57 Answers

  1. Here I am a believer in God. So I imagined the task of proving to me that there is no God. After analyzing everything I know about God, I come to the conclusion that this is fundamentally impossible. Answer: if this believer knows logic, science, and theology well, then no way.

  2. First, consider whether it's worth it.

    I think it is worth it only in two cases: if the person is not happy with his faith, if he is unhappy with it, for example, is afraid to admit his homosexuality, or if he is tormented by the contradictions of his religion and modern science; or if the person is a dangerous fanatic, hates infidels and heretics, torments himself with his hatred and puts others in danger.

    Just out of self-indulgence, you don't need to change a person. The human psyche is fragile and understudied. It is better to treat it according to the principle: Does it work? So don't break it!

    Secondly, if you are going to prove it, first find out exactly why a person believes in God. What needs does God satisfy?

    If it suddenly turns out that God is his closest friend, father, and love, and the only one he believes in, and the only thing he hopes for, etc. then before you convince him of the absence of God, be sure to convince him that all these entities exist in the world without God. Make sure that the person has enough faith, hope, and love besides God, and that they have genuinely good relationships with their parents, spouse, and friends, and at least some of these people are non-believers themselves.

    Third, find out what small earthly joys this person likes, try to switch his attention to them, as you prove it. Prove the slower the better. First, that the relics are not miraculous, then that not all dogmas are true, then that there are several correct points of view on one question, etc.

  3. A girl, you mean your favorite girl? You probably don't love her because she believes in something or doesn't believe? There are people who find it easier to live without faith. There are people who find it easier to live with faith, so it is easier for them to cope with life's difficulties. If you are trying to impose disbelief (restrict someone else's freedom), you need to offer something in return. Try to make the girl believe in you, offer protection and support, change your overall lifestyle, hobbies, then the question of faith in a higher power will not be so relevant. It is useful to think about why this question is annoying. If a person begins to sacrifice common values for the sake of a religious organization, then we need to talk and find out what is more important, faith or living together. There are many couples of believers and non-believers who do not mind living in harmony, because they wish each other happiness, and happiness is impossible without freedom of perception of the world.

  4. I'll write detailed instructions:

    1. Tell him (if you shout, it will only help) that he believes because he is a fool and generally frostbitten, because science has long proved that there is no God and everyone knows this, and even Gagarin flew into space and did not see God.

    2. Tell him about Dawkins, a great scientist who is an atheist, like all scientists in general.

    3. Well, of course, tell him that atheism, if not an independent science, is based entirely on scientific evidence.

    4. Show him the public “atheist”, where they laugh at priests, which means there is no God.

    5. Offer him an experiment: If there is a God, then create a miracle! There will be no miracle, which means there is no God.

    6. Tell him that religion is to blame for all the ills of humanity, and atheists are just flowers.

    7. Maybe people used to believe in God, but this is because they: a) were stupid (all believers are stupid) b) so it was accepted c) there was no science.

    8. Do not forget that the main weapon in the fight against religion (of course, science, but you can't play science) is whistling and laughing. Do you want to fight your faith? Make memas.

    9. Tell everyone in your class that this person is a believer, let them laugh with you, after all, social stigmatization also works.

    10. Done. You are amazing!

  5. It is a very strange idea to prove the absence of something, especially the non-existence, especially the non-existence of what is defined as transcendent (lying beyond reality and evidence). Usually prove the presence. Sherlock Holmes finds a shoe print, which means they proved that the shoe's owner was here. If the print wasn't found, it doesn't prove anything, maybe the ground was solid.

    However, we do not know what kind of believer we are talking about. Perhaps this is a child who was taught by his parents that God sits on a cloud. Then it will be enough for you to demonstrate the Earth from space and together make sure that there is no visible God on any cloud (and an invisible One?).

    The worst thing for you is if you come across a believer who turned even one millimeter and answered God's call, the first commandment, with a grain of his soul:

    Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

    You understand that someone who loves is very difficult to convince with evidence. )

    Yes, I remember that you believe that there is no God, but people are capable of loving even someone they know for sure that there is no God. Princes, captains, they are even better than real people in some ways. And God is even better – He is:)

  6. This cannot be done in princin. After all, all people are weak and consider themselves defenseless before the forces of nature. They need someone to protect them. And here, as always, there are clever people who want to warm their hands on these weaknesses. They come up with a theory in which there is someone, a higher power, and I will mediate between them and you. Obey me, but only without hesitation, and then I will ask him to protect you. To do this, I need power over you and small donations. And since there are a lot of such clever people in every nation, therefore there are a huge number of religions. The main thing is to intimidate everyone more strongly, and then promise protection to the one who will obey, and we will curse others.

    I think so. and you?

  7. First of all, why should someone prove something? If a person is comfortable living with faith, if he believes that faith helps him in life, why change his mind?

    Secondly, there are different believers.

    There is a grandmother who quietly prays for the health of her children and grandchildren. Why try to convince her otherwise?

    There are militant fanatics who won't listen to you.

    There are people who make money out of faith. I don't know if they believe in God, but there's no point in proving them either.

  8. The whole joke is that there is no point in doing this from the word at all. There are just a huge number of reasons for this, but I will limit myself to three:

    1. Does anyone know for certain that there is no God? Exactly?! Are you sure?! The existence or non – existence of a Deity is basically unprovable-we cannot get into the world where its existence is possible*.

    2. Are you sure that you can convince a person who has a different conceptual apparatus, a different picture of the world? You will be talking to him in vain, like an Englishman to a Martian* * – both of you will not understand at least half of the opponent's speeches?

    3. Do you think you have the right to ruin a person's worldview without asking them if they want to? How did you earn this right? Why cut down that tree in the shadow of which all his life glimmers? Do you seriously think that he will be able to build a different picture of the world – and this is far from a fact!

    PS This is a stupid activity-disputes between fanatics of different religions and atheism. Lucky for me, a moderate agnostic, to watch this battle with fools from the hill while sipping tea and cookies.

    * Science explores only the material world. God, if He exists, is found in the spiritual world. Its telescopes and radars and all sorts of other tricky devices will not be found.

    **I once knew a Martian who was exiled from his home planet to Earth and crashed his ship on landing. And the forehead. We didn't understand him. At all…

  9. There is not a single proof of the existence of God, the soul, the afterlife, etc. And there are fairy tales about the creation of the world . This is a departure from the main question: “The lack of evidence for the existence of God is a direct proof that he does not exist. There is no other way to prove what doesn't exist. There is no god, and there are religions that are based on the majority's fear of death. and a minority is adept at exploiting this fear.

  10. God is always happy. If God is not happy, then he is no longer God. In fact, a happy person is in harmony with God, he is in fusion with Him. It means that he is a God. If God is not in your heart, then happiness too, so far) Happiness to you!)

  11. There is no need to prove anything. A normal atheist is a person who does not believe and that's all, and not that religious sect that tears its ass in attempts to write all the fences of the earth with the slogan “There is no God” and impose on everyone( including animals) its narrow point of view and practically unsupported opinion, because neither science nor the clergy has the answer to the questions of being (God, death, etc.).. well, except that unintelligible babble and illogical justifications..

    By the way, absolutely all of these so – called “militant atheists” are toxic and generally just shitty, filthy and petty people.. (not because they are atheists, but because they are militant.. so are militant Christians, Muslims, and others.. still those who impose alcohol, a kid's life, etc. and even sports, which in fact is useful and should be considered good advice, but no.. these people do not want to do anyone good and do not have understanding, they want to impose their opinion, and belittle everyone who has a different one)..

  12. Why convince someone of something? You believe in the fact that there is no God, in fact, this is the same belief in something, in some idea. And you act in the position of an egoist, trying to impose your beliefs on the girl, you need to accept the person as he is.

  13. Of course, you can't prove this, at least because any proof is based on human reasoning, and an omnipotent supernatural being does not have to be within the framework of human thinking. But you can make some arguments that suggest that there is probably (this is the key word) no God. I, for example, believe that God probably does not exist, since there is no need for his existence. It was necessary in an era when science was not so developed, and therefore the religious form of knowledge was in demand, but today the scientific method based on empiricism and rationalism has proved its worth and replaced other untenable methods of knowledge, including religious.�

    Another question is, why, in fact, convince a believer of the absence of God? Here I rather adhere to Wittgenstein's famous thesis: “What cannot be said, must be kept silent.”

  14. .. an atheist's pipe dream?
    … From the beginning, you need to be at faith, and be able to wait at faith, and as practice shows, many deny faith, and we don't want to wait for anyone, but we want everything in one fell swoop – there is no God and that's it.
    … A view from antiquity.
    .. Ps 52: 2: 2 The fool said in his heart,”There is no God.”

  15. Sir Bertrand Russell

    philosopher, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature

    “I have studied Christian dogmas and the history of the confrontation between believers and non-believers. And all the arguments for the existence of God seemed so illogical from the point of view of logic that I concluded that there is no practical use in believing in unprovable things. After all, there is a logical error here: the statement is either true or not. If it's true, I believe it; if it's not, I don't believe it. And if you are not able to prove the truth of the statement, then you must refrain from any speculation and judgments on this issue.”

  16. The variety of responses indicates that the topic is important and more or less popular? I'll try to make it easier for you: When I was lacing up my shoe, maybe a car passed by in which, according to my friend, a girl was driving in exactly the same hat as her? A friend claims that I think she's primitive because they're wearing the same hats? How do I prove that I only saw the shoelace?

  17. no way, because if a person is already a believer, then he has heard all the arguments of atheists many times. And why – everyone has their own beliefs, they don't go to someone else's monastery with their own charter

  18. Apparently this is not an idle question. Perhaps you are worried about a loved one that, in your opinion, he is very interested in religion. And you want to cool his (her) ardor. Then you need to patiently dig through a lot of literature, always the Bible, in search of evidence, but not proto, but reliable facts. Because a truly religious person is not gullible and will have to try. However, there is a danger for you. By studying the facts, you can learn a lot, believe and love God.

  19. In my opinion, the question is more complicated than it seems. The fact is that it is very difficult to prove that something does not exist. Representatives of religious denominations have repeatedly used it, saying that no one has proved the absence of God.

    Many movements, such as Pastafarianism or Russell's teapot, have sprung up on this basis. There zhta logic is brought to the point of absurdity. For example, Pastafarians say that everything in the world was created by a macaron monster and no one was able to prove that it does not exist.

    In fact, the idea is lost, because a believer does not use arguments in matters of faith. And this is the only tool in any dispute

  20. The fact of the Creator's existence is indeed unprovable (at least at this point in time), but not at all for the reasons that Polina described. Its objectivity or subjectivity does not follow from the presence/absence of any facts.

    In other words, one should not particularly hope that there is any special irrefutable proof of the existence and absence of God-this is not and is not expected. However, if you still want to trump the argument:

    a) If you are an atheist, refer to Godel's incompleteness theorem (http://ru-antireligion.livejournal.com/3976771.html)
    b) If you are a believer, refer to the metaphysical argument of Leibniz, given by Copleston in a debate with Bertrand Russell (http://lib.ru/FILOSOF/RASSEL/existenc.txt)

    All this is just a drop in the bucket of religious discourse, but it will do for a small argument.

    Well, it's even better, of course, not to prove anything to anyone. In such a delicate matter, you only need to prove something to yourself.

  21. To prove the absence of something unproven is for those who do not understand the laws of logic, it is necessary to prove the PRESENCE, not the absence. As long as the presence is not proven, there is nothing to refute. You never know who believes in anything, in Santa Claus or Baba Yaga or Tolkien's elves.

  22. God is a Spirit, there is no need to say about Gagarin that he did not see God, God cannot be seen, touched, but it can be felt in our life, you did not see your brain(does this mean that it does not exist? 🧐) you also didn't see Peter 1,so does that mean he wasn't there? Yes, they wrote about him, but if you don't believe what is written in the Bible, that there is a God, then how can you believe some books that Peter 1 was, paintings were drawn, portraits? So there is a portrait of Jesus… It is foolish to believe in science if you can accept Christ in your heart right now and have eternal life with Him… If you believe it, you'll see, says the Lord, He's still doing miracles, it's just that we humans are used to taking it for granted, but no… It's all God. How could people and so many animals and so many plants happen from some explosion, how did it happen that the human body is so arranged, that girls have PMS every month, how did God create everything in general, how did the Bible say about people “created in His image and likeness” Humiliated Himself and Jesus came into this world, there is no vice in Him, He is Holy and Do you believe in the origin of dinosaurs just because there are bones left?! But the Lord was crucified for our sins, for yours and mine, and He rose again on the third day, His Spirit only ascended to heaven, but the bones also remained, but you did not see them either. How can you then speak so harshly, I am very sorry for you, I would like to see many people in paradise, I am afraid to imagine who will remain outside the gates of Heaven… Just imagine how sick you are here, sometimes you are in the hospital, sometimes you are unwell, but there is an eternal flame in hell, raise your hand right now to the fire, it will hurt you, but there… there will be an eternal flame and this is the life of self-confident atheists… Come to your senses
    .”.for what is your life? a pair that appears for a short time and then disappears”

  23. Do you think there is no God ? Are you absolutely sure ?�

    You know, I believe that people who do not believe in God are no different from believers, because the whole point is that some believe in the existence of God, and others believe in his absence .Both of them believe, but they don't know .

    And you will never be able to prove that there is no God ,because God (if he exists, of course ) is beyond the scope of the instruments of science . That is, science, by the methods it has at its disposal, can neither confirm nor refute the existence of God.

    God is transcendent , so you shouldn't even try to deny that he doesn't exist (you don't know for sure, do you ?)

  24. Tell the believer that you are God and let him try to prove otherwise. To prove that you are not a god is problematic. After not being able to prove that you are not God, say that if he is a believer, then he must follow the word of God, and then say that he wants to know that there is no god😀

  25. Stupid and funny. Atheists are just as fanatical as religious people. Some deny what does not exist, others affirm what exists. Gentlemen, смешно funny. And no one can prove their claim. Well, let an atheist prove to me that there is no higher mind, or, on the contrary, a religious fanatic believe in the existence of a higher mind. Atheists are also fanatics. I am of the opinion that I keep a neutral position. I don't know. And I believe that no one will answer this question, it is beyond human consciousness. This is impossible, although I don't like the word, everything is possible, and therefore I can't deny the existence of a higher intelligence, but I can't say the opposite either. This is stupid.

  26. As an agnostic, I believe that you cannot prove to a person belonging to any religion that there is no God, no Supreme, no Beginning of Beginnings, or whatever else it may be called. The maximum is to explain the contradictions in the teachings of this religion and things that discredit it.

  27. Well, first prove it to yourself))))

    You're trying to take too big a bite, sir. Even the most reasonable people were stumped by such evidence… You don't have a chance))

  28. What is meant here by the word prove ? – this is not a rhetorical question.

    I think almost everyone will agree that the proof is a logical conclusion

    within the framework of a certain formal system – i.e., roughly speaking, inference according to the rules

    formal logic ( by the way, they can be different – for example, intuitionistic –

    without the excluded third �) from a certain set of axioms.

    In my opinion, it is quite obvious and for the order proved formally ( well, for example, by Kant –

    meticulous German ) – that there can be no such proof of the existence of God.

    All sorts of evidence from sentiment – well, for example, ethical – �

    we do not take into account – logic did not spend the night there.

    Similarly, it is impossible to prove the opposite statement-что what is it

    The SUPREME FAGGOT does not exist – he is beyond logic.

    Therefore, in this context, any person who is intellectually honest should be agnostic –

    that is, to understand that this or that system of views on the world is PROBABILISTIC

    We know too little and I'm sure we'll never know enough – to say –

    the world is arranged like this and not otherwise-the scientific worldview consists in this – we accept a certain

    a working model and we deal with it – no refinement is required yet – then we work with the updated model

    and so on and so on to infinity – which is not there.

    But I think that for any mentally healthy person it should be obvious-that the model of the world

    with this supreme father and best friend (like ioska – gutalin), the probability of well-y is 0.0000…1

    ( one – somewhere in the hundredth digit) – but it is clear that the evidence in this sense�

    confused “churched” or baboon-Muslims will never accept ( and what to take from the poor ).

    All religions without exception – (well, except �maybe Buddhism and then in the form of minayana –

    and this, in general, is not a religion ) – they imposed moral norms from the time of the Pharaohs on a person

    and/or the inquisitions-that is, they served as an excuse and a mask for sadism and domination –

    especially the most vile of them – Orthodoxy and Islam.

  29. First, it is an almost hopeless task: faith is essentially irrelevant to intelligence.
    �But once the question is asked, then:
    Secondly, to prove “the presence of absence” is a logical error in proving. The only negative proof “(although this is not entirely correct), which in principle proves something ” is an alibi, but, of course, it does not apply to God.
    � This does not mean that there is nothing, it is simply necessary not to prove the absence of God, but to destroy the conclusions on which the belief in the uncle in heaven is based.
    To do this, you must first ask the believer what his faith is based on, what evidence he has, and then refute them. Just do not push – it is best to use leading questions. If this is a person who is constantly close to you, then you can and should destroy his faith by gradually eroding his attitudes. But to do this, you yourself need to know the refutations of the main “proofs of the existence of God”, the content of the Bible, its history (if we are talking about Christianity), examples from the Bible that speak of contradictions in it or inconsistencies in the text of the book with reality. For example, you can talk about unicorns mentioned in the Bible, but you need to be prepared that you will be told in response that it is a rhinoceros. “Hoofed hares” are more convincing. It is impossible to tell about everything here: believers have learned to get out of even seemingly deadly arguments, for example, when Adam went through the procedure of inventing names for animals, what did he call kangaroos and worms? Especially interesting is how they and God summoned worms. Oddly enough, they even get out of it. God created man and woman on the fifth day, and Adam on the sixth, but they also found the answer to this. So it's not that simple. It is impossible to give all the examples here, but I can answer specific ones in the comments.
    If you push hard, the believer is more likely to lock himself in, especially an older person. Most often, the conversation ends with phrases like: “Leave me alone”, “Our parents believed and we should”. These are hard cases, so it's better not to persist. A friend of mine sent me to argue on religious forums with their regulars – I was shocked by this message: that is, he has no thoughts of his own, and does not want to think about it.
    Youth and children's minds are more amenable to new information, and you can even switch to humor with them: they perceive information presented in a humorous form better.
    �Generally speaking, you can only convince a person with a developed logical and conceptual thinking, but who believes simply by tradition, without hesitation.

  30. Why prove it?

    If you don't like buckwheat, you don't persuade your neighbor to give it up, do you?

    If there are beliefs about this, then the beliefs are strictly yours.

  31. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. If something does not exist, then it remains a priori fact until the moment of appearance of evidence. Vivod: There is no God-a fact. A good example of this is the story of Russell's Teapot.

  32. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I just need to type 140 characters to answer the question.

    The answer to pain, tears, laughter, or horror is simple:

    No way.

  33. The ant never realizes that the creature walking erect on its land is the king of nature and must be obeyed. Strange, almost titanic-sized erectus trample on their brothers and sisters without any pity or sorrow; how can an ant, after such terrible stories about “man”, consider him something higher, supernatural or divine? The ant will deny it, building its own little world/burrow, where it and its relatives and friends will live without fear for their own lives. �

    The concept of “God”, “divine”, “supernatural” was included in the dictionary simply as a term. It's just a word, and like all words, it means exactly as much as the person wants. If you don't believe me, just imagine how the subject will perceive two opposite words, for example, “death” and “love”? The first causes negative feelings and sensations on the physical plane, while the second has a positive effect on the person. So, what happens if you tell a person from an early age and for decades that the first means the second, and the second means the first. All that will happen in this case is a change in the perception of the foundations of the universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

    The question ” Are we descended from monkeys “is just as relevant as the question” Is it necessary to eat fish after sunset?” �

    Question: “Is there a God?”�is just as relevant as the question “Is there us”.

  34. Very simple, actually. We need to send Verun to his god. There he will see that there is no God. More precisely, he will not be convinced of anything, since the brain will be turned off, and there is no” THERE ” either.�
    But there is also a problem here. After all, Verun's brain is already permanently disabled… In general, I probably agree with most of the speakers above, IN ANY WAY. )))

  35. To a true BELIEVER, it is impossible, since Faith by definition is a certainty in the invisible… Proof implies LOGICAL statements, and logic, in turn, operates with visible (so to speak) concepts. Thus, in order to prove the absence of something, it is necessary to prove the absence of certain properties of this “something”, and if this is not the case for you, then there are no properties for you either, and you do not have the means to prove it. This is elementary. Plus, for a believer, denying his faith is madness (in the sense). Would you listen to an obvious madman with his evidence? Probably not.

  36. In fact, there is no scientific evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. If there were, then our entire science would be a teaching not only about nature, but also about metaphysics. Proofs or refutations of the existence of God can also contradict methodological naturalism, since God is transcendent, His essence goes beyond nature and is rather metaphysical, and methodological naturalism is based on the fact that the main object of research in science is nature and physics.

    Also, the belief of believers in atheism is a demonstration that modern atheism has long ceased to be simple atheism, just as Christianity and Islam have never been simple monotheism. Although atheism does not have any scriptures that have absolute authority, there is a huge amount of atheistic literature, as well as literature devoted to the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. The presence of literature on religious beliefs is already a sign of a certain philosophy, philosophical position and methodology. Also, the presence of apologetics already implies the justification of this position.

    Although Matt Dillahanty, editor of the atheist wiki project Iron Chariots, considers it” counter-apologetic”, the very essence of apologetics is precisely to justify one's worldview using logical arguments and rationalistic means. It doesn't matter what kind of worldview it is. Also, apologetics is not a criticism of someone else's worldview, but a justification of one's own, although criticism can be part of it. The very meaning of the term “counter-apologetics” lies in the fact that apologetics is considered a purely Christian practice, and in contrast to it there is a defense of atheism by criticism of Christianity. What is not quite right is that any defense of one's worldview, both with and without criticism, is apologetic.

    It is precisely because Christians are engaged in apologetics that Christians should not be considered ignorant, deniers, or irrationalists.

  37. No way. But it is possible to prove that specific people have no connections with certain higher forces, since everything depends on this, and not on the search for a Deity. Simply put, you can't refute faith, but you can refute obscurantism.

  38. Faith is the recognition of something as true, regardless of factual or logical justification

    Critical thinking is a way of thinking in which a person questions incoming information, their own beliefs.

    I hope the root of the problem is clear. This is wrong thinking. Therefore, the first way to prove the absence of God is to rebuild the believer's thinking.

    Also, through psychological manipulation, you can make a person's faith look unprofitable, shameful, and the person himself weak or backward. For example, by screwing something like this into the dialogue: “… and the surest indicator of primitive thinking, as we know, is the inability to determine the origin of one's own beliefs, fears, and desires” (exaggerated example)

    But atheism is not necessarily critical thinking. It, like faith, bypassing conscious analysis, can be involuntarily taken up by a person if everyone around them is atheist and behaves as if this is the order of things.

  39. No way. For the proof of the theory lies with the one who put forward the theory( Aryan Russell). And the proof that there is no God may consist in the unfounded evidence that there is one.

  40. To begin with, it is very difficult and often impossible to prove negative statements (where something is not stated, but denied). For example, I can prove that I know Chinese. To do this, I need to find a Chinese expert who can be trusted by me and my opponent, and give them the opportunity to verify my knowledge. But how can I prove that I DON'T know Chinese?

    One way to prove negative statements is to find a contradiction in them. For example, there are no married bachelors – because a bachelor is not married by definition. You can take the description of the God whose absence you are going to prove, and try to find a contradiction in it. If the description is logically contradictory, then there can be no such god. For example, some absolute qualities are often attributed to the Abrahamic gods: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. This creates logical paradoxes. For example, if God can do absolutely anything, can he create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it himself?

    But keep in mind that theology also does not stand still, and with a savvy opponent, this ancient trick may not work for you. You may reasonably object that this paradox does not apply to a god who exists outside of our universe and does not obey the laws of its physics and logic…

    You can also find counterarguments to this and continue this argument indefinitely, but I, as a complete atheist, will tell you the following: proving that there is no God is useless. Because God exists, at least, as an idea, and ideas can be very different (including illogical and simply delusional) and to prove that some IDEA does not exist is stupid.

    If you want to beat someone in an argument, it's best to remember the rule that the burden of proof is on the affirmer – if your opponent claims that there is a God, then let them prove it…

  41. Why do this ? Did someone ask you to prove it ? You may not believe it , but you don't need to meddle in other people's lives , leave people alone and respect their choices . This, as for me, is the main criterion of an intelligent person

  42. You know, you just asked a combo question))

    convince the girl? convince a believer? convince a believing girl?)))

    Believers in general are a special caste of people. The specifics of their, let's say, “hobby” (their faith) is based on a book in which everything looks more like a fairy tale than a story, in which, it seems, there are no arguments at all. I mean it says: you have to believe, otherwise you will feel bad. And religious people-they are “fans” of this book, which means that this puts a certain mark on them, which is expressed in the fact that they do not hear the arguments at all. You tell a person an iron logical chain why everything is so, and not something different, and he calls you bad words in response and shouts that Allah is all-powerful.
    In general, I'm trying to say that it can be extremely difficult (from the word impossible) to convince a believer of something.

  43. One hundred percent in any way, if only because it is not a fact that there is no God. It seems to me that the problem is that atheists proceed from the knowledge that they have, make some quite logical conclusions and come to the opinion that there is no God. But in this area, people know very little. We don't even know how many dimensions there can be. In fact, all these conclusions are valid only in three-dimensional space or in our space-time continuum. Convince a believer if she is a direct believer, you will not succeed, let's just say you have no leverage over the believer. Even logical and well-founded conclusions may not work here. And not because the person is stupid.

  44. Believers are not susceptible to logical arguments, otherwise they would not be believers 🙂 Go on the psychological side, try to understand why she needs faith, what she means by God. Many believers do not believe in God, but in the very idea of faith – that faith makes you better. Pay attention to the schizophrenic nature of this idea, the manipulative techniques, self-deception and substitution of concepts that it uses to believe. To do this, you need to promote it for a serious discussion, a real attempt to understand the issue, which is always difficult. As a rule, believers enter into an argument with atheists in order to shit on the chessboard and fly away with the firm belief that they have won.

  45. According to the theory of potentiality and theomism in general, it is impossible to believe in principle – you can only assume, because you can always be wrong in everything, even in what seems obvious and extremely clear. However, not everyone is ready to admit this, because not everyone is aware of it. But there are those who realize this, and at the same time pretend to believe. We call such people conscious pretenders: they pretend to be believers and realize that they are pretending to be believers, and they do it on purpose to benefit from it. It can be assumed that the entire so-called religious bureaucracy is a deliberate pretender. It is useless to argue with these pretenders, because they are actors, players-they understand everything perfectly, but they do what is profitable for them. But there are others-unconscious pretenders, most of them. They pretend unconsciously, they pretend to themselves as epistemologically neutral presupposing subjects. You can already have a dialogue with them. And you can start, for example, with this question: what if you are wrong? is it possible? or is it impossible? That is, in the end, it is necessary to show that they are pretending, just do not realize it. The proof in this case will be their awareness that they are unconscious pretenders. They need to realize that they are faking it, because they can be wrong-always and in everything, even in what seems obvious and extremely clear. So we assume.

  46. “What is accepted without proof can be rejected without proof” (c) Euclid. An atheist should not prove anything to anyone, since it is a stupid task to refute something that already has no facts.

  47. It's fashionable, of course, to give him a bunch of arguments, but what's the point? He already reads books, watches TV, and communicates with people. So all these arguments are most likely known to him for a long time, but he continues to believe, based on this, it can be understood that the subjective opinion of “this person has” a higher priority than the generally accepted facts and it is simply impossible to prove anything to him, just like almost any other believer. Don't waste your time and energy on it.

    I have never believed in God and have always denied him, but I will never prove anything to a believing person in terms of religion. He has the right to believe and if he thinks so, let him believe, this is his personal opinion. So I'm an atheist, but I don't prove anything to believers, and I don't advise you.

  48. That's what all the, sorry, crap comes from. That everyone is trying to prove something to someone. An atheist to a believer and vice versa, a straight man to a gay man, etc. Think carefully? Why does a believer need your opinion and evidence?As well as to you it. Faith is faith. That a person simply believes.

  49. You'd better prove to him that we all believe in God to some extent. Many people know that Einstein did not believe in God, but fewer people know that he did not believe in his personification. The great scientist adhered to the naturalistic version of God according to Spinoza.

    I'll explain. I believe that everything is energy. I believe in the Big Bang and the development of the Universe according to the laws of entropy, which later according to Hawking can(!) go to the reverse process, that is, the reunion of all the scattered parts in a Big Clap (on the last syllable), that is, the disappearance of everything back to where it came from. The God persona doesn't fit in with this worldview, and I can't bring myself to believe that the Big Bang is Mr. God's doing. I believe that energy controls everything. We are made up of atoms that have energy. So, for example, if we believe that something will happen and it happens, then it is not the Lord, but our inner energy that we concentrate to achieve the goal. I believe in love, good and evil. But I don't believe it was created by God.

    Can't you imagine that something can't have a beginning? Everything needs to be created? Well, I can. I just admit it. I realize that my brain and your brain are limited by the patterns of the world around us, according to which everything has a beginning, and initiated by someone. But many even mundane questions are beyond my control. What can we say about the creation of the world! Now, I believe in all the things that religious people believe in, except for one thing: God.

    Until this summer, I had a very confused idea of religion and the corresponding attitude towards believers. Communicating with my new acquaintances changed that. God is an incomprehensible spirit to them. And what is spirit? We can talk about the spirit of freedom, goodness, or the other, but this does not mean that we make it human. This is just a metaphor. According to many, God is the concentration or immaterial initiator of what is happening. To give you a better understanding of what I'm saying, change the word “God” in the previous sentence to “fate” or “omen”. We are less vehement in our denunciation of superstitious people, even though it turns out that we just have different names for the same thing. Differences in terms.

    But of course, most people stick to a personified God. Why? Someone does not think about it and remains with a narrow understanding. Social blinders in the brain play a role. But more importantly, I realized that God is the support, the father. That is, someone you can turn to for help in difficult times. Is it necessary to convince such people? Decide for yourself, but to think that on their own this belief restricts and makes them naive is naive and limited.

    P.S. My personal opinion is that Dr. Dawkins is very narrow in his views. I was embarrassed every time he gave his arguments, and disgusted when people clapped at his lectures. I'm a non-believer and I said so at first, but this one-sided attitude blows my mind more as a person of science, because it's like a discussion among teenagers in a bar.

  50. Why do you need to prove it? it's like trying to prove that red is cooler than green. Does his faith prevent you from living? If so, then you'd better get rid of his company, if not, then you don't need to prove anything. leave the person alone with their beliefs and THEIR outlook on life. If he wants to believe, let him believe, if you don't want to believe, don't believe.

  51. Be an adequate person,do not try to prove something wrong,do not deprive a person of a fairy tale in which he believes and relies,this is his own business.

  52. First, practice and prove that you are. That is, within the framework of scientific concepts, explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Then explain the reasons for the complexity of matter in the universe (the thermodynamic paradox of cosmology). After that, feel free to go on to prove that you are actually the pinnacle of independent evolution of matter and there are no gods.

  53. I remember the phrase from Beware of the car: “- All people believe. Some believe that there is a God, others that there is no God. Both are unprovable. Will you recalculate it?” My answer is no.

  54. I will still use the right of blood and answer the question with a question: why?

    Well, that is, let's say there is you, and there is a certain believer [let's call him Abu]. So, for example, Abu invited you to have a gin and tonic and watch the golf championship, and you agreed, but at the same time you did not go to the meeting to watch golf, but even with a firm and clear goal to prove to Abu that his God is unreal.

    And then you've already distracted a person from golf, put them on the dangerous path of a religious argument, and suddenly time stops, the unborn child of Confucius, Kant and Statham appears to you and begins to rub something there about how before you start rinsing Your brain, you have to decide for yourself what the fuck it is for someone.

    Personally, I see all possible answers to this question as follows::

    1) Educational goal. Stupid Abu, they say, is stuck in the Dark Ages, and you – it was you who had such a mission-are ready to lead him to the light of knowledge and science.

    But in order to enlighten, you need to know. And then the problems begin. First, you don't know about the non-existence of God, but only guess, and this already makes your enlightenment not so valuable – for example, the Inquisition at one time suspected that the Earth was still in the center of the system, and how did this end? Secondly, most likely, you are much less familiar with that very brilliant science than you think. I don't think you're a theoretical physicist with a passion for evolutionary biology and genetics and a Nobel Laureate in combination, right?

    So the option of enlightenment disappears.

    2) To save Abu's soul.

    Our Abu is an ordinary believer with no radical tendencies. He doesn't explode in the morning in fitness clubs, doesn't throw food at women, doesn't engage in self-flagellation (except for his own pleasure with a girl (or guy), but we can't judge him), so what can we save him from?

    Also disappears.

    3) Out of harmfulness.

    And here, by the way, there are no snags.

    Except for one thing: being mean is bad and useless, but that's not a reason not to be mean, is it?

    I think we've found the answer to Cantfustatem.

    So, now that you have already given an answer to the malicious ghost, and time is running out, it's time to answer the next question: do you still want to convince someone?

  55. The point is that you can't prove it in principle, even to a believer or an atheist.

    Faith is not supported by any facts, so the object of belief itself is unprovable and has a purely subjective character. Just because people believe in it doesn't mean that it exists, and it's just as likely to say that it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

    Useless business.

  56. If the presence or absence of God could be proved, then faith, as such, would disappear altogether. Instead of faith, there would be a firm knowledge that God exists (or does not exist). Atheists who believe that there is no God are basically no different from religious fanatics. Both of them have no proofs on their hands.

  57. To prove the absence of God, at the present time, it is enough to refute 2 points:

    1. The presence of a single branch of causal relationships in the universe (any event has a cause).

    2. The presence of life as a fundamental quality of the Universe (life is a volitional development from simple to complex).

    Note. I understand the universe here as the totality of everything that exists (whether it is material forms or ideal).

    Try it out. Your thoughts will be useful both for you and for the universe. If you think long enough, there is a chance that you will come to God in this way. Although there are a lot of ways.

Leave a Reply