Find whats wrong with this: To prove god exists, it is sufficient to prove the stronger proposition that...?
540389
It is assuming the existing part.\n\nit's like the famous "I think therefore I am"\nThat actually is a horrible place to start because it assumes the 'I'.\nA better start is "Thought exists" then work your way to the I.\nSo saying that existing god exists, is like saying the blue bird is blue.  You can't make the verb exists into an adjective, existing, and think it doesn't need to be justified.
245200
Proof by contradiction: Assume A or B.\n\nIf not B then not A\nalso not C (because of not B) so neither A nor C which contradicts our assumption. Therefore B.
329366
it is impossible to prove a negative.  One cannot prove the non-existance of god just as they could not prove the non-existance of WMD's in Iraq.  The lack of evidence against something in both cases is not evidence of it's existance.
1135655
Well, the answer depends on what you mean by prove/disprove.  It is impossible to prove anything absolutely. This is because anything that you think that you know may be contradicted by something that you don't know at the time that you think that you have proof of that thing being true.  Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a flat earth are examples to consider.\n\nHowever, it is possible, in the 'normal, everyday' meaning of prove/disprove to prove the existence of something.\n\nIt is however impossible (logical thought dictates) to prove that something does not exist. Just because you have not found evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist: a round earth, before this was 'proven' by measuring shadows at different locations, for example.  However, it is reasonable to have significant doubt if many focused and well-meaning, rational people have tried but failed to prove that something exists.\n\nThus, it is easier to prove that god exists, if god does exist, than it is to prove that it does not exist, if it does not.\n\nBeing that many well-intentioned, focused, and rational minds have been unable to prove (in the everyday meaning) the existence of god, I recommend being highly skeptical of claims to the contrary, until some day in which solid proof is found.\n\n(Of course this above paragraph depends on your definition of god; and there are so many.)  \n\n;-p
561804
Without a shred of proof?  There is MUCH more proof that there is a God than you would imagine.  The evidence is overwhelming, actually.  I tell you what, if you can convince me that it is more logical to believe there is no God than that He exists, I'll change my beliefs.  Are you willing to accept the same challenge?
1131537
How convenient.  "You shall know I exist by those who ask whether I exist."\n\nThen again, your question is generalizing and is thus pointless.
686883
"Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause." \nWhy do you say this?  As you should know, absolute statements are frequently wrong.  Still, I can roll with this.  Okay, for the moment I'll play along and say that everything must have a beginning.\n\n"Only God is self-existing without beginning, without a cause outside Himself." \nWhat?!?!?!?  What about your statement above?  Can't you see that you totally contradict yourself?  You have just violated logic and trashed your own argument.  Sigh.  If everything needs a beginning, then so does a creator.  If you make an exception for a creator, then you could also make an exception for the universe.\n\nWhere is your evidence for either of these two statements?  Where is your evidence for a creator without beginning?  I think you are trying to avoid falling into the "Who created the creator" question, but skirting the question does not eliminate it.\n\nOccam's Razor:  which is the simpler theory?  A universe without beginning or a creator without beginning that created a universe?\n\nI hesitated answering this question because I felt that you merely asked it to find someone who agreed with you, and that you would choose that as the "best answer".  I didn't want to screw up my best answer ratio... but thought it more important to show you the flaws in your logic.\n\nGood luck in your Q&A's.
318833
Religion isn't based off of proof.\nIt's based off of faith.
194536
The premises in argument 1 are valid, but the conclusion is unsound. The premises do not support the conclusion. Premise 1 does not effectively establish that "teaching and helping" is a quality limited to persons. Therefore, it cannot be concluded from the premises that electricity is a person.\n\nArgument 2 is also valid in premises but unsound in conclusion. Again, neither of the premises establish that teaching and helping is an ability that only persons possess. The conclusion obviously falls apart when we consider the alternate conclusion that is equally unsupportable by the premises: Therefore, persons are the holy spirit.
915923
None. \n\nTHERE IS NO PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.  \n\nBut there is evidence EVERYWHERE that He DOES exist. \nWe see God in all that there is. There is evidence of him in all cultures. Some differ on who and what He his. But throughout history man of all ages and all cultures acknowledge a god. \n\nOne may not agree with all the natural things that point to God, all the history that points to God, all the people that point to God.....yet, and still, there is at least SOME evidence in these things to ANYONE that there is a god.\n\nWhen you weigh both sides, it  takes a fool to not believe in God.\n\nVirtually all our great leaders and presidents alike acknowleged God.  Our forefathers and foremothers, even the immediate fathers and mothers of of those that don't even believe in God; they believe(d) in God. \n\nConsider all the religeous scholars throughout the ages even unto this day, all the songs and hymns that have been written concerning God, etc. We could go on and on.  They don't all agree on many principles, but, they ALL agree that He is.  Somehow, all of these people are nuts and a few dim souls with enough free time to float around on Yahoo for several hours a day think they KNOW that God does not exist! I THINK NOT.  \n\nOne thing is for sure, some of them, before they die will come crawling to the God they denied;  the others will die wishing they had.\n\nIf we that believe in God are fools; then let it  be known that their ancestors, even mothers and fathers where even bigger fools.  Many of those that lived and died before us where fools.  Because they also believed.  But praise be unto God; they where not.\n\n"believe there's no proof"  . vs.  "believe the written testamonies and evidence everywhere"\n\nIt's a persons choice, but it takes a BONAFIDE FOOL to side with "no proof".\n\nThere is no "burden of proof" on anyone that believes in God to prove it to ones that do not believe in Him. The belief in God is ones OWN burden. Everyone only has their own burden to decide to believe or not to believe. \n\nI have no responsibility to prove Gods existence to anyone. Neither does anyone else have that responsibility.\n\n\nPeace
112461
Aha! The liar paradox rears its ugly head again....\n\nThe asnwer is - neither true nor false. The propositional content and the semantic content of the statement contradict each other.\n\nTo unpick this paradox, you have to separate the statement from the proposition it contains. \nNote that the proposition has a positive truth value - it claims that "[yadda yadda] IS [bladiblah]"\n\nNow...\n\nIf the statment is true, the proposition that it contains is rendered false, leading to a self-contradiction.\nSo [This statement is false.] is false.\nBut if it is false that the statement is false then the proposition it contains is rendered true, and again the statement is rendered self-contradictory.\n\n(Repeat ad nauseum)\n\nIf you got that, ponder this one. It's a doozy:\n\n"This staitmennt contaynes three mistakes"
1180756
when you break it all down, nobody can prove or disprove god's existence. \n\ni find it strange that ppl can be so single minded when it comes to this topic. some ppl are perfectly willing to believe in something that has no proof, and when others disagree with them, they cant fathom how anyone could be so stupid. \n\nand others that dont believe in god because theres no solid proof,  they cant fathom how anyone can believe in something that has no evidence (even though theres no evidence god DOESNT exist. the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence)\n\ni mean, i've never seen a billion dollars. prove to me it exists. well, i'm never going to have a billion dollars in my possession, so i dont have to believe in it right? well, that doesnt mean its not out there. and i've read a book about a cat in a hat and some green eggs and ham, but that doesnt make it true. and just because the bible says the bible is true, doesnt make it so. i mean, i can kill someone and then write a book about how i didnt do it, but thats not proof i didnt do it. \n\nbut i think the idea of faith is that you can connect with something you feel on the inside, feeling that you belong to something greater than what we understand in this world. and thats a powerful thing, whether its true or not. its easy to have faith when all the answers are right in front of you, but anyone thats read the bible and really thought about it objectively knows that the bible doesnt give you all the answers. and it wasnt meant to, it was meant to teach ppl how to be good ppl. but thats the whole idea, trying to be more than what we are, trying to be better. having faith takes something inside. \n\nand i can understand that an atheist would reject this idea, because they truly believe theres not a god as much as the god worshippers believe that there is one. so really ,they're doing the same thing, they're sticking to their beliefs and what they feel inside. \n\nbut we'd all be much better off if we stopped trying to convince each other. if we all realized that both sides are doing the exact same things from opposite sides of the coin...... lol, well.... its a pointless debate.
1173293
Since there is no proof either way (pro or con) an athiest has chosen one of 2 logical positions.  He just has chosen one that differs from the "believers".  His decision has no more or less merit than those who choose god.
490129
Valid point.  At the very best, if proven, any argument for a deity can prove "god".  I use a lower case "g" on purpose.\n\nAll the arguments for god (which, by the way, were derived by Aquinas from the pagan greeks) at best, only prove a deist creator.  None spell out a specific "G"od, much less Yahweh.\n\nThis is all despite the fact that centuries of rational thought have exposed the glaring holes in these arguments.  Nevertheless, as I said, even if they WERE rational arguments, the only "prove" deism, nothing more.\n\nSo we arrive at the same standpoint most people are anyway...is the God Yahweh?  Jesus?  Buddhah?  Allah? Native American Corn God?  Arguments for ID and a creator prove nothing about religion.\n\nJefferson and Paine were both strong deists, who bought every argument these theists could throw down about the existance of God (though great men both, not their strongest positions, in my opinion.)  However, both men abhorred Christianity and theism in general.\n\nArguments for "g"od get you absolutely nothing, and leave people exactly where they were before, choosing their own deity.\n\nThat is why the bible has nothing to do with proving "g"od.
902713
no...if it were possible there wouldn't be these fun debates on yahoo answers..gotta love some of these answers though lol..stuff exists..that means gods exists..nice!..and the ever popular..can you prove he doesn't....burden of proof is on the believer
503041
"Think about it, you have to acknowledge that there is a god (higher power) for you not to believe in, right? In that case, wouldn't you be agnostic?"\nTHAT MAKES NO SENSE, SHOULD I SAY: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS, IS THAT BETTER?
1082718
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved. It is a matter of belief, not of science which is only concerned with provable events.