Surely it isn't rationally possible to positively negate the existence of Go

Question: Surely it isn't rationally possible to positively negate the existence of God!?

i would say:
atheists are irrational!.
agnostics are rational!.
and theists are suprarational!.

(I'm a theist)Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Agnosticism is the only truly objective perspective one can take!. Its only the beginning of empiricism!.

A universal negative may be impossible to prove!.!.!. but failure to prove atheism doesnt prove theism!.!.!. just as failure to prove theism doesnt prove atheism!.

Further, I accept quite rationally, mind you, that if theism is true then belief in it can reinforce itself!. That faith can yield personal, non-communal, non-tangible experiential evidence to its validity!. Being someone not of faith and open to the experience, I cannot argue that theism is blind or unprovable - just unprovable to those without faith, which is consistent with tenet!.

Agnosticism just means you dont believe proof can exist!. It doesnt say anything about where you place your faith!. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist!.

Even in Christianity, God wants people to believe in Him via faith, not via rational, objective, empirical evidence!. There is a difference between faith and knowledge!.!.!. and Christianity explicitly says that faith is not only emphasized, but that God created the universe never to prove nor disprove his existence through reason and tangible fact!. God wont prove himself to us directly, but neither will he shape our world to contradict that existence!.

Being that is it is, no unbiased atheist can make any logical claims one way or another!.!.!. nor can a theist!. Any true Christian should by definition also be an agnostic, if they are to keep to their religion!. Just as non-agnostic atheism is in actuality anti-theistic bigotry!.

No true atheist can lay claim to knowledge of Gods non-existence and retain an objective, unbiased respectability!. Making such grandiose claims would only be blind faith, as no proof does exist!.

Every logical argument and science, both in favor of theism and in favor of atheism, are always flawed, bigoted, ignorant, emotional, rhetorical, etc!.!.!.

I dont think theism is rational or irrational!. Nor do I find atheism rational nor irrational!. I do, however, think that blindness is irrational!. Closing oneself off to possibilities that have yet to be disproven is not rational!. Anti-theism is blind, as are those who are obsessed with dogma!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

An 'atheist' is somebody without a belief in god/s!. Since there is no reason to believe the positive statement 'god exists', then atheism (even if it is agnostic atheism) is the most rational stance!.

Being rational means being able to put aside your personal convictions!. How many people would be religious if they were able to put aside their religious upbrining!? Probably significantly less than there are now!. For most theists, the only reason they believe in their religion is because their parents and society have taught them to believe it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It's not possible to prove or disprove the existence of god!. So it's a matter of what each person chooses to believe and what that effect has on ones lifestyle!. I would suggest, though, that enormous harm has been caused by belief in the supernatural!. John Adams said "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws!."Www@QuestionHome@Com

It isn't, as you put it, ' rationally possible to positively negate the existence' of anything!. If you ask me to rationally disprove your irrational belief, of course I can't do it, but then again why should I!? You're the one with the irrational belief, you prove it!. If someone has a belief in something, be it God or fairies, that doesn't have any evidence to support it, it can't be proved by rational argument that the object of belief either exists or doesn't, or could exist or not!. Atheists aren't irrational, they are merely trying very patiently to point out that there is no hard evidence for the existence of God, and if they occasionally stray into dodgy territory by asserting that God does not exist, they are merely matching the irrationality of those who say that He does, and it is only with the same certainty that they would say that fairies, unicorns, werewolves, shapeshifters, ghosts, trolls and the three billy goats gruff don't exist either! And I think they can be forgiven their frustration with agnostics and theists (particularly theists) who are either too cowardly or too comfortable with their hedged bets to go the distance and state that, on all available evidence, God does not exist!. As for positively negating the existence of God, it really is up to the believers to come up with either a rational argument that proves His existence, or some hard evidence!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I believe you mean,"Absolutely negate the existence of God"!.!.!.
But I'll answer anway!.
What you would say is Wrong because they are gross generalisations based on perspective!.So,I'll disregard it!.

I,personally, am a deist existentialist!.I believe that a God exists but has no part to play in my or the lives of the people around me granting me absolute free will and responsibility for my actions and their consequences!.This took me a long time to realise!.

What would you categorise me as!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'm a little confused by the question (it's not really a question) actually!. Are you asking if the existence of God can be denied or are you asking to prove that God doesn't exist!?

Neither of these can be accomplished conclusively by being "rational"!.

Atheists base their belief on reason,
agnostics don't know and
theists have been known to use logical arguments!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

You're right in that proving a universal negative is impossible!.

That having been said, you should know that the fact that atheist is unable to be proven is not itself evidence of theism!.

As far as who's rational and who's not, you would think that, wouldn't you!? You're a theist!.

Someone else could just as easily say that opposite!. Saying that doesn't really contribute to a philosophical argument!.

EDIT: Christian, REALLY!? God exists as plainly as a square has four sides!? Why does 10% of American call itself "atheist," then!? Are they unable to count to four!? And if it's so obvious, why are so many scientists athiests!?
You're putting all your eggs in the "Ontological Argument" basket!? No wonder you think it's so white-and-black - you're buying into an 900-year-old argument which confuses mental categories!.

-JohnWww@QuestionHome@Com

Agreed!. At best there are inductive arguments for God's nonexistence, mostly centred around the problem of evil and perceived imperfections in our world (the purportedly deductive forms of these arguments are easily dispatched with a Leibnizian theodicy)!.

On the other hand, there is a fantastic deductive argument for the existence of God !.!.!. the ontological argument!. And we all know that deductive arguments always trump inductive arguments in terms of strength!.

God exists as plainly as a square has four sides, or a married bachelor is impossible!. That's all there is to it, unless you're a radical (Humean) empiricist and embrace the almost pyrrohnian scepticism that seems to follow!. But even then, you can only be at best a weak atheist, and are probably agnostic!. However, I firmly believe that rationalist atheism is untenable!.

Edit: John -- Perhaps the intuition of God's self-evident existence does not come as quickly as the other intuitions I mentioned - but all three are of the same kind !.!.!. analytic truths!. Enough careful examination of the concept of maximal perfection inevitably yields the conclusion the God is a necessary being!. Once that intuition is clearly and distinctly perceived, it is as though one has been "pulled by the hair and made to believe" !.!.!. the intuition will seem as obvious as any truth of mathematics!.

Don't feed me any crap from Kant!. Existence itself may not be a predicate, but necessity assuredly is!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

A few day ago someone made an assertion that - God does not exist - in response to this I offered them following line of logical argument:

There is a logical dilemma that makes the rendering of this statement as a fact in truth entirely impossible!. In order to deny the existence of something, or anything, you have to define that thing first, so that it can known exactly what is it that does not exist, which in its own right is but a conundrum!. The fact in the grasp of the mind is that anything that does not exist at all has no need to be negated from the existence as that something simply could not be mentioned at all in any way!.

You can however put forward your opinion as to redefine the concept of God according to your understanding, but you cannot deny His existence in the mind!.

I can give just one last allowance of credibility to your assertion and that is if God has created all that exists then it is possible that God Himself does not exist as a Being confined to a limitative existence, or simple He does not exist, as He being the creator of entire existence does not need to exist in order for Him to be!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

let me, a spiritual atheist, attempt to do that for you based on what I believe -

since 'that which is responsible for all existence' may be completely separate from existence and not within it all then 'not existing' i!.e; not being 'in' existence could quite easily be one of it's properties

In short the cause need not exist: Either because existence is a subset of it and thus it is too big to fit , or the casue and existence are mutually exclusive!. I have not yet personally ventured outside of existence so can't advise further as to which, if either, it might be!. but at this point due to non existence not denying its effect all existential properties of 'it' have to drop away so you can't refer to 'it' as an 'it' anymore as 'its' all exist!. you then are presented with an event an occurence greater than or at least a contemporary to existence!.

I think that counts as rational positive negation of the existence of the 'reason for all existence'!. It is admittedly based on semantic twisting of the word existence reducing it to mean all of the space/time continuum - but hey that's what my intuition draws me towardsWww@QuestionHome@Com

I do not understand why there is always so much focus placed on classifying a person be his or her beliefs!. It should not be of any ones concern what another person believes in!. It seems to me that these types of discussions are simply aimed at discounting another individuals beliefs and values!. People need to focus on themselves as opposed to everyone else around them!. Every person should be allowed without contention to belief in whatever or whomever they like in order to live the best life possible day after day!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

People have and will do negate the existance of their creator, until they finely meet up with him/her!. Too bad those who have met up with him, are not around to tell us about it, but then those who know there is no god, are not live to tell us about it either!. So lets just leave the topic, till we do MEET him, and then if possible TELL THE WHOLE WORLD who was wrong or right!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I would be a very irrational atheist and a spectacularly sad loser if I spent my life disbelieving all the things that others spend their lives believing -

It doesn't quite work like that -

I'm doing other things- thinking other thoughts!. What others believe is not my business and doesn't interest me!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

can't so called prove it one way or the other!. i do not know why people keep trying to find logical or rhetorical proof!. It's not one of those things!. The only proof is in actual experience!. For that, the various hardcore yoga disciplines exist!. I do not men hatha yoga!. I mean raja yoga mainly, or kriya yoga, but ultimately it boils down to a combination of karma yoga, raja yoga, jnana yoga, and bhakti yoga!. a lot of preaching and reading the scriptures and church going and speaking on tongues and seminary training do not do the trick at all!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

May be in your rationall!. However let take this further!. If it is rational to believe in a god then which god!? Should you believe in them all!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes you are wright!.
I wouldn't go any further, for we are all searching for the real truth of which none of us is really sure about!.

Thanks for askingWww@QuestionHome@Com

One can but try!.!.!.

mx know it all!.!.Do we have to die before we meet with God!?!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com