Redlyn:


Of course he can't. Nonexistence cannot be proven. Let me give you an example. The entire universe is riding on the back of an invisible turtle. Can you prove the nonexistence of this turtle?

Why do people demand the impossible.

In reply to the question above:
I will confess I was startled by the question above, nevertheless, I was able to put myself to order, in order to see to the solution. I must say that I've seen a question like this before but had no second thought of it. I understand this question to mean that you think man invented God, therefore He doesn't exist, consequently, needing no proof.
Jesus himself made it known that the kingdom of God was hidden from the wise and revealed to babes. I had once pondered over this statement. Does God hate the wise? Does he hate those that are able to think that he hid the knowledge of his kingdom from them? Now the solution is clear to me that the wise became vain in his search, he left the clear proofs within his reach and searched for the abstract, thereby becoming vain in his imaginations.
The most difficult thing to do in life is finding proof to what needs no proof. I have seen a book that took ages to write, whose sole aim was to proof that differences exist btw men and women, even mad men will laugh at this. What really went wrong? It was because the simple, undeniable evidences which are clear to all wasn't good enough for him, he therefore went after frivolities, searching for differences till none existed.
I therefore ask you, does nothing exist? I asked an American atheist this question and he replied no. He said nothing is a mere imagination by man, created by man and therefore doesn't exist in logical sense. Then I replied him: If you are in a court and you are asked to give evidence against the defendant and you have 'nothing' as evidence, won't you pay for damages? If you are searching for your diamond wristwatch and you find nothing, won't you cry? If you are searching for a very important document and you find nothing, are you not finished? If you were almost arrested for drugs but the police found nothing on you, won't you be happy? Wherefore did you say nothing doesn't exist?
Can we then say nothing doesn't exist because we have no proof? Can we say it doesn't exist because science can't demonstrate and proof that nothing exists? Can nothing with this so much effects it has on us be discarded? O foolish atheists! The same can be said of God, since science can't proof the existence of God, can we then say He's our mere imagination? Can we then say he doesn't exist, even when our heart, our beautiful and intelligent environment points to him? The proof of God exists around us but as we tend to be 'wise' and go vain in our imaginations, instead of embracing faith. We move to a state in which no proof exists and if it does, it would be inconsequential and incapable of satisfying the insatiable mind of the 'wise'.

Here's a further example of the sort of foolishness you can get into by referring to "nothing" as if it's an object:

"What is nothing? Macbeth answered this question with admirable concinnity: “Nothing is, but what is not.” My dictionary puts it somewhat more paradoxically—“nothing (n.): a thing that does not exist.” Although Parmenides, the ancient Eleatic sage, declared that it was impossible to speak of what is not—thereby violating his own precept—the plain man knows better. Nothing is popularly held to be better than a dry martini, but worse than sand in the bedsheets. A poor man has it, a rich man needs it, and if you eat it for a long time, it’ll kill you. On occasion, nothing could be further from the truth, but it is not clear how much further. It can be both black and white all over at the same time. Nothing is impossible for God, yet it is a cinch for the rankest incompetent. No matter what pair of contradictory properties you choose, nothing seems capable of embodying them. From this it might be concluded that nothing is mysterious. But that would only mean that everything is obvious—including, presumably, nothing." (From one book like that by Jim Holt)

I'm not aware that anybody was seeking for proof of the absence of anything, which is what nothing refers to. It is evident that there is something. You don't need science to know this. Similarly, the question of God's existence is not one which we have to wait for science to answer. I'm not sure science can even answer it. The absence of scientific proof of God's non existence is not proof that God exists. I agree with you though that it doesn't mean that God is imaginary.

The same logic that tells us that something exists also fails to convince me that there is a God. I think it does not convince you either, otherwise you would not speak of faith.

finofaya:
Here's a further example of the sort of foolishness you can get into by referring to "nothing" as if it's an object:

"What is nothing? Macbeth answered this question with admirable concinnity: “Nothing is, but what is not.” My dictionary puts it somewhat more paradoxically—“nothing (n.): a thing that does not exist.” Although Parmenides, the ancient Eleatic sage, declared that it was impossible to speak of what is not—thereby violating his own precept—the plain man knows better. Nothing is popularly held to be better than a dry martini, but worse than sand in the bedsheets. A poor man has it, a rich man needs it, and if you eat it for a long time, it’ll kill you. On occasion, nothing could be further from the truth, but it is not clear how much further. It can be both black and white all over at the same time. Nothing is impossible for God, yet it is a cinch for the rankest incompetent. No matter what pair of contradictory properties you choose, nothing seems capable of embodying them. From this it might be concluded that nothing is mysterious. But that would only mean that everything is obvious—including, presumably, nothing." (From one book like that by Jim Holt)

I'm not aware that anybody was seeking for proof of the absence of anything, which is what nothing refers to. It is evident that there is something. You don't need science to know this. Similarly, the question of God's existence is not one which we have to wait for science to answer. I'm not sure science can even answer it. The absence of scientific proof of God's non existence is not proof that God exists. I agree with you though that it doesn't mean that God is imaginary.

The same logic that tells us that something exists also fails to convince me that there is a God. I think it does not convince you either, otherwise you would not speak of faith.

You must agree with me that your argument on nothing is inconclusive to be conclusive and inconclusive to be concluded. Here is a link on scientists(physicists) argument on nothing, neither could any go home with victory. I enjoyed the conversation by trying to replace nothing with God http://m.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html


I have actually argued for the existence of God, using something more that I've used nothing. You can have this link, though I know you must have come across it, you can still go over it because it is short and straight to the point https://www.nairaland.com/2010775/absolute-proof-gods-existence


On the use of faith, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. No dictionary has a definition as perfect as this, anything the Bible touches, It touches with class. A lot of people are allergic to faith because they don't have access to this definition. The God of Bible did set good presidents with his mighty works and HIS love for a well dated history(GOD OF HISTORY) and also HIS prophecies which are expected of HIM, which doesn't make HIM look like a fairytale, following HIM through faith is not that foolish, is it?

Misogynist2014:
You must agree with me that your argument on nothing is inconclusive to be conclusive and inconclusive to be concluded. Here is a link on scientists(physicists) argument on nothing, neither could any go home with victory. I enjoyed the conversation by trying to replace nothing with God http://m.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

The debate is not about whether nothing currently exists, but about whether it is possible for nothing to exist, and the exact nature of such nothingness; is nothingness empty space or is it a quantum vacuum or is it a closed spherical spacetime of zero radius? Is it something other than the above? Are there physical laws in such a state? Etc. Everybody is agreed that a state of nothingness is incompatible with us and the billions of other things in the universe so we take it that are not currently in a state of nothingness.

If you replace "nothing" with "God" in that article you end up with the question "is it possible for God to exist?", which is quite different from "does God exist?". I'm sure your purpose here is to show that God exists, not that his existence is possible.

I have actually argued for the existence of God, using something more that I've used nothing. You can have this link, though I know you must have come across it, you can still go over it because it is short and straight to the point https://www.nairaland.com/2010775/absolute-proof-gods-existence


On the use of faith, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. No dictionary has a definition as perfect as this, anything the Bible touches, It touches with class. A lot of people are allergic to faith because they don't have access to this definition. The God of Bible did set good presidents with his mighty works and HIS love for a well dated history(GOD OF HISTORY) and also HIS prophecies which are expected of HIM, which doesn't make HIM look like a fairytale, following HIM through faith is not that foolish, is it?

There are so many arguments for and against God. Of course you probably adopt all the arguments for God's existence. Proof is another matter entirely, which you have made even more complex by invoking faith. When you say faith is evidence, I want to know whose faith is evidence of God.

Obviously it can't be my faith, since I lack faith and if I have faith I don't need evidence. So it has to be another person's faith. Now this other person, whose faith provided the evidence for him? We can go on like this until the last person, at which point the proof of God will no longer be faith. The reason for this is that this last person, being the first person whose faith convinced another person, must have gotten his own faith from some other type of evidence.

What is that evidence and why can't we have it instead?

Calling faith evidence of God is just a big merry go round.

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not asking for proof of God.

Lol, the op said that Jesus himself made it known that the kingdom of god was hidden from the Wise and revealed to Babies.

Tell me something, @ Misogynist2014- so ur god chooses to hide himself from the Wise but waste no revealing himself to babies who knows nothing only to run away when those babies become wise.

Hmmm na wa for this ya god o! His very funny.