Proof for God's Non-existance?

The fact that there's a lot less evidence of God than there should be, if he existed.If, indeed, you couldn't prove negative existence you'd never know when to go buy more milk. "God" is defined as a being who exists universally, everywhere. If even one place can be found where God isn't, then God clearly does not exist as defined.But here's the thing - when you say "God", what do you mean, exactly?

Atheism and agnosticism are the exact same thing.Look, I'm as certain as I can be that there's no God. Since I have full certainty, I'm an atheist. Since "full certainty" also includes some degree of tentativity (since I'm a reasonable person), I'm an agnostic.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. And we've rebutted it before. It's hardly necessary to have perfect knowledge to come to conclusions about things, Indeed, if it were, science would be impossible.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Of course it is. If a lack of positive evidence where there should be some isn't negative evidence, how would you ever know when to go buy more beer?Walk me through how you prove that there's no beer in your fridge without, say, tearing the milk cartons open to have a look inside, and I'll show you how you arrived at a reasonable conclusion of nonexistence (specifically, the nonexistence of beer in your fridge) from essentially imperfect evidence.You do it every day for the most mundane things. It's hardly unreasonable to do the same for God.

God is defined as everywhere, so "anywhere" is an appropriate place to look for God. Let's stick with the refrigerator, for now. If God isn't in my refrigerator, he's not anywhere - because he's been defined as being everywhere. Not, "everywhere but Crash's refrigerator." Of course, you can do the same experiment anywhere - anywhere you look, there's no God where there's supposed to be one. I usually just go to the store and get some beer, but that's because I understand the rule of double negation: ~(~A) = A. Creating the positive existence of beer in your fridge is identical to eliminating the lack of beer in your fridge, as Onslow understands in the British sitcom "Keeping Up Appearances" when he complains "I'm sitting here, completely surrounded by no beer!"

See above in regards to knowing when you're out of beer. People can and do prove negatives every day.

HM, how on Earth do you know when to head out to the store if you're paralyzed at the thought of coming to the conclusion that there's no beer in your fridge?Actually, perhaps a extended lack of beer is the explanation for all your problems, HM!

I'm telling you that the same techniques you can use to determine the non-existence of beer in your refrigerator can be used, also, to determine the non-existence of God in your universe.

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? 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. But that's false. ~(~A) = A. Remember? 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?

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. 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. 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. But many of us can, and have. How do you explain that? Is he? What makes you say that?

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?

I'm not inventing my own symbolic logic here, Mike, I'm using standard symbolic conventions to represent two of the most basic axioms of logic: the Law of Non-contradiction (A =/ ~A) and the inference of double negation elimination (~(~A) = A).If you've never heard of either of these two things, then you've clearly no business trying to talk about what is logical or not. You can talk about it, you just won't mean anything. ~(~A) = A. In words: Not not A is equal to A. It did refute you, which is why you're left with no recourse but to repeat yourself like I wasn't paying attention or something.Look, Mike, it's done. Your argument was refuted. Based on just about any common definition of God, we can easily conclude that there's a conspicuous lack of the evidence that should be present. That's evidence that there is, in fact, none of those Gods at all.There's one kind of God for which the lack of evidence is inconclusive; that's the God that takes no action in the universe and is neither creator nor lord of creation. The God who has no power whatsoever.That God, I grant, can't be disproven; but that God is essentially irrelevant. We may as well just act like he doesn't exist.

Instead of simply "me-too"-ing your personal peanut gallery, do you think you could actually grapple with the arguments I've presented? Mike's attempt at refutation fell flat.Do you think you could bring something to the table that's better than "no, you're wrong?" So when are you going to start doing that? Nothing can be proven. Logic rests on assumptions that are unprovable, which means that all conclusions of logic are tautologies - true only if you accept what it takes to make them true in the first place.Empiricism rests on an argument that is itself circular - we accept empiricism because it's always worked before, but that's empiricism - so empiricism can only be justified by itself.Personally, I have no interest in proof, which is unobtainable for anything. I'm more concerned about evidence - and the evidence is, there's no such thing as God. But you're still wrong. The lack of the former is the latter. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. ~(~A) = A. Fundamental to logic. Why do you keep ignoring this argument?

What is the point of prayer except the supplication of the Powers That Be?Look, Mike, don't blow smoke up my ass, ok? Don't pretend like the vast majority of religion isn't just Santa Claus for adults. It's a massive exercise in wishful thinking. The religionists fall all over themselves to prove that to us, don't you pay attention? Of course it's arrogant. Who on Earth are you that Heaven should give a damn? The incredible arrogance.

I'm not doing division. "=/" is an operator that means "not equal to."And the negation of "0", incidentally, is "1", in Boolean logic. We're not doing number theory here, either.