It is not up to atheists to disprove God, it is up to theists to prove God.

If there's a God, I hope for his sake he can make himself unprovable.

If he is unprovable then no scientists will ever ackonwledge his existance.

Case closed :)

I am of the understanding that it is impossible to prove a negative, however I do not believe the theists feel the need to prove Gods existence to anyone. It in fact seems that the atheist are the ones demanding proof of Gods existence but they seem to refuse to listen to the ones who do beleive.

Atheists don't 'refuse to listen' - they just haven't seen any verifiable proof yet.

I'm an atheist and I've had plenty of people try to "prove" the existence of god to me. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it's all I've got on this matter. I don't refuse to listen, but I'm tempted when people say, "If you don't believe in God, how do you explain the Bible?" Yeah, that's an actual quote.

It's not up to anybody to prove anything either way; I doubt it's possible. That doesn't create a "default truth" as the claim implies, but rather leaves it up to each individual to decide what to believe.

Brian, lots of scientists acknowledge God's existence--although not, of course, because they have proved it at their day jobs.

Sethrates, agreed. The whole point of a belief in God is the absence of proof; its that 'knowing' that comes from within called faith! ... that's according to my mate Dangerous Dave, 'cos I'm an Atheist.

Robert M W: I thort the 'Null Hypothesis" was all about proving statistically that something was wrong? Or am I being a muppet?

There a few people here who could do with looking up what a null-hypothesis means...

Oh - and you can 'prove a negative', mathematically. Example

10 subtract 12 is negative 2.

For goodness sake - proof denies faith. Without faith He is nothing. So any sensible follower of a god would leave that side of it well alone.

Really, I don't understand why many logically minded people can't understand this: the POINT is to have FAITH WITHOUT PROOF. If you have proof and idiot can believe and that is not the point.

With proof there is no free will. There can be no judgement. No heaven and hell. And there is no more temporal world.

I quite like the temporal world.

Thanks forthe heads up Brian. Great shirt.

The temporal world is just posh.

'Faith without proof'. How convenient. Sounds blinded to me.

A synonym for "faith" is "trust". Convenient, indeed.

Brian, I know what a "null hypothesis" is, at least in actual science. I'm going to call bullshit on your use of the term.

You say "by default, the non-existance of God is already a valid null hypothesis." Well, that's true if you're going to do an experiment, but it's not the only one. The choice of null hypothesis depends on the experiment. In a hypothetical experiment that might find evidence of god's NON-existence, the null hypothesis would be that God exists. If the experiment failed to prove the alternative hypothesis, that doesn't of course prove the null hypothesis, it only indicates that the evidence is consistent with it.

Well, the truth is that the evidence is consistent with either the existence or non-existence of God, and probably no experiments are possible to determine which is true. Without experiments to do our statistics on, "null hypothesis" has no meaning.

It's not up to either one to do either, unless they want to convert others.

Further, many scientists acknowledge that science deliberately does not touch on theology, and are quite content with an unproven belief.

Science is a tool. Stop trying to make it over into a religion in its own right.

D'A

I'm confused about this "impossible to prove a negative" stuff. Seems to me that most of the important results have been negative. Halting problem, rationality of square root of 2, Gödels theorem, and those are just the famous ones in my head at the moment. Even in Philosophy, it's much easier to proof that we don't know stuff we thought we knew than it is to proof that we're right about something.

Proving "God doesn't exist" isn't that kind of negative, kybernetikos, and come to think of it neither is proving that the square root of 2 is irrational.

They are rather proofs that a statement is false, either "God exists" or "the square root of 2 is rational"; they don't prove that we don't or can't know something.

Proving that God doesn't exist would require an exhaustive search through every single conceivable dimension in space/time and finding no evidence anywhere at all. This is currently technically impossible. A bit like trying to prove that there is no needle in an infinitely large haystack.

However, finding ONE proof of God in any of these dimensions should be relatively easy IF God exists. It should be especially easy in our dimension, seeing as theists often claim to have 'spoken to him' or 'felt him'. It would be like actually finding one needle in an infinitely large haystack - which is very possible. You wouldn't even have to search the whole haystack before you found it.

Oh Brian... you do have a limited mind. What if God does not exist as a dimensional being?

What if God is a meme?

I'm not saying He is... but He does not have to have any kind of physical explanation at all.

Give it up or you'll end up where Richard Dawkins is; a clever man devoting his talent to something as pointless and aimless as disproving something that can't be disproved.

My particular musings weren't very relevant to the question of God. It would be stupid to expect atheists to disprove the existence of a being defined to be unfindable unless He wants to be.

Given that, you'd think it would be reasonable to expect Theists to prove the existence of God, except that as has been previously pointed out on Jyte, no evidence could be enough to demonstrate the existence of God (some people choose to set the standard of proof lower for their own reasons, but we're talking about what standard it would be logical to demand).

The existence of God, is by definition not disprovable, and only provable in a very subjective way.

Nic - if God is a meme, then no-one can claim he has any power.

I am assuming 'God' in my claim to be a dimensional being, because people claim that he has 'dimensional powers' - that is to say, they claim he can effect our dimension.

The only limitation I am putting on my mind is exactly the same one that theists have on theirs.

I don't claim that. I believe that he created it and controls heaven and hell, or the afterlife or whatever else you call it.

But those are very bendy constraints.

Theists do not need to prove God to win converts, they merely need to justify their belief in God in a fashion that is equitable and clear as to the degree to which personal belief and experience influences their choice.

I don't belive there's a God, but if he turned up on the bus and said: "Hi everyone, I'm God", I'd be very nice to him, maybe even stroke his beard and then ask him for his autograph.

I believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I can't prove any of them, and I don't think any one can disprove them, for that we all are, and always will be, too minute.

Why would God want to prove Himself? An omnipotent, omnicient being is under no pressure to prove himself to the very things he created. God wants us to believe in Him of our own free will, because if His existence could be proven, there would be no use for heaven or hell. Any Atheist, with all due respect, who claims that God can't exist because he hasn't proven, does not really understand the concept of God.

Sorry, typo: near the end i wrote wasn't proven instead of hasn't proven

Sorry another typo, wow, vice-verca

From all the info I have gathered on this page I can only conclude that GOD IS IN YOUR HEAD (or not).

Nobody can prove or disprove god because he is a mental construct and his presence is dependant on whether the observer is religious or not.

If there is no physical evidence of such beings (with an S because I have to include all non christian gods and cult gods) then by simple deductible logic he is not a physical being.

If not so, he must at least exhibit some measurable effects in the physical world. I have never heard of experiments involving brain scans on people who are performing religious acts (such as prayer) where if there was such a strong spirit-god connection that it was noticable in the results. (If anyone does link me.)

Therefore god exists only in your head (or not) as a construct. Christians for example, would have their common image of their god, and who he is. The constant positive reinforcement of his presence at church and by their peers only makes the related connections in your brain more developed (since they are continuously stimulated) and this is why god feels as real as anything else to some people. In my case, I am a born atheist so no such construct exists.

This is why you cannot argue with people about religion. Religion ends up being such a part in your life (probably even like an addiction in a sense) that it becomes a part of your subconcious.

And seeing that you are taught this stuff as soon as you can sit your little ass in church, the connections come to be without a doubt so strong and a second nature that I even saw some intelligent, scientific Jyte users fall into this addiction. Keeping that in mind, I consider myslef lucky that I'm only addicted to nicotine....

RD, there's no doubt that the concept of God is in lots of peoples heads, but that doesn't have any relevance to whether or not God has an existence outside peoples heads.

You've presented a belief "god exists only in your head" as if it were the conclusion of an argument, but your premises don't have anything to do with the conclusion.

I could argue the same about giant squid a few years ago. Some people had seen them and talked about them, people in general were skeptical. I could say "Giant squid would be physical beings and so must exhibt some measurable effect in the physical world, but no one except drunk sailors has ever measured one, therefore they exist only in your head." The fact that the giant squid indubitably existed as a construct in the minds of the people who had seen one has no bearing at all on whether real giant squid exist or not (unless you're a philosophical idealist).

For someone who doesn't think you can argue with people about religion, your assumptions are controversial but firmly head - God doesn't exist - and provocative - believing in Him is an addiction.

Yea, I know I was kind of rambling in that one... but I just wanted to make my thought as clear as possible and I'm glad you understood what I meant.

The aim of my post however was to point out an interesting "theory" I had about why very religious people are so stubborn about their beliefs. Thinking otherwise would deviate from their usual mindset and take them out of their familiar comfort zone. You can tell by the kind of behavior they exhibit while discussing with you, which is often accompanied by a display of strong emotions and sometimes even hostility given the fact that they have no valid arguments. This reaction to your attempt at an intellectual conversation with them demonstrates that they are uncomfortable with the situation. They are in complete denial despite being given scientific evidence to protect their ego. Now, imagine what an atheist would feel after proof of god is actually found (hypothetical situation). I can only imagine this feeling to be something along the lines of wasted time (have to make it up to god), extreme confusion, insecurity, betrayal, the list goes on as one can only imagine what it feels like to have the world as they KNOW it to crash down inside of their head requiring them to also ultimately feel foolish afterwards.

Now to my point on drug addiction. These are the same kind of feelings that are felt during drug withdrawal. Drugs impose an altered perception of reality on their users and addicts frequently administer their drug(s) of choice for a sustained feeling of comfort and/or self-acceptance as they *feel they cannot function without them* <- This is what it means to develop an psychological addiction to drugs.

Religion on the other hand, imposes an altered reality on its believers and believers frequently administer their doses collectively on Sunday mornings and whenever they read a few lines of the good book. You can *try* and tell them that all the time they have so far devoted to religion, all the things they are missing out on, [such as all the sex they could have had before marriage, etc.] However, being in possesion of such frequently and firmly re-instated constructs of religion in their neural networks, I think it would be pretty impossible for them to quit faith. Doing so would require a complete overhaul on their thought processes leaving a big hole where religion used to be. (I am referring to people who are completely indulged in religion, like hardcore christians for example.)

For a junkie, it would be deemed almost impossible to ditch a drug like meth or heroin after years of frequent use because of the mental constructs in their minds regarding the drug, the ritual of administration, and its pleasant effect on their everyday life are large, strong and now more familiar than that of sober life. (euphoria and stuff.....)

Theists seek comfort, truth and answers through god.
Dope fiends seek comfort, truth and answers from drugs.

...Get it? Be a free man, lose your addictions.

This isn't court. There isn't a rule on burden of proof.

If something is true and you fail to prove it, it's still true. If something is false and you fail to disprove it, it's still false

And by "prove a negative" I assume you're thinking of "disprove a negative"

"...Get it? Be a free man, lose your addictions."

Would you say the same thing to someone addicted to truth?

Given the lack of a universal definition of the word truth, especially for the context in I assume you are implying, I would have to diagnose each request on an individual basis with a $25 administration fee. (canadian moneyz only plz)

Joking aside though, I am aware that my claims were very controversial. But by addiction in the case of religion, you must look at it as a "hard to break habit". (I don't know if that lessens the controversial impact somewhat.) Keeping in mind that most people in question are born into a religion and are immersed in it from the beginning of childhood, you must realize that the formation of these constructs start early in life and a only strengthened by time.

I also admit I was probably using the word addiction a bit too loosely in an attempt to describe a thought which is much greater than the words in my vocabulary. By my definition I am addicted to showering because I feel dirty (negative-ish withdrawal type feeling) if I don't regardless of whether my life depends on it, because I have been taught to take showers every night for as long as I can remember. It is somewhat irrational from one point of view, since I can clearly survive without it, however, it is a (good) habit I am stuck with. However, since I do not look to my shower-head for truth or answers I can say I am NOT emotionally attached to it like nicotine, or like theists, to their religion. Therefore, in a discussion about my showering habits which I am very fond of, I will most likely shutup and listen to advice from others' opinions of the body cleansing realm. On the other side, when there is a strong emotional attatchment to a certain construct, challenging it becomes much more difficult as emotions precede logic and result in complete denial to avoid damaging the ego. (I denied I was addicted to cigarettes and that it was all voluntary smoking until that week a was too broke to buy a pack...)

I hope that cleared it up for you because I really don't know what else to say!

Holy Toledo!

If by 'theist' you mean religious people then I disagree.

The main point of religion has pretty much nothing to do with explaining or proving God to people.

Except perhaps in your case.

Which does not bode well for you.

Attempting to prove either proposition is a wild goose chase.

rxd: I think I understand the way you're using addiction, and so my quibble is not with you calling religion an addiction.

Your invitation to break our addictions and be free, presupposes that addictions necessarily make us less free. People with an addiction to exercise for example are made more free by the extra capabilities their addiction gives them. What if I have an addiction to discovering knowledge, or rooting out the truth? Do you still think that I should break that addiction? That breaking it will make me more free?

If you're going to define addiction so loosely, then we can't just follow the traditional <addiction> = <bad> reasoning. Which means that I think you have to show that religion is a negative (and possibly untrue) addiction before we should take your suggestion to break it, or believe that breaking it will make us more free.

Glad we're on the same page now kyb!

I was suggesting to "break free" in the context of religion, or more generally any addiction that has the possibility of negative side-effects that affect your every day life.

Your last paragraph is dead on. I'm better at arguing face to face then typing a story so that I can guage how much detail is actually necessary!

StevieB on top of you also has a good point. It's basically what I was trying to say in my first post: It is useless to argue either way because the strong emotions associated with these developed mental contructs render it to be a waste of time unless the listener is mature enough to shutup and listen. (Which is often not the case.)

@rx7_drifter, I like your rambling, I don't think it's irrelevant at all.... I think you hit the nail on the head there....

@Billy, if something is true and you fail to prove it, it may be true, but it isn't demonstrably true. Therefore, unless (or until) proven otherwise, it falls into the same category as the little man that lives in your refrigerator (you know the one I mean, he keeps turning the fridge light on and off when you're not looking, the switch on the inside of the door jamb is a dummy, it doesn't actually do anything — he runs too fast for you to be able to see him, he doesn' need to eat, and he wears special slippers so he won't leave his footprints in the butter). It's true in your own head, but don't expect people to nod along -- it needs to be verifiable to be real to anyone besides yourself.

And, @Billy, to "prove a negative" means to categorically disprove a positive, and is therefore correct. But some statements are falsifiable (verifiable) and some are not. (Falsifiability is not the same as saying something is false: for example, the Law of Gravity is falsifiable — capable of being disproved — but is true.) For example, "all men are mortal" is not verifiable because no amount of observation will prove it conclusively, whereas "all men are immortal" is falsifiable by producing at least one dead man. However, an unfalsifiable claim can be shown to be the logical end result of a falsifiable claim: "all men die before they reach 150 years of age." Therefore, an unfalsifiable statement can always be put into a falsifiable framework. The falsifiable does not exclude the unfalsifiable, it embraces and exceeds it. (This example is from Wikipedia; you'll find a fuller explanation of falsifiability there, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability .)