|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proof for God's Non-existance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
In fact, I am fairly convinced myself that anyone has yet to find positive-evidence of yes-God. But, I'm also fairly convinced that anyone has yet to find positive-evidence of no-God, either. Please explain how we are to offer "positive-evidence of no-God" when you keep ignoring requests to define what god you are talking about. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Please explain how we are to offer "positive-evidence of no-God" when you keep ignoring requests to define what god you are talking about. I will accept positive-evidence of no-God for a God by any reasonable definition you choose. Does that sound okay? Jon P.S. Why not stop by chat?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Most people who believe in god describe him as loving, just, omniscient, and omnipotent. If such a being did in fact exist, there would not be innocent suffering in the world. Crack babies suffer unspeakable pain and innumerable difficulties in life because of something that someone else did before they were even born, surely an example of innocent suffering.
Therefore, crack babies are positive evidence that god does not exist. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just because you cannot find yes-God, does not mean you have found no-God. But that's exactly what it means. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How else would we ever detect absence, if not by the absence of positive evidence?
Is it safe to assume the opposite of yes-Saturday: no-Saturday (Sunday)? Yes, absolutely safe. If you watch the right channel all day Saturday, and the show never comes on, and you know it's on either Sat. or Sun., then you can absolutely conclude that the show will be on tomorrow, sometime. Process of elimination.
It's okay to say there's negative-proof for yes-Saturday; but it's not okay to equate that there is positive-proof of no-Saturday. And, it's okay to say there's negative-proof of yes-God; but it's not okay to say that there's positive-proof of no-God. But that's false. ~(~A) = A. Remember?
The ignorance argument fallacy runs both ways. All empiricism is fallacious, didn't you know? It's an application of the Inductive Fallacy. Logically, it can't be supported except circularly. The second you're asking for evidence, you've given the logic game away. You're already accepting fallacious reasoning - the idea that you can prove a general principle with specific evidence. Logically, that's a fallacy. Practically, it's the only source of human knowledge. Quite a noodle-baker, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Please respond to Message 56.
The problem with all your analogies is that whether looking for beer in the fridge or when a show plays, there are specific parameters we can look for. If I have never seen a beer can/bottle, the word beer, or the brand; I have no idea what I'm looking for in the fridge when someone asks: "Is there beer in the fridge?" Just like the first time my husband tells me to fetch a keyhole saw from the shop. Since I don't know what a keyhole saw looks like, he has to describe it and the general area where he keeps it in the shop. Now if that saw isn't where he said it was or neither of us can find it, it doesn't mean that no keyhole saws exist, which I think is what you're getting at; but we do know we can go to the hardware store and he can buy another keyhole saw. What are we looking for when looking for God?. Don't use an analogy. The one with the specifics has to provide the information for those doing the looking. Not analogies. In Message 77 you said:
I will accept positive-evidence of no-God for a God by any reasonable definition you choose. Does that sound okay? No. The atheist is in the same position I was in with the keyhole saw. If theists can't tell them what to look for, they can only guess at the specifics. You have been given two conclusions already that I showed in Message 56. I assume the beer babble is in relation to Crash's post that since God is supposed to be everywhere and he finds a place he isn't, then God doesn't exist. Since you feel that that evidence is not evidence that God doesn't exist at all, then it means that God doesn't exist everywhere at once and the atheists are working with an incorrect specification. Is that correct, that God doesn't exist everywhere at once? If that is incorrect then theists need to explain why God is not in Crash's fridge or living room. If they say that God is in Crash's living room, then again, theists need to provide specifics that allow Crash to find God in his living room. Quite frankly, the fact that theists need to talk in analogies concerning this issue tells me their god doesn't exist. Theists still need to address kongstad's creation evidence. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: But that's exactly what it means. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How else would we ever detect absence, if not by the absence of positive evidence? This way;
Crashfrog writes: But that's false. ~(~A) = A. Remember? Where is the contradiction? You are conflating the term "not" with a contradiction in order to fudge over the issue. Theargument from ignorance is NOT, "NOT". It is not a genuine contradiction being proved. The abscence of X does not = NOT X. Clever equivocation there Crash. I confess you had me in a daze for some time, and I only spotted it later rather than sooner. I think the source is correct, Crash. An argument from ignorance isn't to show the contrary of the the predicate. You should go back and read the link from the skeptic's dictionary. The example Jon gave is sound. ~ (~x) = x, is a sound argument, if the contradiction is proved. You have not proved the premisses, which is ~ (~x). We only have arguments for or against God. Clever arguments, persuasive arguments, but essentially not solid, sound arguments. We simply can't determine God. I also made a point earlier on which I hope you can apreciate. That we as Theist cannot confirm God because of his definition; God is creator. Therefore anything created can NOT confirm God. Therefore nothing in the universe can confirm God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
In English;
Crash is basically saying, " hey, where's God - he's not here. " He is saying that this means, NOT God under logical language. But "NOT", as in negative (~), doesn't meanabscence. Crash, the reason you can't win isn't because of anything your opponents argue - but is because of what logical laws disallow. If it is any consolation, I think atheists are in a much stronger position that theists can ever be, because essentially, the burden of proof is on us. But fair is fair. And science is only known to work based on the information it has - which is essentially logical. It is illogical to argue based on our ignorance. Let's say for a moment that God does actually exist. That is a possibility. If it is claimed he certainly doesn't exist, then you are saying; It is not possible that God exists. As you can see, this REVEALS our genuine ignorance/arrogance. How on earth can we make such a statement, regardless of the truth of the matter. For me - I can't take that road - because it is one of arrogance. And I don't like human arrogance. So we've found out a few things using science - big deal, it doesn't mean WE are omniscient!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
Interesting thing about the God/ No God scenario. It is that God has a hand up on all things in the argument. It is that God made a claim(He created everything) and that we have yet to prove Him wrong.
While the scriptures offer numerous claims by God in reference to our existence, the biggest would be that He Created heaven and earth. While many argue that we have no tangible *evidence from which to measure God's presence or existence, they fail to consider the implication that all matter and life itself is of His own doing. In much the same way, we could ask to prove that God did not Create all things which surround us. To this we have theories(big bang etc), but none of them really touch the regions of God Creation though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where is the contradiction? The contradiction is that Jon is saying that ~(~A) =/ A; but that's logically false. ~(~A) = A, it always does. It always has, and it always will.
The abscence of X does not = NOT X. But that's exactly what it means. A =/ ~A. Look, these are the most basic axioms of symbolic logic, Mike. If you're ignorant of them there's no point in trying to talk about logic.
An argument from ignorance isn't to show the contrary of the the predicate. It's not an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying we don't know about any evidence for God; I'm saying that, in many cases, we know that there's missing evidence. We know that evidence that should be present is not. Thus, we can conclude no God, tentatively. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Saying "I don't know if there's any beer in the fridge" is a lot different than saying "I know there's no beer in the fridge." To buy more beer holding the first position is fallacious; it's the argument from ignorance you're complaining about. But to buy beer holding the second position is eminently reasonable, since you're out of beer.
We simply can't determine God. But many of us can, and have. How do you explain that?
God is creator. Is he? What makes you say that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
The thing you fail to remember, Jon, is that atheism is a belief. From your Wiki link, a position that affirms the non-existance of God DOES NOT need supporting empirical evidence.
Subjective confirmation of non-existance can be had, but it is no more compelling than the theist version of the same. I highly doubt that an atheist on this board would offer the kind of 'evidence' a theist would for their position. Let us examine: There is a God because I speak to Him.There is no God because I don't speak to Him. There is a God because I have been blessed in life.There is no God because I have been cursed in life. There is a God because life makes more sense when you view the world from a theological/dualist perspective.There is no God because life makes more sense when you view the world from a physical/scientific perpective. I can feel the presence of God, therefore He is.I can not feel the presence of God, therefore He is not. There is ancient literature supporting my position.There is modern science supporting my position. All of these are subjective 'proofs', and the most you can really hope for is that some atheist would step up and discuss some of those things which helped them confirm in their mind the non-existance of God subjectively[/i]. Most folks here I think are too honest to present that sort of thing, but then it is a nonchalance which is affected after-all, on a par with the theist who just believes in a God without thought for evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For me - I can't take that road - because it is one of arrogance. And I don't like human arrogance. But the idea that two entire universes (the physical and the spiritual) were created as your playground by an infinite being who doesn't have anything better to do than to concern himself with your behavior and your immortal soul, that's not arrogance? The breathtaking arrogance of the theist never fails to astound, Mike. Why don't you try embracing a little humility for a change - the humility of understanding that the universe is not here for your pleasure, and indeed, is entirely unconcerned with whether you live or die?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The contradiction is that Jon is saying that ~(~A) =/ A; but that's logically false. ~(~A) = A, it always does. It always has, and it always will. I didn't disagree - I shown your quote.
But that's exactly what it means. A =/ ~A. Look, these are the most basic axioms of symbolic logic, Mike. If you're ignorant of them there's no point in trying to talk about logic. You have only just mentioned those symbols to me, so how can you infer that I don't know what they mean when I have only just read them in this post? And even if I don't know the symbols, your statement is equal to saying; " If you do not know english then there's no point in trying to talk about language". Compositional error Crash. Seems I can talk about logic, without know your preferred symbols. You said;
Crash writes: ~(~A) = A I thought this meant, NOT, "not God" = God. I didn't actually refer to any other symbols.
It's not an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying we don't know about any evidence for God; I'm saying that, in many cases, we know that there's missing evidence. We know that evidence that should be present is not. Thus, we can conclude no God, tentatively. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You're merely repeating what I said, like it refutes me or something. It's what I said! I said;
mike writes:
If there was some way to certainly pose what would evidence God, then Crash would be correct. But all we have is disagreement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The breathtaking arrogance of the theist never fails to astound, Mike I'm sure it astounds you.
But the idea that two entire universes (the physical and the spiritual) were created as your playground by an infinite being who doesn't have anything better to do than to concern himself with your behavior and your immortal soul, that's not arrogance? Well, not strictly, because I don't actually argue that warped bizarro strawman.
Why don't you try embracing a little humility for a change - the humility of understanding that the universe is not here for your pleasure, and indeed, is entirely unconcerned with whether you live or die? What astounds me is that you think it is relevant that the universe is unconcerned whether I live or die. That is called a vacuously true statement. Search wiki for it. What it means is that it is only true that the universe doesn't care, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS UNABLE TO CARE. It's like me saying; If I were superman I would fly to the moon. That is entirely true - but only because I will never be superman. Therefore it carries no weight. I'm amazed that you would honestly believe that I would think that the universe should care for me. I do not claim that the lion sees me as anything more than food - I merely believe the claims of the bible, which say that God cares for me because I am a living spirit. All of the evidence suggests I am not JUST an animal. To me, it matters that heaven cares. But that is just a belief. It's not my own arrogance as I didn't make it up. I read it from others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I've been thinking about this. I think you're asking the wrong question, I don't not believe in god; I believe in a naturalistic world and that leaves no place for god.
I wrote about this on my LJ a while back so, if you'll forgive me quoting myself:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
to mike the wiz's question:
Where is the contradiction?
crashfrog responds:
The contradiction is that Jon is saying that ~(~A) =/ A; but that's logically false. ~(~A) = A, it always does. It always has, and it always will. Then mike says:
The abscence of X does not = NOT X. To which crash responds:
But that's exactly what it means. A =/ ~A.
Now, I'm confused. If A is God, and if there is no God, then A = 0. That means ~A = 0, which imposes a violation of algebraic rules in the above equation. But maybe that's your point: If God exists then He must be the denominator of everything. But if He does not exist then He cannot be the denominator of anything. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024