I have always felt that the question of a God and it’s existence was always a little open ended because no one seems to define exactly what they mean. If treated like any hypothesis with definable concepts you should be able verify it. If it is an arbitrary concept, no basis for comparing with reality, it should not be treated as valid.
I know Ayn Rand has shown in her world view that such a concept can not be true.
Are there similar rational thoughts?
Posted: February 15th 2009
George Ricker www
As you note, there are so many versions of the god hypothesis (ranging from “the old man in the sky” worshiped by some fundamentalists to “the ineffable essence at the core of an otherwise inexpressible reality” so beloved by new age religions) that it is virtually impossible to know what anyone means when they use the word “god.”
Beyond that, one’s inability to prove a concept invalid does not make the concept any more likely to be valid. Carl Sagan offers a brilliant example of this when he talks about “The Dragon in My Garage” in chapter 10 of The Demon-Haunted World. As Sagan describes the dragon, it would be impossible for anyone to prove it does not exist. However, the inability to do so does not, in any way, give credence to the idea that the dragon is real.
In any discussion of the existence of a deity, the first issue that must be resolved is the nature of the entity in question. A god that cannot be defined is an incoherent concept at the outset. Talking about its validity, or the lack thereof, is an exercise in futility.
Posted: March 5th 2009
Eric_PK
In general, it’s hard to disprove the existence of anything. That’s what makes the theist position untenable – there’s no way of proving that you are wrong. The atheist, on the other hand, could be proven to be wrong with good evidence, though you run into both the definitional issue you mention (nobody can define what god is, making talk of existence a bit problematic) and the problem that there isn’t much evidence floating around (which the theists deal with by their veneration of blind faith).
Posted: February 26th 2009
Reed Braden www
I don’t think it’s up to the person who does not believe in a god to disprove the existence of a god.
If you set that standard, every theist must prove why all other gods (and there are many thousands of them) do not exist. Rather, it is up to the person who believes in a god to prove that there is a god… and the best proof theists have come up with over the thousands of years of theistic religion is, “Well, you can’t disprove it.”
Whenever I’m asked the question, “Can you disprove God?” I remember that we’re in the two-thousands and hang my head in shame. The fact that this question is still prevalent in modern thought is utterly depressing.
Posted: February 26th 2009
SmartLX www
It could still be true. Just because someone’s opinion isn’t well thought out doesn’t mean it’s dead wrong.
Despite all the fuzziness of people’s concepts of gods, the possibility remains that there is an entity out there which is recognisable to the majority as a “god”. If any real evidence for such an entity were to emerge, people’s personal concepts would adjust very quickly to match the apparent reality.
Posted: February 25th 2009