Proof that God does not exist!

Pragmatic Pat
Pragmatic Pat's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Proof that God does not exist!

Yes, the moment is finally here. I, a mere grade 12 student, have proved beyond any sort of doubt that god does not exist. I know, I know, don't thank me yet. Here is my flawless proof, which will be copied into textbooks for years to come...

1. God is perfect (omniscient, omnipresent etc.)
2. Nothing that exists is perfect, because everything can be viewed in a negative light

Therefore - 1. Either god exists and is not perfect, meaning that he wouldn't be god, meaning that there would be no god...

Or 2. God doesn't exist

I thought that everyone here should feel humbled, that the greatest proof of all time would first appear on their forums. I thank you all in advance for your expected foot kissing, idle making, wishing for autographs etc. in advance.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A circle can be perfect, yet

A circle can be perfect, yet illicit negative response. I prefer sticking to the laws of conservation as evidence of no god. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I am sorry, but just as no

I am sorry, but just as no ontology can prove God, so is that no ontology can disprove God. It doesn't matter. We dont need to disprove God. Obviously, complete disproval of something is impossible. The fun thing about science is that everything has a probability, so from a quantum physics standpoint, the probability that several atoms will "pass through" a solid object by quantum effect is one in several trillion. The probability of God existing is so low that it does not need to be disproven. It is the same probability of Thor with his hammer existing. It doesn matter, because the burden of proof is on he who asserts (theists) not he who denies.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Pragmatic Pat
Pragmatic Pat's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Um...I do hope you realise

Um...I do hope you realise that I was joking? That's what this forum is about, right?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Oh good, I was worried for a

Oh good, I was worried for a moment

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
I read somewhere earlier

I read somewhere earlier today that the word "proof" has two main definitions.

1) In mathematics a proof is something that is 100% correct, like a square has 4 sides

2) In science there are no 100% certainties, so a proof in a scientific context is that the odds are so low that they are virtually negligible.

According to this it is fairly safe to say that sciene has disproved the xian god's existence.  Just something to think about Smiling

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan