It is not possible to prove non-existence in principle.At most, you can conclude from existence through close reasons that something cannot exist, for example because this alleged existence leads to contradicting the existing.
There are two separate questions in this area:
- Believe you in God (yes/No)
- Exists God (yes/no/no idea)
The question “Do you believe in the non-existence of God…?” pulls these two together.
The reason why I set this up is because the question “believe you” is a question of introspection, and the question “exists” is a question of extrospection.
It is possible that someone believed in God, but at the same time has no idea if God exists.It is also possible that someone does not believe in God, but has no idea if God exists. That’s the interesting thing about faith: it’s based on non-knowing. One who sees God can be called as unbelieving-how weird this also sounds. For seeing replaces faith, non-knowing is replaced by know.
The number of people claiming to see God-and who for that reason do not believe in God-is very small.The number of people who do not claim the existence of God-in any way-is also very small. The non-existence of Chaos and Gaia-the “Oer gods” from Greek antiquity-is almost unproven, but the number of people believed in the existence of Chaos and Gaia is almost nil.
Rejecting a specific interpretation of God (Chaos/Gaia, God as presented in the Bible or Koran, Aten, Vishnu, Baal) is already a lot easier.As some atheists say to someone who believes in the Abrahamic God: I believe in one God less than you.
And usually there are “proofs” for it.
With this you see that the question “does God exist?” Actually needs a special “is this specific interpretation of God?”, whereby the specific interpretation can be replaced by Baal, Aten, Vishnu or the Bible/Koran God.
From this perspective, I am going to answer the question:
- Do you not believe in the existence of Vishnu, or can you prove that (the non existence of Vishnu)?
I do not believe in the existence of Vishnu, but can not prove this
- Do you not believe in the existence of ate, or can you prove it?
I do not believe in the existence of Aten, but can not prove this
I can go on, but the message is clear.
But now I’m going to become more specific:
- Do you not believe in a God who has waterlocked the whole world less than 10,000 years ago, or can you prove it?
There is sufficient scientific evidence that less than 10,000 years ago, there has been no global deluge.
- Do you not believe in a God who has made the Earth less than 15,000 years from scratch, or can you prove it?
All scientific evidence indicates that human life has existed for much longer than 15,000 years, and that life on this earth has been dating back much longer.
These are enough proofs for me to reject the version of God where people who take the Bible (and Koran?) are literally rejecting and not talking about “I do not believe in the existence of this version of God”.As said before: Seeing replaces faith, that also works the other way.
The more general and vaguer the definition becomes, the harder it is to prove the contrary.Chaos and Gaia are a good example, the description/definition is so that they are not visible or become. But the more specific the definition, the simpler it becomes to prove the contrary.
The relevant question I now have in response to this question is:
What “God” do you mean exactly when you ask, “Do you believe in the not existence of God or can you prove that (not exist)?”
Which God?No idea what you are talking about. Define your God and we can talk about it.
In my opinion, there are no gods.Reason: There is no indication that it would be so, the logic is that there is none.
At the same time, I cannot prove that, but that is not my task either.Christianity claims the existence of God, Islam claims the existence of Allah, the Vikings claim the existence of Thor, Wodan, Tir, Freya,… So basically they have to prove that they exist and not vice versa. When I say that unicorns exist, I also have to be those who will have to show that those creatures are walking around here and not vice versa.
As far as arguments for existence are concerned, you could argue that man is a spiritual being and has always been through evolution.Man seeks meaning and that is a need (Maslow). Without purpose, perspective, one would be a lot fatalistischer. That is problematic as a human being. After all, We live a mystery. When one desires something very much and also when one is afraid or ill one goes to pray. Call it a glance to throw up, towards universe etc. The belief in the existence of a supreme Being is good to meet that need. But it turns out that in addition to religious, spiritual persons and Buddhists can make their need for meaning without indicating a supreme being. More a philosophical life institution. In short Depending on the brain of a person and of his prehistory, Environment, studies (nature, nurture so), a man will be spiritual or atheist. Thus fighting is against the idea of the so-called existence of a God. So you can conclude that the energy for spirituality lies in each of us, just like the survival instinct. (Tesla; Everything is energy, vibration and frequency). Or that you are now linking a God, or a natural creature, or a doctrine or a way of doing it, which is a unique ‘ choice ‘ or consequence. One can start about legalities like how big was the chance of a Big Bang etc. But in any case, besides our instincts, we have a kind of soul or intuition that demonstrates spiritual necessity. Something that is not fed into our society as we hear to be productive and docile and usually not critical and inquiing. Childish purity is quickly dismissed as naivety. Is that the same? Or are we just naive when we stay sheep? Our own nature must depart for commerce. For capitalism. But well, they are just a few think pists around the dogma faith. Just as we cannot prove that we are waking up the day after, we will take it. But well, there are also black viewers and hypochonders. There are also negationists and flat Earth adherents. There is quite a lot. The universe still has many secrets and mathematical and ethical issues. And good too because we would abuse them for your own gain. Look at the environment… Ethics and faith are both sensitive when you live in an individualistic system. Fortunately, every right is in his opinion. And that is why I can hope that the God of fine-grained religions does not exist. But that’s a value judgement of course…
God can best exist only the religions that have a kind of patent on that notion are not very convincing.And there are religions that do not even have a God.