the rational mind. anyone who has spent a good amount of time in meditation knows that there is more to reality than the rational mind can perceive. incidentally this is my problem with western religions - they give no method for how to witness the true self, which necessitates letting go of the rational mind. instead they tell you to do certain things that are supposed to be good, but don’t show you how to “let go” so you can see it for yourself. So you’re stuck trying to understand something divine through the prism of the rational mind…fruitless and frustrating.
In general I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here.
But it doesn’t remotely prove that you can’t prove a negative.
That’s one of those statements that you have to take on faith, I suppose.
TLDR - still no proof?
And kuromusha wonders why I wouldn’t bother submitting evidence to the AF community so that they can determine whether or not God exists.
Also, if you want to mesh science with religion, I think it would be best viewed through the eyes of Albert Einstein. He had mixed feelings about religion throughout his life, but I seem to recall him scientifically making formulas where the only answer to the last variable was infinity, which was moving to him. My IQ is way lower than his, but to reach the bleeding edge of science at his time and at times see glimpses of an infinite being speaks for itself. So on that note, here are some of his quotes.
It seemed for the most part he was a theist. I am a theist. But, he touched on Pantheism and Spinozism, which I somewhat agree in these religions conceptually, but not as the be all and end all religion. However, I think coming to the realization that God exists is the major first step regardless of religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism ----
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) —
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“True religion is real living; living with all one’s soul, with all one’s goodness and righteousness.”
“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.”
“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
“It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion.”
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
“Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.”
“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
“God always takes the simplest way.”
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.”
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
“We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”
“I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.”
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
“I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world.”
“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
“God may be subtle, but he isn’t plain mean.”
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
“What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
S2000 said it, all you need is faith. Faith trumps science, logic and evidence. Sums up religious zealots nicely.
You have a penchant for extrapolating specifics to absurd generalities.
No wonder you make so many stupid comments.
Doesn’t say much for your analytical (or synthetic) abilities.
No you’re making a mistake here, you’re judging the validity of the claim. This isn’t about the validity of the claim, but their positioning vis a vis burden of proof. An atheist may believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence to support existence of God, placing the burden of proof squarely on those who believe he exists.
I’m right; you’re wrong.
No, I’m right, you’re wrong!
_ No, I’m right, you’re wrong!! _
Sigh.
I think its a lot easier to reason that God exists than to reason he does not exist. Also, I think its a lot easier to deny God exists than to accept he exists. Finally, to reason that God does not exist by the claim “prove it scientifically he exists and if you can’t therefore he does not exist” is not a valid argument.
“What was god doing before he created heaven and earth?”
“He was preparing hell for those that pry too deep.”
-St. Augustine
s2000 is right.
being atheist is stupid because the human mind CANNOT truly know that something doesn’t exist. this is why being agnostic is for normal people and being atheist is for stupid people. all of philosophy would be turned on its head if one day we knew everything. we’d effectively be god.
atheists are making a claim and that claim needs to be substantiated. s2000 is right in that atheists and theists are in an identical stuggle and require faith in the same way. atheists have faith that based on incomplete information that their claim is correct. theists have faith that based on incomplete information that their claim is correct. agnostics have no faith.
if you believe there is no god, you are a believer as much as any extremist Muslim. the only difference is that your belief is in mankind eventually turning over every rock to discover that no god exists. at which point, human progress would end and i’m sure we see some version of the Revelation. atheists and theists are actually very alike and live a near identical struggle. this is why there are crazies on both sides.
Wow!
I was right twice!
I should go back to bed; it’s been a good day.
Atheists are not making a claim, they’re just saying theists have not produced any evidence to support their thesis.
The concept of “God” comes from a desire to explain things that were beyond comprehension to earlier generations. Why is there lightning? Zeus. Where did the sun come from? Ra. Why are we wandering the desert starving? YHWH…as people figured out science, believers simply adjusted their views to account for science, without ever giving up on the original assumption, so now we hear things like “Oh God exists, he just doesn’t interfere”. Or…“oh the book of Genesis isnt literal…its metaphorical” (Not true!). Those who insist on the existence of a God are trying to explain natural phenomena, the burden of proof is solely on them, not atheists.
btw, I’m an apatheist.