Can you disprove the Existance of God?

[DrJames]

If a believer requires no proof then his belief must be based on faith rather than logic and no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic.
__________________

Romans 8:16 (KJV)
The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

1 John 5:10 (KJV)
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

The saint need no proof because they had the witness within themselve that God existed and know him.

Logics cannot bring you to God, logics cannot even help you to find a good woman. ahahahahahhahahah

Job 11:7 (KJV)
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

[blueyedwonderki]

Originally Posted by Rob_Roy_Kowalski

No need. The burden of proof lies with you.

*ahem* The burden of proof always lays with the one who is trying to prove something. He is not asking to be allowed to prove there is a God because to him there is definitely a God. He is asking if you can prove there is not one. So, since he does not, himself, wish to prove that there is no God, the burden of proof cannot lay with him. It's an invitation to show your own proof, if you care to, it seems to me

I couldn't read it all though, I must admit. I'm too too tired and ill to try today. Plus it seems a little inflammatory and I don't think religion should be argued - discussed yes, argued never.

[DrJames]

The person who is saying God do not exist must be the one to prove it.

I do not want any prove. The burden of proof is upon the challenger, ask any Judge are aturney at law.

[Rob_Roy_Kowalski]

Originally Posted by blueyedwonderki

*ahem* The burden of proof always lays with the one who is trying to prove something. He is not asking to be allowed to prove there is a God because to him there is definitely a God. He is asking if you can prove there is not one. So, since he does not, himself, wish to prove that there is no God, the burden of proof cannot lay with him. It's an invitation to show your own proof, if you care to, it seems to me

Perception, as is often the case, is everything. Your perception here would appear to be that, as Dr James has asked the question, "Can you disprove the existence of God?", the burden of proof lies with non-believers to do so.

Your perception is flawed however, as the burden lies with the person claiming that something exists, when no positive evidence can be provided.

You may believe that the Yeti, The Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot exists. Surely though you would accept that the burden of proof would not lie with someone else to prove that any of the aforementioned does not exist.

You cannot prove the non-existence of something. You can only prove the existence with factual evidence. Until someone does that for me with regard to a "God", then I will continue to find the whole idea preposterous in the extreme.

Please also remember that I have never created any thread questioning the beliefs of anyone on here. Dr. James creates many threads pushing his own beliefs, and must therefore accept contrary views when expressed.

If the subject matter is in any way inflamatory, then that is down to the Doctor and no-one else, as he seeks to preach rather than discuss.

[DrJames]

He is asking if you can prove there is not one. So, since he does not, himself, wish to prove that there is no God, the burden of proof cannot lay with him. It's an invitation to show your own proof, if you care to, it seems to me

[ANDY-J3]

Firstly don't be caught out by the subtle and deliberately disingenuous wordplay of the religionists-they try and shift the burden of proof by requesting that non-believers provide evidence to disprove the existence of God,although it should be understood that Dr.James is not arguing for the existence of God-that is for theists. He is arguing specifically for the existence of the God of Christianity with all of his human characteristics which is an entirely different thing. Be aware that the unbeliever need not provide any evidence-disbelief requires no proofs and weak atheism is the default position.The correct response to the question "can you disprove the existence of God and his creation" is, " no I can't but then I don't have to,whereas if you wish to convince others that your beliefs are valid you do have to provide proofs to support them". Whether those proofs bear up to scrutiny is another matter.

[Rob_Roy_Kowalski]

I agree entirely with Andy and, as can be seen from Dr. James' preceding post, he continues to avoid the issue with smoke and mirrors and convoluted counterpoint. These are the classic signs of someone arguing a case for which they have no concrete evidence and no star witness. Ask any Judge or Attorney at Law.