Science Forums 2

[ughaibu]

Sanctus: I disagree that it's impossible to prove god's nonexistence.
I dont think that it's required to inspect everything, as god is claimed to have been relevant to humans for thousands of years. This relevance requires interaction, so, an inspection of all known classes of entities defined as existing seems sufficient to me.
I also dont think that the variety of definitions is a problem, as all definitions have common features.
It's pointed out, in the posts that you linked to, that nonexistence is god's default status, so it's not necessary to prove nonexistence, it's only necessary to successfully challenge proofs of existence. However, as belief in god is an essentially irrational activity, there's not much to be gained either by discrediting proofs of existence or by constructing proofs of nonexistence, except that it's fun and a good proof can be beautiful, which is reason enough for me.