I Know That God Does Not Exist

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

Look, you claimed to be able to disprove the existence of God using science.

---

And as soon as you provide a definition of "god," I'll be on the hook for backing up my claim.But until then, I won't engage in "straw godding." Your attempt to goad me into doing so shows that you aren't actually entering into this with any integrity. I am not out to convince myself of the existence or non-existence of "god." I'm out to convince *you.* And to do that, I need to know what *you* mean by "god" so that any further discussion won't be dismissed as a "straw god."Have you been following the health food thread? Phat was talking about "Willard Water" and I pointed out that the claims made are nonsense. One of the problems is that the claims they make are nonsensical. They talk about "altering the structure of water" and a "negative magnetic field." What on earth do those things mean? I can make a guess, and I did provide my own definitions of what a plain understanding of those terms might mean (Bond angle? South magnetic monopole? Electric charges that follow a left-hand rule for the magnetic field rather than a right-hand rule?) and show how such claims are bogus, but that was an exercise in speculation as to what they mean by the "structure of water" and "negative magnetic field."Which means all they have to do is say, "That's not what we meant," and all of that work showing their claims to be bogus are irrelevant. Without knowing what they mean, no claim can be justified let alone disproven. And you wouldn't accept them saying, "No...*you* define 'structure of water' and 'negative magnetic field'!" I wasn't the one claiming that such a thing could be done. They were. Thus, they need to define what on earth they're talking about.That's how science is done. The one making the claim needs to define the terms. You're the one claiming that god can't be disproven. Therefore, you are the one charged with defining what you mean by "god." If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debating tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.For someone who was complaining about tediousness regarding this very thing, you sure are doing your very best to be as tedious as possible. Tell me what you mean by "god" and I'll show you how I think it could be disproven. I've already given two examples and have repeated both of them. You have yet to either accept that I did so or provide an alternative definition of "god" that you think is more appropriate.Therefore, I have done precisely what it is you say can't be done: Disprove the existence of god.If you don't like it, you will then be expected to know what a "god" is and provide a suitable definition.And it's cute how you think "peer reviewed research" is the only method available. You are assuming the only way to disprove a phenomenon is an exhaustive search. When I derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics from scratch, I don't go to the "peer reviewed research." I don't have to. I can do the mathematical calculations directly for myself. I can then provide them to you for examination and you can determine if you agree with them or not. They're not that hard and barely require calculus. Oh, it'll take a bit more work from chemistry, but that isn't that difficult to do, either. There's a reason you don't see any "peer reviewed research" on what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is: It's something you can do for yourself.So now it's time for you to do it for yourself and define what you mean by "god." Remember, I'm not trying to convince myself. I'm trying to convince *you.* Therefore, I need to know what *you* mean by "god." What I mean by it is irrelevant. An argument that would convince me might not convince you because there's a good chance that what you mean by "god" doesn't mean the same thing as what I mean by it.Therefore, the only way this can get started is for *you* to provide *your* definition of "god." You don't have to prove that such a thing exists. I am the one claiming that I can disprove god, so that falls upon me. But in order to do that, we need to agree upon what is meant by "god." I've given one definition and then disproved its existence. I repeated it to you. Both times, you have ignored it.Very telling that. You insist that I provide a definition of god and then ignore the one I give. Was it insufficient? If so, why? What would be a better definition?If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debate tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

I believe that since He is the uncaused first cause

---

If god can create itself without cause, why can't the universe and everything in it? Especially since you have given no indication that they can't. And we have plenty of evidence that they can. We don't have all the details worked out, no, but a lot of the things that people used to claim had to be done by god were found out to be perfectly mundane.So why should we accept your claim that there's a barrier? "I don't know" does not mean "god did it."

quote:

---

I would define God as the Creator of ideas, definitions, concepts, matter, energy, and ultimately reality itself as we collectively experience and understand it to be.

---

Then you and I and anything with consciousness is a god for we do all that, too.And since physics can create matter, energy, and ultimately reality itself, that means physics is god.Is that what you mean? I want to make sure I understand your definition before continuing. Your definition of "god" includes humans and physics. Somehow, I don't think that's what you mean when you say, "god."

quote:

---

Logically, if God exists and always has existed, God would have transcended all human religious definitions and attempts at definition.

---

But if god "transcends all attempts a definition," then god has no definition. Not merely one we don't know but existentially. If there can be no definition of any kind no matter what, then god is a thing without definition.And things without definition do not exist.Of course, you just gave a definition, so you just contradicted yourself: God cannot both "transcend definition" and have a definition.But even so, logically, such a being would be incapable of interacting with its creation precisely because it transcends it. By removing god from the very reality that was created, you prevent god from having any ability to interact with said reality.Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If god touches us, then we necessarily touch god. It has to go both ways or there can be no interaction at all. That's the very point behind "interaction."

Nope, you claimed you could disprove the existence of god using science. The assumption therefore is that you know what a god is.If you don't know what a god is, you can't know that you can disprove him.It's game over, your claim is merely a spurious undergraduate debating tactic about what we mean by mean. If it's not, I suggest you get on with your proof, kill off god. After all this is something the world has been trying to do since the dawn of time.You're a bit like Faith, sat on the proofs that would earn her the Nobel Prize for disproving, well, pretty much all science, but somehow not quite getting round to it.

Tangle avoids his burden of proof:

quote:

---

Nope, you claimed you could disprove the existence of god using science.

---

And I have.Multiple times.Are we done here?If not, could you be more specific about what you mean by "god"?

quote:

---

The assumption therefore is that you know what a god is.

---

Is it? You're the one claiming that disproving god can't be done. Thus, you're the one who needs to define what you mean by god.It's game over. Your claim is merely a spurious schoolyard taunt of, "Nuh-uh!" If it's not, I suggest you get on with your definition of god. After all, this is something that needs to convince *you.*You're precisely like Faith: Running away whenever evidence against your argument comes slamming into your face and somehow pretending that nobody notices, lashing out at anyone and everyone who refuses to be cowed. As soon as you provide a definition of "god," I'll then be on the hook to show you how it can be disproven.But until then, I won't engage in "straw godding." Your attempt to goad me into doing so shows that you aren't actually entering into this with any integrity. I am not out to convince myself of the existence or non-existence of "god." I'm out to convince *you.* And to do that, I need to know what *you* mean by "god" so that any further discussion won't be dismissed as a "straw god."Have you been following the health food thread? Phat was talking about "Willard Water" and I pointed out that the claims made are nonsense. One of the problems is that the claims they make are nonsensical. They talk about "altering the structure of water" and a "negative magnetic field." What on earth do those things mean? I can make a guess, and I did provide my own definitions of what a plain understanding of those terms might mean (Bond angle? South magnetic monopole? Electric charges that follow a left-hand rule for the magnetic field rather than a right-hand rule?) and show how such claims are bogus, but that was an exercise in speculation as to what they mean by the "structure of water" and "negative magnetic field."Which means all they have to do is say, "That's not what we meant," and all of that work showing their claims to be bogus are irrelevant. Without knowing what they mean, no claim can be justified let alone disproven. And you wouldn't accept them saying, "No...*you* define 'structure of water' and 'negative magnetic field'!" I wasn't the one claiming that such a thing could be done. They were. Thus, they need to define what on earth they're talking about.That's how science is done. The one making the claim needs to define the terms. You're the one claiming that god can't be disproven. Therefore, you are the one charged with defining what you mean by "god." If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debating tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.For someone who was complaining about tediousness regarding this very thing, you sure are doing your very best to be as tedious as possible. Tell me what you mean by "god" and I'll show you how I think it could be disproven. I've already given two examples and have repeated both of them. You have yet to either accept that I did so or provide an alternative definition of "god" that you think is more appropriate.Therefore, I have done precisely what it is you say can't be done: Disprove the existence of god.If you don't like it, you will then be expected to know what a "god" is and provide a suitable definition.And it's cute how you think "peer reviewed research" is the only method available. You are assuming the only way to disprove a phenomenon is an exhaustive search. When I derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics from scratch, I don't go to the "peer reviewed research." I don't have to. I can do the mathematical calculations directly for myself. I can then provide them to you for examination and you can determine if you agree with them or not. They're not that hard and barely require calculus. Oh, it'll take a bit more work from chemistry, but that isn't that difficult to do, either. There's a reason you don't see any "peer reviewed research" on what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is: It's something you can do for yourself.So now it's time for you to do it for yourself and define what you mean by "god." Remember, I'm not trying to convince myself. I'm trying to convince *you.* Therefore, I need to know what *you* mean by "god." What I mean by it is irrelevant. An argument that would convince me might not convince you because there's a good chance that what you mean by "god" doesn't mean the same thing as what I mean by it.Therefore, the only way this can get started is for *you* to provide *your* definition of "god." You don't have to prove that such a thing exists. I am the one claiming that I can disprove god, so that falls upon me. But in order to do that, we need to agree upon what is meant by "god." I've given one definition and then disproved its existence. I repeated it to you. Both times, you have ignored it.Very telling that. You insist that I provide a definition of god and then ignore the one I give. Was it insufficient? If so, why? What would be a better definition?If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debate tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.Spin it!

I sure am. I certainly can't do it and despite a very large amount of reading I've done on the subject, I haven't seen anyone else do it either. But you know, I could be wrong, I'm just waiting for this proof.And here you are claiming that you can do it so it's all terribly exciting. The world is waiting. Yet weirdly, you don't seem to want to produce the goods. Instead you want to weasel about playing word games. What do you mean by god - how disingenuous is that? There is only one conclusion. It certainly seems that you are.

That doesn't answer the question of why He hides Himself away. And they'd be wrong, of course. Jesus had crowds of 5000 in Matthew 14 and 4000 in Mark 8. Then why don't we?

Tangle avoids the issue:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're the one claiming that disproving god can't be done

---

I sure am. I certainly can't do it

---

I see. Because *you* aren't clever enough to do it, that means nobody else is. Got it. You're the universal standard by which all other people are to be judged. If you can't do it, it can't be done.

quote:

---

and despite a very large amount of reading I've done on the subject, I haven't seen anyone else do it either.

---

I see. Because *you* haven't found any information, that means nobody else has. Got it. You're the universal standard by which all other people are to be judged. If you haven't seen it, it isn't there to be seen.

quote:

---

But you know, I could be wrong, I'm just waiting for this proof.

---

Just tell us what you mean by "god" and we'll get started.

quote:

---

And here you are claiming that you can do it so it's all terribly exciting.

---

Yep. All I need is a commonly-agreed-upon definition of "god" and we'll get started. My definition won't be good enough because there will be plenty of people who believe in god who will insist that my definition isn't their definition. Thus, I refuse to engage in "straw godding" and await the person who claims that god can't be disproven to provide their definition of "god" so that we can get started.

quote:

---

The world is waiting.

---

And yet weirdly, you don't seem to want to produce the goods by giving us your definition of "god." Instead, you want to weasel about like a fool. "No...what do *you* mean by 'god'!" How disingenuous is that?There is only one conclusion.I did what you claimed could not be done.Twice.And you're just stamping your precious little foot.Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.Spin it!

Ok, it's clear you can't even begin to defend your claim. But anytime you'd like to set out your scientific case for the non-existence of god get back to us.'bye for now.

Truly there is no scientific proof that any of the gods do not exist nor can there be.However! There is indeed proof that the YEC god does not exist! And it is offered to us by the YECs themselves!

If evolution is true, then God does not exist.

​

If the earth is older than 10,000 years, then God does not exist.

​

"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
John Morris as reported at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism:
("The 1986 International Conference on Creationism" by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14.)

​

Evolution (not the false YEC misrepresentation) does indeed happen and the earth is indeed far older than 10,000 years.QED

I know, but Rrhain says he has a proof. But it's a secret so he's not telling anyone. It think that's proof that those holding particular beliefs about a young earth etc are wrong about them, not that their god doesn't exist. They're just not reading his runes properly.

Have you tried adding up the years from Adam to the Flood?

No I haven't Faith, it's not really my thing.But lots of strange people have and consequently been proven wrong. Just like those that use the bible stories to calculate the end of days, they're all wackos. If they're even convinced AFTER the predicted day of the end has passed that the bible is factual, what chance of them being convinced of a historical date for a mythical flood is also wrong?

I have. I think Bishop Ussher got it about right. I'm sure his ghost will be glad to have my endorsement.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Have you tried adding up the years from Adam to the Flood?

---

Yep. Genesis 1 (six literal days to the creation of Adam), Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah, 956 years), Genesis 8 (Noah 601 when the flood was over, 1557 years total).And then I added up the years from the Flood to the founding of Solomon's Temple which took place about 950 BCE: Genesis 11 (Noah to Abraham, 292 years, 1849 total), Genesis 12 (Abraham 75 when he made the covenant, 1924 total), Galatians 3 (exodus 430 years after covenant, 2354 total), 1 Kings 6 (temple 480 years after exodus, 2834 total).That places the flood happening about 2250 BCE (2834 - 1557 + 950 = 2227, but give some wiggle room for the approximate date of the temple).That would be when maize was starting to be cultivated in Central America, Akkad becoming the largest city in the world, farmsteads being established in the Shetland Islands, and right in the middle of the Sixth Dynasty in Egypt.It would also place it about 400 years after the Great Pyramids in Egypt were built (2650 BCE).And strangely, none of these cultures seem to have noticed that everybody died in a great flood and the Pyramids show absolutely no sign of water damage.Ergo, a "god" that requires a worldwide flood to have happened about 2250 BCE where the entire population of humanity was killed save for 8 individuals is in direct contradiction to reality.Thus, said god does not exist.

Tangle runs away:

quote:

---

Ok, it's clear you can't even begin to defend your claim. But anytime you'd like to set out your scientific case for the non-existence of god get back to us.
'bye for now.

---

(*chuckle*)Nice case of projection you've got going on there. It's clear you can't defend your claim that god can't be disproven. But any time you'd like to define what you mean by god, we can start examining if it can be disproven scientifically.After all, I've given you a definition of "god" and disproved it could exist. You haven't complained about it, so I have done precisely what you claim couldn't be done.I even did it twice.But spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.SPIN IT!