0
How would you go about trying to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Old question, asked many times over, will still answer.
With logic-
Is there any proof of God?
Not as such
Is there proof of how the Earth was created?
Yes - the big bang followed by as series of events
Has The Bible been changed many times in history to suit the current trend in social life?
Yes - making the bible an irrelevant source as it changes to fit current standards- i.e. the persecution of other religions and homosexual people.
Does God help anyone?
No- are you trying to say that all the children in Africa who are starving really deserve the wrath of God?
These are all simple arguments, there are many more.
Source: Logic.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoThere are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.
Here are a few.
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of Atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.Is there evidence against Evolution
God's wisdom seen in His creations
2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Professor Russel Stannard (a particle physicist) states: "The universe has been bent over backwards in order that intelligent life should exist...must have known we were coming."
3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient societyever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.
4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.
5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.
6) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.
c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.
d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are not minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?
- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the real chances of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)
e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoThis question presupposes I approach the issue of God's existence or non-existence without the usual preconceptions that God exists or that God does not exist.
The best way to prove or disprove the existence of God is to start by looking at why some people do believe he exists. Almost all believers do so because they were brought up as Christians, Jews or Muslims, and have never really thought about why their beliefs are rational. Not a good start.
The next step is to look at to supposed proofs for God's existence. There are numerous arguments for his existence, to the point that the very multiplicity of them casts doubt on his existence. You would expect that if at least one proof were unarguable, then the search more yet more and better proofs would have ceased. Indeed, an analysis of each purported proof soon shows its weaknesses.
The final step is to look at the reasons atheists say God probably does not exist. Some of these are compelling, even though it is usually considered hard to prove a negative. God is no more likely to exist than Brahma, Ahura Mazda or the many gods of the Chinese Dao pantheon.
The weight of evidence says that God simply does not exist. Should there be any doubt, then Pascal's Wager, if it is to have any meaning, requires us to worship all gods equally, just in case.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How would you design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis?
By testing your results, and explain in your conclusion what went wrong
Are scientists trying to prove GOD exists or not?
People claiming to be scientists also claim to have incontrovertible proof that God does not exist. It is certainly true, that God's existence or non-existence is outside of science to prove or disprove, despite claims to the contrary. The Bible itself regards the existence of God as self-evident truth and so itself does not try to demonstrate His existence. It does make comment though, on what God thinks of those who do not believe in Him. Scientists who believe the Bible have God as part of their thinking and work. Great scientists of the past, including a number post-Darwin, including down to our present day, had and have no trouble in belief in God and their scientific work. If scientists are trying to prove God exists, it is doubtful this will have any success. This is much the same as those who try to prove or disprove miraculous healings. Firstly, there is no promise from God that He is going to make Himself a 'side-show' or be put under the microscope of men to be dissected. If He were to do so He would cease to be God. If people are trying to either prove or disprove God, it would seem such work is doomed from the outset as it is based on false assumptions. Eminent Scientists' only concern is with the Natural world. They not concern themselves with the Supernatural. Answer: Metaphysics is not the province of science, science deals with the real world . The purpose of science is to break down barriers to knowledge and utilize that knowledge to further mankind's understanding of the Universe. If science could prove (or disprove) the existence of god(s) the results would be unsatisfactory to all theists concerned. A proof that there was no god(s) would either not be accepted or cause the disappearance of religion. A proof that there was a god(s) would show that the god(s) are subject to the physical rules of the universe and subject to the scientists' tests. In either of these cases the god(s) would not be omnipotent or above everything, which would make them just another real world phenomenon, not supernatural.
Can you request independent drug testing as a defendant in court?
You could but what purpose would it serve or what would it prove? Independent testing AFTER THE FACT could not possibly prove or disprove the PAST usage with which the dfeendant is charged.
What proves God is not real?
Most philosophers would say that it is impossible to disprove the existence of god(s), because it is usually not possible absolutely to prove a negative. It can only be proventhat God is highly improbable. As in all arguments about existence or non-existence, the responsibility to provide the proof falls on those who claim that God does exist. In almost two thousand years of Christian argument fo the existence of God, that proof has not been forthcoming.
Is there really a heaven above?
There is no definite answer to this question. A religious person would tell you without a doubt that yes there is. A devout athiest would tell you that there is not a heaven. Both would be wrong, you see if there is indeed a heaven then you have to die to go there (pretty convenient way of keeping people from trying to prove/disprove this theory). But for someone to say that they know for a fact that there is no heaven would be ignorant because just as religion has not been able to prove there is a heaven, science has not been able to prove that there is not.
How old was shakespeare when his schooling ended?
A lot of people think he left school when he was about 15. But this is really a guess; there are no school records which would prove or disprove it.
What does refutes mean?
''prove that someone or something is false.''
How do you counter bad propaganda?
To counter bad propaganda, provide accurate and verified information to correct the false narratives. Encourage critical thinking and media literacy skills among the audience to help them discern between fact and fiction. Collaborate with reputable sources and experts to amplify the truth and discredit the misinformation.
What would the world be like if God didn't exist?
It really depends on what you believe. Personally, I believe things would continue as normal, whether there be a divine being or not. We cannot prove God's existence and we cannot disprove it either. Another outcome is that the old gods (Greek and Norse) have finally killed the pathetic excuse of the Christian god. But life would continue on normally.
Does God exist and on what authority apart from Bible is this based?
My personal opinion is that God does not exist, but philosophically it is generally impossible to prove a negative, so it is therefore impossible to prove absolutely that God does not exist. It was once suggested that if one were to propose to a Christian that a small, perfectly formed teapot is in orbit around the sun, in the asteroid belt, he would likewise be unable to prove the non-existence of that teapot. One can ridicule the improbable or unlikely, but proof is another thing. More importantly, no one has ever come up with any extra-biblical proof for the existence of God. Nor can Christians disprove the existence of Gaia, Brahma or any other god other than their own.
What is the verb of existence?
well for a true fact, there are many verbs out there that relate to existence. But the main one would have to be living. because of it's extrodinary roatation, in the cycle of existence is life and extinct. but the verb for existence would have to be the opposite verb for extinct. To give you the write answer trust the experts- who wrote this- or prove it for your self. To prove it for your self - work it out- dinosaurs got extint, that had a short life for exisenca, so EXTINCT is your answer!
Is Buddhism polytheistic?
Buddhism is non-theistic. The question of god(s) is of no concern as the path to enlightenment is an individual effort. The god(s), if they exist, do not help or hinder. The general thought is that wasting time attempting to prove or disprove the existence of god(s) would distract a person from the proper effort of learning to follow the Eightfold Path.
