29 Answers

  1. One can only make arguments in favor of the fact that some idea of God is logically contradictory. Here is a very famous argument from the contradiction between two divine qualities: omnipotence and omnipotence:

    !) If God is necessarily all-good, then in no possible world is he capable of doing Evil.

    2) If God is omnipotent, then he can do Evil.

    3) If God can do Evil, then in one of the possible worlds he is doing Evil.


    4) There is no necessarily all-good and all-powerful God.

    Some believers agree with this – and simply say that the omnipotence or omnipotence of God still has certain limitations that are included in the definition of these qualities. Or they argue otherwise: there are necessary, but never manifested qualities. God can necessarily do Evil, but never, under any circumstances, does He do it, because God is all-good.

    Etc. One view of God is contradictory, while the other is not. The other is correct. Well, the conversation ends there.

  2. I will try to answer a little differently than Alexander Zaitsev did, whose logic is impeccable. Opponents only have to declare that the incompatible are combined in a kind of “divine harmony”, which is akin to intellectual cowardice or unscrupulousness.

    My logical basis for the absence of God or any universal mind is based on the fundamental possibility of knowing the World, which is possible only in one case: when the world exists objectively, regardless of any will – rational or divine. It is this condition that becomes decisive in the epistemological (that is, cognitive) activity of a person.

    To understand this statement, it is necessary to analyze the concept of “reason”, which simply implies a combination of at least two qualities: orderliness and Will, in the broadest sense of the word. But then we must recognize that the Will can also change or change… a different order or essence of things. This means that it will never be possible for a person to know the world due to its a priori variability at the Will of Reason or God. In fact, this is not the case. We know the World as an objective reality precisely because it is neither created nor regulated by anyone.

    In other words, it is an old dilemma: if God creates a law, does he have to obey that law by virtue of defining the law as defining an entire class of entity or phenomenon? If God can break the law he has made, then there is no such law. And, on the contrary: if God obeys the law, then where is his divine Will by definition of the very concept of “God”?! Ergo-there is no god purely by the logic of accepted definitions.

  3. The question is ancient. I decided to answer it just now. The question goes like this: Can atheists prove thatIs God and anything supernatural logically impossible? – Gentlemen, please read the questions you are answering carefully! You are not asked to refute or prove the existence of God or supernatural nature. You are asked about the logical possibility of assuming the existence of metaphysics (in fact, it is metaphysics).

    There are different methods of cognition. The scientific method is not the only one. There is philosophy, there is a completely different conceptual apparatus and the concept of proof/refutation as it is in the natural sciences is absent. There is a concept of argument/counterargument. The paradox of believing in God is that it cannot be proved. A counterargument will appear for any argument. Poking science in here is like drawing water from a well with a leaky bucket.

    Even if we talk about the scientific approach of cognition. How then can scientists (schoolchildren should remember the chemistry course well) explain the emergence of matter from nothing? As you know, the lightest and smallest element is Helium (H). This element makes up 97-99% of all the stars in the universe. This element is constantly being added. How is it that where there was a single helium atom, several appear out of nowhere? Moreover, together with other atoms under high gravitational pressure, stars age and acquire metallicity (in astranomy, any element heavier than helium is considered under the metallicity tag), that is, other elements of the Periodic table arise: iron, nickel, copper, phosphorus, gold, etc.Spoiler: the Bible says that God creates from nothing. Somehow it turns out that way. Helium appears out of nowhere, and then other elements are produced from it. Science cannot explain this paradox. By the way, I haven't met a single atheist among astronomers. They are easier to find among biologists and mathematicians, I think.

    There is such a thing as the human brain. Everyone should sleep at least 6 hours a day. During this time, a person can dream. Most often, these are just flashes from the overload of the human brain – that is, the brain gives out to the human consciousness in a dream any unrelated nonsense. However, there is such a thing as prophetic/prophetic dreams and, here is a joke, they dream even to those people who are stubborn materialists. And they can't explain this phenomenon in any way. How can you see in a dream something that has not yet happened and even the prerequisites for this were not there. The question is rhetorical, or rather, science cannot answer it either.

    Yes, just like the chemistry matcha, and the features of human dreams, in fact, practically do not affect this topic in any way. However, in one way or another, they indirectly point to a hypothetical possibility of a supernatural nature. Metaphysics that science can't possibly study. And philosophy, too, in fact, can not, it just tries to comprehend it and does not deny it.

    The answer is that neither an atheist nor a believer can deny the hypothetical possibility of a supernatural nature. They can't claim to exist, but they can't reject the assumption itself.

    P. S.:

    I saw an ancient trick about a light/heavy stone and the Creator. Curiously, this mystery arose earlier than Christianity. And if you think logically, then before you ask it and somehow manage to prove / refute it, decide on the subject and object of the dispute, as well as on the characteristicselementssigns of the subject and object. Simply put, the puzzle is based on the material nature of solid objects. And not in space, but here on earth, where there is gravity and attraction. Imagine, but you can push a 10-ton boulder in space, for example, more precisely, it will push you, but one way or another, being so small and light, you will be able to influence its trajectory, which is impossible in conditions on Earth, that is, here with us. So you already know what I'm implying. This puzzle can be eaten by people who do not understand the matcha. People who try to talk about the metaphysical with material measures, and with measures that are peculiar only to planets like Earth. In short, this riddle does not apply to such personalities as God. Anyway, it's not about anything.

  4. This is a departure from the main issue.There is not a single proof of the existence of God, the soul, the afterlife, etc. The absence of evidence for the existence of God is direct evidence 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.

  5. No. You can only prove the existence of an existing object. To do this, it is enough to detect it. But if an object does not exist, or it is “located somewhere outside of space-time”, then in principle it is impossible to prove or disprove its existence. For example, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of fairies, elves, dwarves, quabrozyabra, Santa Claus, etc.But normal people do not need it. And in science, the principle of “falsifiability of theory”has not been invented in vain. If a theory cannot be verified, proven, or disproved in principle, then the theory is not scientific and scientists will not waste their time on it. For this reason, science is not concerned with ” the study of God or fairies.”

  6. Science forbids only one impossible thing – any violation of the laws of Nature.

    The laws of Nature are not all known and not absolutely accurate – this gives the impossible “yesterday” a chance to become possible “tomorrow”.

    The logical proofs here are inadequate and unproductive on the topic.

  7. It will be enough that people speak about God, about God, and in the name of God. Which is strange, given its capabilities(according to people). According to people, God is immaterial, omnipresent, and multi-faceted. I understood what it is your God is a Rumor. And the rumor is difficult to refute or confirm. But to support it (Hearing) is quite realistic, the main thing is not to spare money)

  8. Why atheists? Believers in God will also easily prove that everything supernatural is also supernatural because it is outside the laws of the world, i.e. it does not obey them, and therefore it is illogical.

    Logic comes from the word Logos, and Logos is the laws of the universe by which, according to the Bible, God created the world.

  9. God and the supernatural don't use the mathematical logic that all of humanity is hooked on. Therefore, the proof logic of atheists and believers is the same. I would also like to know what to prove and whose signature to certify.

  10. Oh, there are dozens of logic tricks. They may not be debunking the creator himself, but they are harshly attacking his main attributes.

    For example, the omnipotence paradox (see picture)�

    There is a good conclusion of Xenophanes, the ancient Greek poet. He wrote that if, say, horses and bulls became so conscious that they could draw, would they show the gods as human? Or still look like yourself. Xenophanes criticizes anthropomorphism and argues that humans created God in their own image, not he them. That is, in fact, they created God.�


    But all of them lose any power before the iceberg called “well, he's a god”

  11. If a good and all-powerful god suddenly appeared, he would immediately do the following::

    1) – destroyed hell and ended the suffering of souls

    2) – would cancel death

    3) – would cancel the pain

    4) – would cancel diseases

    5) – would stop the famine

    6) – would make violence impossible

    And many other good things, but since this did not happen while I am writing this answer, it means that there is no good god. But even if there is a god who can and will not stop evil on earth, it means that such a god is not worthy of worship, and is no better than Satan. And in general, a person should not worship anyone, because this is just self-abasement.

  12. Counter-question : who should I prove it to? Educated non-believers don't need to be proved, they are already on the side of atheists. Non-believers who are uneducated don't care, but believers, regardless of their education, are useless to prove. But it doesn't follow logic.

  13. “To say that God is not opposed to logic is to say that he is absolutely identical with it, that he himself is nothing but logic, i.e., the natural course and development of real things, in other words, that there is no God. The existence of God can only be meaningful as a negation of natural laws, hence this irrefutable dilemma: God exists, so there are no natural laws and the world is chaos. The world is not a chaos, it is ordered by itself-hence. There is no God.” Bakunin, ” FEDERALISM, SOCIALISM AND ANTITHEOLOGISM.” After his articles on this topic, I finally leaned towards atheism.

  14. Due to the fact that any gods have no place in any of the processes in the universe .Because each of them-the process is driven by a natural phenomenon .

    For example: rain – water accumulates in the atmosphere, there is a cycle .Did God cause the rain ? No .

    For example: Donald Trump comes to power in Russia after resigning from Vladimir Putin .Did God do it ,while the American state system has the function of influencing other societies from within societies .It certainly wasn't done by God .

    The number of such examples can cover everything in the universe .

  15. Can. But only to themselves or to atheists like themselves. They do it all the time. However, few of them studied logic, so their proofs are logical only for a limited circle of people.

  16. What's the point of proving something? Everyone will come to their own conclusion after a while, if I am an atheist and never prove anything to anyone. Especially without the herd anywhere, at least something holds back from the final moral devastation.

  17. If you mean that it is not possible to know the essence of God through logical thinking then I swami agree and as for the fact of the existence of God the creator it is provable by logic 100 percent

  18. Easy. God is omnipotent in all monotheistic religions. Does the almighty exist? No, because by its very existence it implies the negation of the laws of physics, and this is impossible, since these are the rules by which everything works, and their violation is similar to the violation of ordinary logic.

  19. It is possible to simplify atheism in the context of the question to scientific knowledge, and God to an abstract invisible omnipotent being. In science, the principle of induction is widely used, that is, we observe and draw conclusions from this. For example, there is Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it is impossible to say for certain that gravitational forces can be observed in the entire universe. However, until we encounter a system where the conditions we know are not met, this law can be considered authentic. With God, the opposite is true — he does not manifest himself in any way, and no one can prove that he does not exist if he does not exist, even the all-powerful atheists. And the burden of proof is clearly not on atheists. In general, there can be any number of Gods. My God is Night Zhor, for example.

  20. Atheistic mankurts, as the Marginal put it.. Most often, their conviction is based on arguments such as ” Did you see him?” And also, quotes from the public “Atheist”, well, in principle from a fifteen-year-old teenager who shines with youthful maximalism can not be taken away.�
    Arguments, more normal atheists have about the fact that there is a science and such a thing as” empiricism”, although it almost does not fit sideways here. Science cannot explain much, and many scientists were believers. Science can also be a path to God, so that gradually by making discoveries, we will come to the absolute.�
    You can also hit an atheist with the fact that if we didn't have hearing, we wouldn't know that sounds exist.�
    There are many doctrines about theology: Deism, apatheism, pantheism, Marxism, Ignosticism, Agnosticism, etc. And they all claim that there is a God, but what kind of god? You can read the wikipedia articles.
    Personally, I believe that it is impossible to prove the absence or existence of the absolute.

  21. It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of God. No experiments or observations will help either. After all, God does not obey laws and rules, and the believer will always say: the almighty did not want to be discovered, so he did not reveal himself to you. In the same way, of course, it is impossible to prove the opposite, that God exists.

    Science rejects the idea of God not because it is proven wrong, but because it is superfluous. In nature, in society, in man, there is nothing that cannot be understood and explained without involving the idea of a creator or a higher intelligence. Science (and the atheism based on it) simply does not consider the concepts based on mysticism and blind faith.

  22. If you start from the basic statements about a virtuous God, the highest morality, and take the holy scriptures as a basis – the only thing that claims to be true testimony about God-you can conduct a thought experiment.
    The model is as follows: an abstract cardboard box is taken meter by meter. Got it? Well done! Next, we begin to think about what exactly can not be in it – a real car, the Sun, the Amazon River, a billion stones or a dozen two-meter people. The list can go on indefinitely, as the number of things that can fit in this box is limited due to its physical characteristics.
    Next, we transfer the model with the box to our world, while keeping in mind only statements about a virtuous, omnipotent God and the holy scriptures. Our world is a box and on reflection, you can say that it is either absolutely not there, or most likely not.
    We see physics, a world that can be dissected in the laboratory, understanding how and what functions. We see a world where there is more bad than good, where there is death, starvation, murder, where religion brings more sorrow than joy, if you look at the entire chronology of its life. This discredits both the religion itself and the believers with their – We are for all good, religion is good, God is good! So are the holy scriptures and commandments that God (s) so diligently violate.
    Any (accessible) phenomenon with a clear, detailed, molecular analysis and research ceases to be inexplicable.
    About the supernatural, poltergeists, and voices in your head. All these questions, again, are answered in a detailed analysis by classical psychiatry, and this is confirmed by patients in psychiatric hospitals. The brain can perform unthinkable pirouettes in both visual and tactile-auditory aspects. This, in turn, is also confirmed by experiments with drugs, which expose the brain subject to changes and hallucinations of various types.
    I want to add the argument of Bertrand Russell's root causes to the pile, which sounds like-If God created everything, then who created God?
    I didn't answer the question clearly, but I threw some rhetorical questions into the fire, so you can figure it out for yourself.

  23. Yeah, everyone thinks they're so smart… And the logic is simple – if any object has a creator, then God created both the universe and man, it's just not profitable for people to recognize it. After all, if you recognize, then you need to obey him, and therefore not do everything you want. People are looking for convenient ways for themselves, but they miss the main thing – that the creator knows best what is needed for the well-being of his creatures and that he loves them. You don't have to be a genius to understand the FACT that God irrefutably exists!

  24. It is very easy to logically refute the literary interpretation of the Bible or other traditional religions. The earth is obviously not ~7500 years old, Adam and Eve were obviously not created directly by Yahweh (but created by mom and dad and so on up to the ancestors-monkeys and fish inclusive), etc. All this is simply demonstrated by science and is not questioned. Just as understanding the mechanism of lightning generation in the atmosphere refutes the theory that it is Zeus ' arrows.�

    But you can easily imagine a theory that simply cannot be refuted in principle. For example, if you say “God created the universe 7,500 years ago, but already in the state in which we observe it, i.e. with dinosaur bones decomposed in the ground, cosmic relic radiation, and other signs that the universe is much more than 7,500 years old.” This is already logically impossible to refute, which is why such theories are called irrefutable in science and do not meet the Popper Criterion, i.e. they are automatically unscientific.�

    In short, it is possible to refute the barabashka and the creation of man by Allah from clay, but it is impossible to refute the theory, for example, that Allah conjured the Big Bang, and then disappeared into the spheres of existence that are fundamentally inaccessible to us.

  25. Imagine that a person is not on Earth, then prove what you want.. . According to Liney, an analog of our Mendeleev, a person is an animal(animal). There is the human psyche and its quirks. There are a lot of social (herd, family)animals(insects). Scientific approach and criteria of falsity. Experiment..There are people who are psychos who don't agree that they are psychos..the behavior criterion). History of religions. Prove that the chicken or egg was “first”?;). Advantage of counterclockwise rotation.., blunt ends and pointy ends..). I know the answer , but why do you need it?))

  26. It seems that we have begun to forget what logic is. After all, from the point of view of logic, the burden of proof lies on the one who puts forward a hypothesis. In other words, believers must prove that God exists, and not atheists that he does not exist……..

  27. Gentlemen above (below) scoff at stupid amethysts, but in vain. I'll try to explain it in simple language.
    First, the wording of the question leaves many discrepancies. What is meant by God and the supernatural in this question? I believe that something that goes beyond the modern scientific method. However, it is important to understand that the scientific method is not exhaustive. Even disciplines that can be called “sciences” in the layman's sense of the word often fail to meet the criteria of scientific character formulated by Karl Popper. Moreover, these criteria themselves are not a panacea for all problems, because there is not a single piece of evidence (except for practical applicability) that would confirm that the world is generally knowable. Of course, the scientific method cannot describe metaphysical theories whose experimental refutation or proof is impossible.
    Moreover, there is such a layer of sciences called formal. In fact, they represent operating with abstractions that do not characterize reality in any way (and therefore are fundamentally irrefutable from a scientific point of view; Google also uses Godel's incompleteness theorem).
    So that's exactly why the question was written incorrectly. Concepts of the supernatural are not considered at all by science because they are irrefutable, which is caused by their incommensurability with experience. And it is impossible to” logically ” prove the (non -) inconsistency of a formal system, abstracting from experience, at least by Godel's theorem.

  28. God is not a logical subject. God is an object of faith. Because one of the parties does not have any arguments that are sufficiently weighty for the opponent, and the second does not have any counterarguments that would convince the first. Yes, and people are so arranged that they can turn a blind eye to objectionable facts, so all attempts to prove something to someone within this topic are absolutely useless. And why? Let people live with what they want.

Leave a Reply