Is proof that there is no God possible?

If there is no god, is that proof possible?

I did actually take logic in college and have reviewed it many times.

However, I cannot recall all of those rules.

It seems to me that one cannot prove somethingoif this nature-that is,the nonexistence of something that does not exist.

I will read, learn and enjoy the conversation–THANKS

I think it is possible to prove the non-existence of something if you can establish that it is a logical contradiction, or necessarily incompatible with a known existent.

I am a 100% theist- but here, as an example, I propose a sample of a proof which might argue against God:

  1. God is held to be a being infinite in power and goodness
  2. An actual infinity is impossible
  3. Therefore, God is impossible

Well, in general, it is impossible to prove a negative, unless its opposite is VERY clearly defined. For example, we can’t prove that an animal named a Rilzagiller never existed, because for all we know there is some far away planet with other people and they named some animal a Rilzagiller.

We can’t prove that there is no such thing as a black hole which is a billion light years across; we don’t know.

Just the same, we can’t prove that there is no God, because He is outside of our measurable space-time universe.

I’m not so sure if the second premise is necessarily true. Perhaps in this universe, but things probably work differently outside it. Or maybe infinity does exist in some form or another in this universe, but our minds cannot fully comprehend it. After all, the concept of infinity is used a lot in mathematics, but do we ever really have a full grasp of it?

So I cannot prove that Big Foot does not exist.

Correct, unless there was some particularly powerful way to prove he does not exist, i.e. if we were capable of having a computer looking at every square foot of land in the world, and Bigfoot wasn’t there, then he’d be proven a myth.

I know that one problem with telling atheists/agnostics that they can’t prove God doesn’t exist, is that you can propose the existence of nearly ANYTHING and justify it by saying that it can’t be disproven (though, of course, there are plenty of good proofs for the existence of God, and I’ve heard that Plato even came to the conclusion of a single deity without divine revelation). Thoughts?

That’s correct, you can’t. And I would hazard a guess that you don’t believe that Big Foot is extant despite not being able to prove that there are no Big Foots (or Big Feet? Big Foots? Sasquatches? What ever the plural form is). People that take this position with respect to gods are some times labeled as “agnostic atheist.” (wiki).

Though there are also those that will say that there’s not yet a good definition of God and will think that it’s meaningless to have a discussion about whether or not there is one until a definition is agreed upon (different traditions give different attributes to the concept of “God”). While these people fall under the “agnostic atheist” umbrella a name that more specifically identifies them is “ignostic”.

I think the issue with this is that you would have to prove that infinity is impossible for it to be true. And I could give reasons why I think infinity is possible, but again, it may not be proof for infinity.

There are people who believe Big Foot does exist, in fact more than one. Would that be Big Foots or Big Feet?

This might sound heretical in a lot of camps, but here goes.

The Five Ways to Demonstrate God are preambles to faith, and that is St. Thomas’ term. They are steps before our faith, walking or going before faith.

Those five proofs are before faith or outside of faith.

St. Thomas says in the Summa Contra Gentiles that we do not believe in the God of Abraham and Moses based on our silly little arguments.

Faith is faith.

We, as Christians, say that it is logical to see design here on planet earth. Therefore there is a designer. The orchestration for life and human life is obvious. However, to say that it was YAHWEH, Allah, or the Great Spirit is walking in faith(s).

It is a tough distinction, really tough.

Conversely, this might sound blasphemous is some camps, for science to deny the obvious design is to throw out common sense.

As the Catholic Pope says, it is not an either-or situation. We need to make great use of science and faith, but understand that both are doing their own work. Faith tells us of our dignity. Science tells us about our biology, chemistry and physics.

One of his commonly used ideas is that a machine and an organism clearly demonstrate that they were designed.

The organisms are smarter than any machines.

The organisms move from within; the machines are moved from outside.

The organism can reproduce; the machine cannot reproduce.

The organisms are orchestrated with their surrounding and each other.

In my understanding it is almost a stale mate, if it was a game, but it is not. It is real.

Religions must say “We believe.” Science has to say: “All of this is truly designed.”

Both have to say, the Designer has to be praised and thanked; even if the Designer hasn’t revealed what “IT” is (Sorry, God, about “IT”.)

Can you imagine, we cannot prove that God does not exist.

We cannot prove that the designer revealed ITSELF to us either.

All side should be a little happy and a little sad.

Then there will always be some who will not or cannot see what the rest see.

Oops, this might sound heretical in all camps.

PLENTY of good proofs for the existence of G-d? I don’t recall reading even one that is totally convincing and without some flaws. Belief in G-d, to me, is a matter of faith more than logic or reason, contrary to what both Catholicism and Judaism have stated.

meltzerboy

From my study of the Guide, I think the Rambam would agree!

there are only two ways to know something, one by experiencing it and two by trust.
one you know your house exists because you live in it and experience its existence.
say you’ve never been to china, the only way you know it exists is your trusting the pictures, the accounts of people whove been there, and all this “evidence” that there is for its existence.
same is with different faiths and God, if you haven’t had a personal experience with God then you must use the latter and search out the “evidence” and see where you land

Perhaps that is true in Judaism, which lacks a systematic theology. Certainly not in Catholicism, where faith and reason coexist.

Then again, Judaism isn’t without its philosophers and tradition of reason, either. Maimonides offered up arguments for the existence of God.

I also have to ask: what didn’t you find compelling about the proofs you came across? What was missing in them?

No, it is not possible. :thumbsup:

I’d also like to add that no one should be expected to be convinced of the existence of God - let alone the Judeo-Christian God - based off of a single argument. There aren’t any proofs out there that prove everything about God - at least, to the best of my knowledge. Most people become convinced over time by reading numerous “arguments”, whether they are systematic proofs, evidence, experiences, clarifications of misconceptions, etc. Basically, it takes a much more organic approach to arrive convinced at a particular religion (or even simply the existence of God).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.