How to counter this religious argument?

Question

''You can't prove that god is fake''

I seem to run into that argument alot and usually i have no god answer but still i want to pull my hair of my head because that argument sounds so stupid. So please, any good counters?

Answer 1

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Answer 2

The question leading to the answer is in fact illogical, and the proposition carries a sense that proof of nonexistence of something is irrelevant, as the object doesn't exist.



The reason it is illogical is because if a being exists before all creation, the anything that would amount to proof is a creation, and cannot prove or disprove something that exists outside the continuum of reality, as we know it.



Rather than proving or disproving God, which is impossible, perhaps one would be better served to respect and understand God.

Answer 3

Of course you can't prove that 'God' doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that Santa doesn't exist, but it's a pretty same bet. The point is it is not up to the disbelievers to prove nonexistence, to for the believers to prove it does. You wouldn’t use the argument that you can’t prove the nonexistence of the Loch Ness Monster so therefore it must exist. It’s the same with ‘God’. So far the believers have totally failed.

Answer 4

The person using that argument can't prove God exists.

Answer 5

You don't counter it, you agree with it. A true statement in itself is not a valid argument. You should realize that the burden of proof isn't yours.



Edit: Assuming god does not exist is religion no more than assuming the Easter Bunny does not exist is biology

.

Answer 6

If the 2d while a soul enters an embryo is unverifiable, then does no longer that be a controversy in want of no longer killing the infant at any point of the being pregnant? As on your 2d element, if a controversy is a valid one then what distinction ought to it make if it comes from a spiritual source? If the argument is a good one and is agreed with via society, then it particularly is source is purely no longer revelant. additionally: If it’s okay to take a human existence simply by fact “the element at which abortions ensue, there is not any frightened device function, meaning no soreness”, then wouldn’t it additionally be okay to kill a 5 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous newborn as long as you anaesthetized him first? And If “Banning abortion finally leads to women loss of existence in back alleys, that's why we made it legal in first place. we've already seen this happening back in states the place abortion has been banned.” Then On that foundation shouldn’t we provide drug addicts loose pharmaceutical grade drugs lest they harm themselves with black industry drugs of unknown purity. And we would desire to constantly hand out deadly injections to those who prefer to homicide human beings to make it safer for the murderer as different tactics of killing carry an superior threat of the killer additionally getting harm? “ because no one has ever proved a soul even exists, the finished argument is invalid.” ok, then substitute “human existence” for “soul” and then argue that human existence is of free of charge. “An embryo is not extra alive than a cancerous tumor. Are you against maximum cancers scientific care?” maximum cancers has an identical cost as a human existence? “ harm alleviation courses have shown 60% shrink of injection-appropriate HIV, 70%+ shrink in overdoses, and a 35% improve in addicts entering rehab. secure practices and information empowers human beings.” - so as a substitute of discouraging some thing that's erroneous we would desire to constantly purely make it safer and enable them to choose for it? “Killing an autonomous being isn't comparable to a woman's physique pushing out some hundred random cells interior a sparkling membrane.” - thank you, that become precisely my element, the ingredient that's beong killed isn't quite a number of cells, that's a human existence! “human beings such as you are the real scum of the earth and could be compelled to stay in all the painful slavery which you want upon women.” I’m sorry for you in case you have faith that having a infant is painful slavery that's compelled upon you.

Answer 7

You can't counter the argument because the statement is true. Science cannot evaluate all aspects of reality. To assume that God is not real is just as religous as to assume He is real.

Answer 8

I can't prove that my socks aren't being stolen from the wash by an invisible magic imp.

Answer 9

"True. So what? You can't prove that God exists, and that's easier."

Answer 10

* Can you prove that he's real?

* I don't believe in anything nobody's ever seen.

* Two words: SCIENCE



These three work for me when my catholic friend tries to convert me.

Answer 11

It is absolutely wrong that GOD is fake..science and GOD are correlated to each other