Is it ever really possible to prove or disprove the existence of God?

[lmnop9876]

What do you think? Is it possible to prove or disprove the existence of God using human arguments or reason?

On a related note, Is it possible to prove or disprove the existence of any abstract concept such as love?

 

[emmzee]

Generally speaking, I'd give an answer of "no" for both. It's not possible to conclusively disprove God's existence because it's impossible to disprove a universal negative (I believe that's the correct way to state it, though I could be incorrect), whereas conversely since there is no agreed-upon conclusive deductive proof for God's existence. (If there were, all people would be theists.) All arguments for God's existence are then either inductive or are deductive but where the soundness of one or more of the premises is in dispute, and so the arguments become probabilistic in nature.

That said, it is still certainly reasonable to believe in things that we cannot "prove" with 100% certainty, and in fact most of the things people believe cannot be proven with absolute certainty.

(Note that I have no formal training in philosophy so please ignore my probably imprecise terminology.)

 

[Hammster]

I suppose it would depend on what people will accept as proof. God has proven Himself to me, and I can make arguments for God, but will everyone accept that as proof?

 

[BrianN]

If you can prove love, then you can prove God; and vice-versa.

 

[lmnop9876]

If you can prove love, then you can prove God; and vice-versa.

I agree, and I often say to people, Do you believe in love? Do you believe that love exists? Even though you can't see it? The only proof you have of the existence of love is the experience of it in your own life. It is the same for God. The only way to prove that God exists is to experience His influence in your own life.

 

[BrianN]

Well I would say that one can see love; it is like God: one can choose to see the beauty in life, the quality of family and the purity of children, like the love of God.

To answer your question though, there are some who believe that to "prove" God's existence is not possible, and a waste of time - that is reliant on faith. Catholicism believes in the proofs of Aquinas as "proof" of God. And to disprove God's existence, many resort to complicated logic. I personally believe that it is a matter of faith and personal choice, and I see the love of God in children everyday, and that makes me a better person and proves that God is truly love.

 

[DailyBlessings]

If it were possible to prove God's existence, everyone would believe in him- for surely, in three thousand years of ontological philosophy, someone would have thought of it by now! But, I like things better the way they are. Many suffer, but all are free, and Christ has offered himself to cover the distance.

 

[Solidlyhere]

It's quite easy to prove the existence of God.

Just die, and you will have proof ... one way or the other.

 

[Dannager]

I agree, and I often say to people, Do you believe in love? Do you believe that love exists? Even though you can't see it? The only proof you have of the existence of love is the experience of it in your own life. It is the same for God. The only way to prove that God exists is to experience His influence in your own life.

Not to burst any bubbles or anything, but we can actually identify the brain patterns associated with devotion and affection using imaging. So we actually can directly observe love.

 

[Hammster]

Not to burst any bubbles or anything, but we can actually identify the brain patterns associated with devotion and affection using imaging. So we actually can directly observe love.

Is it love you are seeing, or what happens in the brain when someone loves? Can you stimulate that portion of the brain and make someone love something else? Can you make a brain love someone unconditionally? I doubt it.

But, if that was proof, then I can look to the 100+ billion of galaxies and prove God.

 

[Simonline]

What do you think? Is it possible to prove or disprove the existence of God using human arguments or reason?

On a related note, Is it possible to prove or disprove the existence of any abstract concept such as love?

No. It isn't (at least, not in the absolute sense). That being said, of all the explanations regarding the origin of all that exists, the Judeo-Christian explanation is the one that can be demonstrated to be the most reasonable and internally consistent (in spite of professor Richard Dawkins' absurd protestations to the contrary).

Simonline.

 

[BrianN]

Not to burst any bubbles or anything, but we can actually identify the brain patterns associated with devotion and affection using imaging. So we actually can directly observe love.

You can directly observe the effect of love on the brain.

 

[tulc]

...I bet you could make a lot of money if you could prove either one.
tulc(who can indeed prove love: Mrs.tulc kisses me first thing in the morning, WHILE I STILL HAVE MORNING BREATH! if that isn't love I don't know what is)

 

[re:pit]

You need to define something before you can prove it.

I think defining both God and defining love are impossible.

Love cannot be defined because it is not absolute, because it is an emotion. As it is something to be experienced it is a different thing to different people. It can only exist in the context of the person experiencing it, and thus only defined by the person experiencing it.

Perhaps the same can apply to God.

 

[durangodawood]

God and love are defined through experience.
.
Strange that almost everyone experiences love, but not so with God.
.

 

[Armistead]

That's why we operate on faith, we can't prove God.

 

[BrianN]

God and love are defined through experience.
.
Strange that almost everyone experiences love, but not so with God.
.

Well, God is love; some may argue that experiencing true Christian love is to experience God, neither is more difficult than the other.

 

[GoodNewsJim]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1Corinthians 19 The scripture says, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars." 20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness! 21 For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called "foolish" message we preach, God decided to save those who believe.

God himself can prove he exists. He did it with many of the figures of the Old Testament like Moses. God proved to me that he exists:www.faithclub.net.

So I know God exists. I preach that Jesus is Lord. And I tell people I know this is a fact.

I don't get bogged down in debates very often because I know for the most part they're useless. God said skillful debaters are foolish. Where does that leave not so skillful debaters?
[/FONT]

 

[light_eclipseca]

I think that Scripturally speaking, it is possible to prove the existence of God. If every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father, and every person that bows their knee and confesses that Jesus is Lord actually believes that Jesus is Lord, then it follows that the existence of God will be proven to every human being. This is arguing from Scripture, and I am only stating that if Scripture is true, then it is possible for the existance of God to be proven as fact; or everyone will be convinced at least.

 

[light_eclipseca]

Only a litte to add:
Keeping this in context, Paul was referring to the Platonists and Pagan mythologies and to the Jewish ideals that God could not be a man when he refers to God calling their wisdom foolishness. God disproved all of these things in Jesus Christ. The smartest men could not have guessed that God's way of salvation would not come through philosophy but through the revelation of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. It needed to be revealed to them the hidden wisdom of God. Paul did not use philosophy in convincing them about Christ; but used powerful miracles and signs. This is not to say that skillful debators are useless; it was only to say that skillful debators could not forsee God saving humankind in the manner that He did. It was to show that in all of their wisdom, they did not know the King of Glory. However now that we have the revelation of Jesus, we do also have many cinvincing proofs of Christ's status. Lots of apologetics books out there. Lots of refutations. Nonetheless, arguing has never caused anyone to enter the kingdom of heaven I still maintain, perhaps because the Father is the one who draws, not arguments. This could be a way that He draws them though.