9 Answers

  1. Duc like for a long time smart people understand everything) Especially for those who are interested in history and know that humanity had more than 3 thousand gods. Why do you need to prove something to someone?) The evidence is already there – those who need it will understand it. But such evidence is already opposed by many people-it is convenient to keep people in line with religions.

  2. Atheists cannot prove that there is no God. This is due to the fact that believers are silent, for example, about what limited place there is no God. The range of this place, for every believer, is very wide: from the heart, to the entire space of the Universe.

    To prove that there is no God in the heart, it is enough to transplant the heart of any fan of faith to an atheist, and vice versa. I am 100% sure that each of the two will remain on their own.

    But to prove that God is somewhere in the universe is already impossible for anyone, because it is considered infinite. And this is what believers use.

    It's all about the location of God. Now about him.

    All believers do not have a single idea of what God looks like in detail. So… in general terms…, some vague idea that has nothing to do with material form and composition. They don't want to go into the details. Just have a God and that's it!

    Since believers initially claimed that there is a God, the burden of proof is on them. And atheists can only listen and agree or disagree. Atheists don't have to prove anything at all!

    Proof is hindered by the fact of believers that ” God is invisible.” This seems to answer the question ” Why can't we discover God?” But what is meant by the word “invisible”? No, this invisibility does not apply to air, radio waves, or micro-organisms (everything that can be seen by instruments)… It turns out, as believers are convinced, that there is an invisible world that is inaccessible to any devices.

    But then it turns out that “God is invisible” is not an explanation, because the word “invisible” also needs to be proved (that there is such a fact).

    From all this, it becomes clear how unrealistic it is to put an end to this issue.

    But to the question: “What happens if people can prove that there is no God?”, the answer is unequivocal. Nothing will happen. See how atheists live in a time when they don't deal with religious issues. Work, household, family affairs, recreation, entertainment, etc. are almost the same as the majority of believers in the hours when they do not pray. But this is from the point of view of atheists. Believers, on the other hand, will most likely begin to frighten with terrible consequences for the whole of Humanity. So the answer to your question depends on whose point of view you choose.

  3. The question is incorrect, but if you answer it directly, the answer will be: yes, nothing will happen.
    Most will simply ignore some regular (British) “scientists”, others will come up with a counter-argument, most likely completely incorrect, but again-who will care? Still others will simply invent God 2.0. Checkmate. Atheists!

    The point here is that the very concept of faith in God is beyond common sense and rational thinking, it is too human, and people are irrational beings .

  4. When proving the personification of God (such as “grandfather on a cloud”) it will be presented in a different format. If it is proved that it is not possible in any personified form, it will be presented as an absolute abstraction.

    For example, when debunking the myth of building a world in 7 days, adherents of Christianity together cling to, you won't believe it, Einstein and claim something like “what is 1 day for God, a million years for man”. When debunking the creationist myth of world-building in general, adherents go together in the direction of “god built the world out of the Big Bang”. Etc.

    This is because people have feelings: fear, the need to make friends and be loved, finding oneself in a certain community that is close in beliefs, kinship, language, and other parameters, the need for protection from those adversities and troubles that the subject is not able to fully solve with his own strength and mind. That is, a person tends to look for a community to communicate with and try to shift responsibility for their actions and decisions to someone who can't take it back. In such a role, “fate”, “lot”, “coin”, “voice from above”, “god” and a lot of other options often appear.

    Also, in a religious community, you can get psychological support from a priest-leader, or simply discuss issues of interest to the community and other gossip. This also includes man's need for a hierarchy higher than his own: man needs a carrot and stick, a guide.

    A critical person can easily find a substitute for all this, explain any phenomena and resolve any situations. Because he understands that he is responsible for his own actions, it is stupid to be afraid, and no one will solve his problems except himself.

    However, one age-old question remains unresolved: “And why, exactly, do I live?”. But this is-in a personal sense, everyone is able and obliged to answer for themselves, and in a general sense-the answer has long been known: we are all just really smart primates who once realized that sugar allows us to develop the brain and improves mental activity, and we are no different from other mammals in any special way.

  5. Author, your whole idea is based on two sayings? Or on the research of a dozen homegrown psychologists? The phrase “religion was born as a crutch” can only be used by a completely incompetent person in matters of early human history (starting from 50-30 thousand years. Study the phenomena of shamanism and animism, where they originated, and if you do not become a convinced shamanist yourself, then you have not understood anything 😉

  6. It is worth correctly understanding the meaning of religion for many people. First of all, I will say right away-yes, I will continue to believe in him. And then I will now analyze exactly why and why, and whether I believe in God in general

    The whole point is that religion is not a stupid and blind thing about ” There is a God, I said so. I believe in it simply because it exists.” Religion, like any other phenomenon, has its own specifics and purpose. The question lies only in the plane of this destination for the believer. If a believer, as in the example above, believes in God simply because “well, there is a God” – yes, then perhaps his faith will be shaken. However, as one of the smart people said, ” It is simply impossible to find a more selfish phenomenon than religion. Only people could think of such a thing – you have to love yourself so much that you can believe that even after death something good is waiting for you.”�

    It doesn't matter who you believe in, how you do it, or what helps you do it – in the vast majority of cases, a believer has a purpose for faith. This can be a consolation, an attempt to overcome the fear of death, an attempt to overcome yourself, a desire to feel some kind of support when this support is not there. There is one good phrase: “Religion is like a crutch. For the lame, there is support and support, and for the walking, there is a stick in the wheel.” Therefore, even if you prove scientifically that there is no God (and you will have to prove a lot of different things, because not everyone believes in God), then those in need will always find some other motivator. Atheism is not a motivator, no matter what anyone says about it. I've seen dozens of atheists who were complete idiots, just as I've seen fierce religious fanatics whose faith has replaced their brains. Of course, my words about any motivation do not apply to such people. A very small number of people can simply set a goal for themselves and follow it, while the rest will find themselves some symbol or idol. In the case of your question, this symbol will be a religion, which will not be affected by the proof of the non-existence of God.�

    Prove that there is no God – people will begin to believe in the forces of nature and man, like Buddhists and Taoists. Prove that these forces do not exist – people will start to believe in some other forces. A person is too small and weak to feel like the king of everything in any situation. Take the symbol away from it, and it will come up with a new one. Take this one away and he'll find a talisman. Deprive a person of the talisman – he will begin to believe in something related to himself-luck, luck, fate, whatever. Again, I'm not saying that everyone will do this , but many will. Therefore, treat religion more simply and less aggressively. It doesn't try to supplant science, it doesn't try to prove or impose anything on you. It just gives you an alternative view of the world that you use, if you need it, or not

  7. people don't necessarily believe in God because his existence is proven. The reason for faith is that without God, the world looks too threatening, meaningless, and sudden. It is the fear of the unknown and the natural desire to find a purpose and justification for everything that makes people believe in God.

  8. According to the theory of potentiality, God, like any other entity, is actually impossible, i.e. he never was, is not and will not be, but he is potentially possible, hypothetically as an ontological possibility that is in a state of eternal potentiality, or, if we speak purely epistemologically, as an eternal assumption, hypothesis. And yes: no one believes in anyone and cannot believe in anyone – everyone always just assumes, and sometimes even consciously or unconsciously pretends that this is not so. So we assume.

  9. Since absolute proof of the existence of God or absolute proof of his absence is impossible in principle, I would change your question a little:

    What would be the world in which science would receive convincing (but not absolute) evidence for the absence of God?

    I can answer this question – this is the world we live in at the moment.

    I'm much more interested in what the world will be like when science gets convincing evidence for the existence of God. But that's a completely different question, right?;)

Leave a Reply