Does anyone agree that if you have proved that proposition X exits, or is real, do you also prove that not X is wrong, does not exist, unreal?

If you follow me, than my next question is: What can we prove (X), so that not X = no god?

 

For example, Einstein proved that gravity is due to the curvature of space, not a force that pulls as Newton said. So when Einstein proved the new definition of gravity, he also proved that Newton's idea was wrong.

For another example, Before there was evidence of the microwave background radiation, it was believed that the universe was a static universe (unchanging), but when the microwave background radiation was discovered, it prove that not only was the universe dynamic, but that it had a beginning as well, and in the process proved the static universe false.

 

So, again I ask, what could it be that we could prove exists, is real, that would also prove that there is no god?

Views: 128

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think your examples are quite the same thing. All they did was disprove earlier assertions about why things appeared as they do. Just as science has shown the epilepsy is not caused by witchcraft.

 

Newton didn't explain why gravity exists, he only showed how it worked -- how one could predict when and where objects would be in the sky based on mathematical formula. But he never explained why it worked as it did (as far as I understand all this).

 

General Relavity does better at explaining how it all works, but it doesn't explain why matter causes space-time to curve. Also, it only explains things, it doesn't prove things. We know gravity exists. We don't need to prove it. And you certainly can't prove it isn't true, either. Gen Rel is just a description of how it all works.

 

You can prove a testable hypotheses, such as the moon is not made of green cheese. But you cannot prove an untestable hypotheses, such as an eternal being that exists in all points in space and time. So, in my opinion, either way it's a moot point. You can't prove or disprove the existence of an eternal, all-powerful being.

Dallas,

You are 100% right about gravity, but you introduced a testable hypothesis that I would like to use to make my point. The hypothesis: the moon is not made of green cheese. Since we sent people to the moon and found it is made of rocks, it also proves that it is not made of green cheese.

What exists or can exist in our universe that if proven, also proves there is no god? Can there be such a discovery? Would the discovery of what happened before the big bang qualify?

Since we sent people to the moon and found it is made of rocks, it also proves that it is not made of green cheese.

 

Exactly. It was testable.

 

What exists or can exist in our universe that if proven, also proves there is no god? Can there be such a discovery?

 

No, nothing. There is no such discovery as I can see. You can't prove such things or disprove them. Just like we can't prove that infinity exists, though it is a safe assumption that it does.

 

I'm not sure we've ever be able to figure out what it was like before the big band. Not in this millenia anyhow.

 

Dallas, the green cheese is under the surface rock!!! Maybe way under.

 

Let's do an Archimedes: weigh the moon, dip it in water and weigh the displaced water. We will know how much rock and how much green cheese.

 

Does green cheese weigh more or less than bleu cheese?

 

Actually, we haven't proven the moon isn't made of cheese :).

We only scratched the surface to find rocks, but it's the *interior* of the moon that is made of green cheese.

Thanks for the laugh!!!!!!

Cane, the green cheese is under the surface rock!!! Maybe way under.

 

Let's do an Archimedes: weigh the moon, dip it in water and weigh the displaced water. We will know how much rock and how much green cheese.

 

Does green cheese weigh more or less than bleu cheese?

 

Hehehe. Very nice Tom. I don't think we'll know until we discover what makes the green cheese green.

That is a tough proposition. "God" is usually defined too broadly to propose a very specific phenomenon that would counter or negate the existence of a god. Theists always move the goalpost of the definition of god. They also argue that atheists are always arguing against the existence of a much too simplistic and narrowly-defined god.

I like your approach, but I think you would have propose an equally abstract idea as a counterweight to god. I would propose the notion of "evil". Natural evils such as small children dying of horrible diseases, natural disasters, etc. seem to negate the existence of a loving, caring, good creator. Man-made evils are also problematic for theists. They usually squirm out of this argument by saying man is a fallen being, etc.

Actually, it's possible to prove that a *certain* god is inexistant.

 

For example: Khepri, the egyptian dung beatle god, is proven to not exist. His sole purpose was to roll the sun across the sky. Proving that the sun isn't rolled by this god, proves his inexistance.

 

In my opinion, it is always possible to disprove something that is *defined*.

 

That's where everything goes wrong. Religions are not defined. Just like some virus, they constantly modify themselves to escape being disproved.

Christianism went from having a definite, old man with beard, all powerfull, living behind the sky God,

to a hippy, present in all people, in all items, in love, in music, in toast god.

 

The bible has been proven wrong time and time again. I don't think anything is left in it that could be relevent. Yet from being the absolute truth, it has become a book that we should all "interpret" and "choose" the parts that are good....

Choose!!!!! There was a time where people were burnt for choosing parts of the bible!!

 

So actually, god has already been disproven many many times. The problem only lies in stopping the religious from reinventing themselves over and over and over again.

 

If you want a way to annoy a friend or family member about their belief in god. Before trying to disprove their god, make sure you ask them to define him very clearly first. They probably get mad even before you try to disprove them ;).

 

 

Thank you people. I thought I had a good idea, but you folks have sure proved me wrong. I also failed to realise that even if we had undeniable proof, they would still say they believe.

even if we had undeniable proof, they would still say they believe.

 

And that is the problem right there!

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service