Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 317 (420559)
09-08-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
09-08-2007 12:18 PM


Re: A - theos (negative God) = there is no God
Atheism and agnosticism are the exact same thing.
How can someone affirming that there is no God be the same as someone saying that they have yet to see any conclusive evidence either way? I've met agnostics leaning either closer to theism or atheism, but the very defining point about agnosticism is that its a tentative disposition.
I'm both. I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm a 6 on the Dawkins scale, like Dawkins himself. Like Dawkins I have no problem making the statement "there almost certainly is no such thing as God." A statement that I believe the evidence abundantly supports.
Agnostic:
Atheist:
    Why distinguish terms if its really just the same thing?
    It's hardly necessary to have perfect knowledge to come to conclusions about things, Indeed, if it were, science would be impossible.
    To be an atheist is to explicitly claim that there is no God. This is an absolute statement, meaning that the claim is certainly true. Many have no doubt realized the implications for making such a definitive claim. Now or days, it is virtually impossible in distinguishing an agnostic from an atheist. What I mean to say, is, their new interpretation allows them to still refer to themselves as atheists, because they now call themselves, ”weak atheists.’ Basically, this is an invented term that is no different from agnosticism, except that, they get to retain the coveted title, ”atheist.’
    Nevertheless, here is where the rubber meets the road: To claim, without reservation, that there is no God, leaves the claimant with the burden of proof to shoulder, not the theist. For the atheist to purport definitively that there is no God would mean that he has all-knowledge. If then, he has all-knowledge, he himself, would be God; and so he would actually nullify his own argument.
    For instance, if we were to categorically state there are no monkeys living in Peru, what would that take to prove? It would mean that we would have to traverse the entire Peruvian landscape. We would have to trek through the densest jungles, go through every residence, every business, every church, every school, and even every sewer. Every space, within the boundaries of Peru, would have to be sought out completely.
    Consequently, to prove this false, all that is required is to find just one monkey. If even one monkey is found, then the entire case against such is effectively dismantled. In addition, if he cannot complete the task, simply because he cannot exist in all spaces simultaneously, this also acts to discredit him. He then must concede that his statement is an assertion based on little more than guesswork.
    The same rule applies when speaking about God. Would it not then, be much more prudent to simply state, “With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God. I have no real reason to assume that God exists, and so, I will operate under the pretense that no such God exists. However, it is unprovable.” If he were to state this, he would then be an agnostic.

    "I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2007 12:18 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2007 1:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 32 of 317 (420560)
    09-08-2007 1:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
    09-08-2007 12:53 PM


    Re: A - theos (negative God) = there is no God
    “With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God. I have no real reason to assume that God exists, and so, I will operate under the pretense that no such God exists. However, it is unprovable.”
    But this isn't what we are saying.
    What I am saying is that with the limited knowledge that I have, I believe that there is no God. If there were a god, I would expect that certain evidence should exist, but I do not see such evidence. Therefore, I conclude that there is no god.
    As far as I am concerned, that makes me an atheist.
    Now, you may disagree with this the meaning of "atheist" if you want, but why should I care? It's what I mean by the word "atheist", and it's what the people I speak with mean by that word.

    I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2007 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by Jon, posted 09-08-2007 7:26 PM Chiroptera has replied

    subbie
    Member (Idle past 1255 days)
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 33 of 317 (420563)
    09-08-2007 1:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
    09-07-2007 6:25 PM


    Crack babies
    The response to your challenge, as others here have pointed out, depends entirely on what god(s) you refer to. If you postulate a god that lit his fart billions of years ago to create the universe then simply sat back and watched to see what would happen, but didn't interfere in any way, nobody can prove the non-existence of that god, since he wouldn't leave any evidence even if he did exist.
    If you postulate the typical fundy idea of god, created the world 6,000 years ago then rinsed it out killing everything save Noah and his group, this forum is rife with proof of his non-existence. If you postulate a loving, omnipotent, omniscient, just god, the existence of crack babies is enough to prove that such a being does not exist.
    You have to tell us what kind of god(s) you want us to disprove before we can even begin to give a responsive answer.

    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
    We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-07-2007 6:25 PM Jon has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 1:54 PM subbie has not replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 34 of 317 (420567)
    09-08-2007 1:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
    09-08-2007 12:53 PM


    Re: A - theos (negative God) = there is no God
    How can someone affirming that there is no God be the same as someone saying that they have yet to see any conclusive evidence either way?
    That's not agnosticism you're describing. That's ignorance.
    If agnosticism is the position that the existence of God is a question that cannot be definitively determined, and atheism is the position that the existence of God can (and should) be tentatively rejected, then I don't see the least conflict between those positions.
    Why distinguish terms if its really just the same thing?
    I don't know. We're a fractious group, us atheists. It's actually pretty hard to get us to agree on anything. I don't expect anybody else to fall in line behind me, but I can only tell you what I mean by the terms.
    To be an atheist is to explicitly claim that there is no God.
    Sure, in the same way that I claim there's not an FSM or invisible purple unicorns or a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centauri. These are all tentative conclusions based on reasonable evidence.
    This is an absolute statement, meaning that the claim is certainly true.
    I hardly think it is. And I hardly think that saying "I'm as certain as I can be that there is no God, but obviously there could be evidence that proves me wrong" constitutes agnosticism, since someone is asserting that they've arrived at the conclusion that there is no God.
    It's not absolute unless they explicitly say it is. You're just assuming implicit absolutism where none is implied. I'm comfortable saying that, to the limits of my current knowledge, there's no God. There is almost certainly no possibility that I'll be proven wrong.
    That's not atheism? That would get me burned to death in any time period before 1700 (as well as in most countries in the Middle East), and that's not atheism? Please. It's certainly not wishy-washy pure agnosticism, and it's obviously not theism. It must be atheism.
    For the atheist to purport definitively that there is no God would mean that he has all-knowledge.
    Not at all. If God as defined as all-present, then finding even one place where there is no God proves that there's no God anywhere. I don't need to look everywhere in the universe; by definition, God is either at all places or he's no place at all.
    Well, he's not here. Thus, he's nowhere.
    Consequently, to prove this false, all that is required is to find just one monkey.
    Right, which is why the burden of proof is always on those who assert positive existence. You claim there's monkeys in Peru? Show me the monkey, or your claim is unsupported.
    You claim there's God? Show me some God.
    Would it not then, be much more prudent to simply state, “With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God.
    Some people think that is the prudent course, and those people are agnostics, I think. I think you've hit on a reasonable way to distinguish between them.
    But here's the sticking point for me: "I cannot answer whether or not there is a God." I reject the proposition that you imply, the proposition that unless I have perfect infinite knowledge I can't come to conclusions.
    That's obviously false. I don't need perfect knowledge of every nook, cranny, and atomic space within the volume of my refrigerator to come to the conclusion that there aren't any monkeys in there. I don't have perfect knowledge of the contents of my refrigerator. I can't, offhand, list every item contained within. (For instance, I'm not sure how many yogurts I have in there. Four, or five?)
    But I can be very confident that there aren't any monkeys in there, for a number of reasons. I don't have to search it every minute to have that confidence. I can, indeed, come to a tentative conclusion about the non-existence of monkeys in my refrigerator, even though my knowledge is not perfect.
    Get it? We all operate from imperfect knowledge, every day. We come to very confident conclusions from imperfect or incomplete knowledge, every day, without being paralyzed. Some things, our knowledge is so incomplete that we really can't come to any likely conclusion, so we say "I don't know." But those occasions are few and far between.
    But suddenly God is mentioned, and suddenly it's like there's a special rule - God is suddenly the one thing that we can't arrive at any conclusion about whatsoever, unless we have perfect knowledge?
    That doesn't follow. Certainly the theists don't play by those rules. certainly the agnostics don't play by those rules for anything else, including spaghetti monsters and unicorns. I see no reason why atheists have to play by those rules in reference to God. It's just a way of hobbling atheists, as always.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2007 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 35 of 317 (420571)
    09-08-2007 1:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
    09-08-2007 1:26 PM


    Does even Deism make any sense?
    If you postulate a god that lit his fart billions of years ago to create the universe then simply sat back and watched to see what would happen, but didn't interfere in any way, nobody can prove the non-existence of that god, since he wouldn't leave any evidence even if he did exist.
    You are making an excellent point. And one can even add (and perhaps you're implying this) that such a "god" really isn't all that interesting -- I mean, other than forming the start of the universe, this "deity" has no other effect, so who really cares if such a being exists or not?
    But I still feel that it is possible to conclude that even such a being probably doesn't exist. If there was something that exists outside of space-time (whatever that means) and created the universe, including space and time, ex nihilo, then such a being is far beyond anything we can comprehend. It would, presumably take actions based on motivations that we couldn't even begin to understand. In fact, I would even say that we could not even recognize such a thing as a conscious personality. So such a thing could not be called a god in the sense of how most people understand the term: a conscious being. It would seem very much like, and, in fact, would be, some as yet indescribable force of nature (or whatever we would call such a thing that is beyond our universe). (I suspect that this may be what Dawkins meant in the iceage's quote.)
    Of course, it might be possible that such an entity does have what we would recognize as a personality, and, in fact, created the universe in such a way that beings with personalities (us!) like it has would arise. But that would seem to imply that such a being would have some interest in us, and so I would expect it to interact with us in some way. And in some way more that just inspiring a few people here and there into writing essays and morality plays that would eventually get assembled into a single incoherent and factually inaccurate book.
    Or is any of this even making any sense?

    I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by subbie, posted 09-08-2007 1:26 PM subbie has not replied

    AnswersInGenitals
    Member (Idle past 151 days)
    Posts: 673
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 36 of 317 (420597)
    09-08-2007 4:35 PM


    Let the words speak for themselves.
    Atheism: a - theism, without theism, i. e., without belief in a divine being. Rocks, clouds, and toenails are atheistic as they are amoral and asexual. And they feel no compulsion to prove their position on the matter. Agnostic: a - gnostic, without knowledge (usually, but not always, referring to direct or special knowledge of god). Rocks, etc. are also agnostic. I am, of course, ignoring Shintoism and many forms of Animism in these examples.
    OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
    Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

    Replies to this message:
     Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 09-08-2007 7:00 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 37 of 317 (420620)
    09-08-2007 6:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by kuresu
    09-07-2007 7:15 PM


    Ignorantium young skywalker
    Until the theist can show concrete evidence for god (they haven't yet, especially if you listen to rob's claptrap), the logical position is that god doesn't exist.
    Nope. It's not the logical position. It's your position.
    Logic doesn't make any absolute statements. It is an apparatus for sound inference, and showing unsound inference.
    Logic states that yours is an argument from ignorance.
    You claim lack of evidence for God.
    -- Who would qualify what evidences God? ( I am certain atheists and theists would have different qualifiers)
    As crash says: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence
    That's the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium, and it swings both ways, for the positive and negative.
    If there was some way to certainly pose what would evidence God, then Crash would be correct. But all we have is disagreement, and even if you go to the objective agnostics, they'll agree that there is no certain way to tell.
    If you find no evidence that Jack was the ripper, that doesn't mean he wasn't. If there isn't any evidence he didn't do it, that doesn't mean he did.
    HERE
    (please read the short link)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2007 7:15 PM kuresu has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 6:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 38 of 317 (420623)
    09-08-2007 6:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Jack
    09-08-2007 10:19 AM


    Re: the atheist challenge
    ...there is no evidence for the existence of god.
    But that is only to say that there is 'negative-evidence of yes-God', which is not necessarily the same as 'positive-evidence of no-God.' If the show is on Saturday or Sunday (where Sunday can be no-Saturday), and you find a paper that is 'negative-evidence for yes-Saturday' does that mean the same as 'positive-evidence of no-Saturday' (or, Sunday)?
    If the paper does not say the show is yes-Saturday, does it mean the same as saying the show is on Sunday?
    Jon

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by Dr Jack, posted 09-08-2007 10:19 AM Dr Jack has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 12:48 AM Jon has replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 39 of 317 (420624)
    09-08-2007 6:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
    09-08-2007 6:30 AM


    Why focus on God?
    Because, such is the nature of these forums.
    If you consider yourself agnostic with regards to Santa, Vishnu, Leszi, Odin or Buffy the Vampire Slayer then that's fine - but I don't.
    But, having no proof for either yes-existence, or no-existence, wouldn't the most honest position be that you cannot really know?
    As I understand the definition I am an atheist since I affirm the nonexistence of god with the same force I affirm the nonexistence of any supernatural being. I also reject theism.
    That makes you fit the definition. I can't name any prominent people, because I really don't pay attention to 'famous' or 'well-known' people.
    I do not need evidence of God's nonexistence to affirm his nonexistence with this strength.
    What strength? The strength of a 'positive affirmation of X', where X = 'non-God'? Does someone who lets X = 'God' need proof? And if they do, why the Hell don't you?
    Jon

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2007 6:30 AM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 41 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2007 7:00 PM Jon has replied
     Message 49 by subbie, posted 09-08-2007 9:39 PM Jon has replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 40 of 317 (420626)
    09-08-2007 6:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
    09-08-2007 6:17 PM


    Re: Ignorantium young skywalker
    Logic...is an apparatus for sound inference, and showing unsound inference.
    Basically correct; to be more precise, an argument is a set of statements called premises and a statement called a conclusion; an argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever all the premises are true; and the rules of logic gives a procedure to determine whether the argument is valid or not.
    -
    As crash says: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence
    That's the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium....
    No, it's not. It's easy to construct a valid argument that proves that something does not exist.
    A widget has properties a, b, and c.
    Properties a, b, and c give rise to phenomena x, y, and z.
    Phenomena x, y, and z are not observed.
    Therefore, widgets do not exist.
    This is a valid argument. As crashfrog has pointed out, this is exactly the procedure you use (perhaps not consciously) to determine when milk does not exist in your refridgerator.
    This is a valid argument. Of course, it may still be unsound because the premises may be false, but that is a potential problem with each and every attempt to construct a logical argument to prove something.
    Edited by Chiroptera, : Some minor editing for clarity and flow.

    I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2007 6:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2007 10:38 AM Chiroptera has replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 41 of 317 (420627)
    09-08-2007 7:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 39 by Jon
    09-08-2007 6:35 PM


    But, having no proof for either yes-existence, or no-existence, wouldn't the most honest position be that you cannot really know?
    Yes - and that is the position I take. I take the same position with Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Celestial Teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns and God. If you think that can only be called agnosticism, so be it.
    What strength? The strength of a 'positive affirmation of X', where X = 'non-God'? Does someone who lets X = 'God' need proof? And if they do, why the Hell don't you?
    The strength I referred to was the strength of my disbelief in God which is equal to the strength of disbelief in Santa and the toothfairy. I also can say the same thing for X ='God' - for I positively affirm the existence of God with the same strength as I do Santa.
    If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to back it up if they want me to believe it or if they want to use their belief as the reasoning behind policy decisions.
    I, on the other hand am only suggesting that I don't think that God exists any more than any other unfalsifiable entity with no positive evidence for it. Nobody finds this reasoning problematic for most entities that could be put forward, though most people make exceptions - special pleading.
    The underlying question in an atheists philosophy is 'why should I believe?" and, considering the successes of the sceptics outlook - and the failures of the gullible, decides to disbelieve unless moved otherwise. Why? Because it helps prevent us from believing things which aren't true, which can be dangerous.
    Do believers need proof? Not at all - as we can see. However, I think for, our own safety and well-being we should demand proof if they want to do something like blocking medical research based on this belief.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by Jon, posted 09-08-2007 6:35 PM Jon has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by Jon, posted 09-08-2007 8:13 PM Modulous has replied

    Fosdick 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
    Posts: 1793
    From: Upper Slobovia
    Joined: 12-11-2006


    Message 42 of 317 (420628)
    09-08-2007 7:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 36 by AnswersInGenitals
    09-08-2007 4:35 PM


    Re: Let the words speak for themselves.
    AIG wrote:
    Atheism: a - theism, without theism...
    But there is no ideological "-ism" to the "athe-" prefix . What could it possibly mean?
    ”HM
    OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
    Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-08-2007 4:35 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 43 of 317 (420631)
    09-08-2007 7:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 32 by Chiroptera
    09-08-2007 1:02 PM


    Re: A - theos (negative God) = there is no God
    Now, you may disagree with this the meaning of "atheist" if you want, but why should I care?
    No, I do not disagree with that meaning of Atheist in one bit. Thanks to Mike for linking to a source that was able to better-explain what I was trying to say. Atheism is 'positive-conclusion of no-God'.
    By the way; no Atheist has yet successfully answered the challenge of 'positive-evidence for no-God.' So, far, all they've given are arguments to ignorance, excuses as to why they don't have evidence, or pleaded that they are not required to give any. Does any Atheist have evidence to support their position?
    Jon

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 1:02 PM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 8:42 PM Jon has not replied
     Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 1:17 PM Jon has not replied
     Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2007 1:46 PM Jon has not replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 44 of 317 (420635)
    09-08-2007 7:42 PM


    Back on Track
    Would people please stop replying to me as though I think we should all just believe in God until there is evidence to the contrary? That is not what I am arguing, and that is NOT the topic of this thread!
    The topic, to define it again, is for ATHEISTS FITTING THE DEFINITION GIVEN BY WIKIPEDIA IN Message 1 (which I have decided to simply refer to as 'Atheists') to GIVE EVIDENCE that supports the position given in the Wikipedia definition; which is BELIEF AFFIRMING THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD, which I have abbreviated as 'positive-belief in no-God'. Now, anyone who does not have anything to post of that nature, please, cease posting in this thread. I am not interested in your excuses, arguments to ignorance, or comparisons of God to Santa, or Buffy.
    Thank you,
    Jon

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2007 8:36 PM Jon has not replied
     Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 09-09-2007 9:09 AM Jon has not replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 45 of 317 (420637)
    09-08-2007 8:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
    09-08-2007 7:00 PM


    It is so very hard to figure out what exactly you are professing to believer, or, not believe.
    my disbelief in God
    This says: 'negative-belief in yes-God'.
    I affirm the nonexistence of god
    This says: 'positive-belief of no-God'.
    So, which one is it? Do you 'negatively-believe in yes-God' or do you 'positively-believe in no-God'?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2007 7:00 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2007 8:33 PM Jon has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024