Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 317 (420763)
09-09-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jon
09-08-2007 7:26 PM


Re: A - theos (negative God) = there is no God
You're welcome Jon.
As you can see, the link is very fair, as it attacks the Theist and Atheist use of this type of reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jon, posted 09-08-2007 7:26 PM Jon has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 62 of 317 (420770)
09-09-2007 2:14 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.
I disagree. But some uses of the word agnosticism have deviated from the original meaning and into areas where, yes, you're correct.
The original agnostics made the strong claim that it was impossible to make judgement one way or the other until death. This is not an atheistic claim as it holds theism and atheism as equally valid and likely but unknowable.
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 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2007 12:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 63 of 317 (420773)
09-09-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Fosdick
09-08-2007 10:51 AM


Re: the atheist challenge
"You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative statement. So if you can know it is true you can prove a negative and it must be false...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Fosdick, posted 09-08-2007 10:51 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 7:03 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 317 (420777)
09-09-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mike the wiz
09-09-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Ignorantium young skywalker
I admitt that might be the case for some but basically I only say that people don't know what would evidence God because as far as I can see, it is genuine problem.
It's only a problem for those who believe that God exists. For others, it's not a problem. If God existed, there should be some evidence. But no one agrees on what this evidence should be. Some even insist that there shouldn't be any evidence at all! One would think that if there were a god, there would be a little more agreement as to what this god should be like -- the fact that so many people have so many different ideas about this god, and there is no way to reliably distinguish which ones are more accurate is itself evidence that God does not exist.
-
The fact is that God is too hard because by definition he is the creator who transcends the universe.
And this is exactly an example of an ad hoc explanation that I was talking about. It completely removes the question from further discussion. On what other subject would such a reply be considered satisfactory? Only when we are talking about peoples' preferred myths does this kind of dodge become a reasonable response.
-
But, again, a god that cannot be known because it transcends the universe isn't what anyone is talking about, really. I don't know what it is like in the UK, but here in the US we have people who really do believe that they know God, and that they have indisputable evidence for God. Look at the Flood threads and the ID threads. These are the people who want to force women to have babies because God wants to punish sluts, and that we need to burn homosexuals at the stake otherwise God will fly more airplanes into tall buildings.
I mean, look at the OP of this thread. It is a demand that atheists present "proof" that there is no God. Why? Who the hell cares what atheists think?
Rhetorical question. The reason some religious people care what atheists think and demand to be shown "proof" is that atheists are a particularly visible part of the population that resists basing important policy decisions on a particular kind of irrational reasoning.
For example, most atheists are not interested in having public schools teach kids that there is no god, so we really aren't obligated to provide proof of anything. It is the religious fundamentalists who are afraid that if the public schools aren't indoctrinating kids into their religious tenets, then the kids are going to figure out the truth themselves. (In fact, this is the raison d'être for the Discovery Institute.) It's the religious fundamentalists who need to demonstrate that God as a fact, if they want to schools to present it as a fact.
Atheists generally don't base their opinions on public on the fact that there is not god -- hell, as you state
The fact is that God is too hard because by definition he is the creator who transcends the universe.
So there's no real way of knowing what this unknowable god would want or not want anyway. Atheists (like some people with religious beliefs) want to policies based on proposing desired outcomes and using evidence to figure out how best to achieve those outcomes.
It is the religious fundamentalists who have a problem with this. Generally, the facts tend to speak against the policies they want to advocate, and so they have no choice but to resort to outright irrationality to make their case -- including appeals to a Zeus like god who once flooded the world by opening windows in a solid dome in the sky. And when the irrationality of their position, the unsoundness of their arguments, the vast amount of data that contradicts their position is shown, they then obfuscate not by demanding evidence that their particular magical skyman is false (that's pretty self-evident), but by that atheists present proof that no god of any kind whatsoever exists.

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 60 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2007 1:34 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2007 3:48 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 65 of 317 (420801)
09-09-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chiroptera
09-09-2007 2:35 PM


I am mike-oddity
the fact that so many people have so many different ideas about this god, and there is no way to reliably distinguish which ones are more accurate is itself evidence that God does not exist.
I don't think it follows Chirop'.
I don't see how that would rule out a true God, hiding in the fog of human-confusion. It's insufficient for me. I only have the motive of logic - no ulterior motive.
And this is exactly an example of an ad hoc explanation that I was talking about. It completely removes the question from further discussion. On what other subject would such a reply be considered satisfactory? Only when we are talking about peoples' preferred myths does this kind of dodge become a reasonable response
An ad hoc improvisation is to answer for a genuine problem. There is no genuine problem here - as it is all speculation. If we were talking about something concrete perhaps. I do concede that a specifically flawed version of what I am talking about could be ad hoc.
It's the same for the theist though - what about what I said about God being the creator - how on earth is it possible to confirm him without circular reasoning?
I mean, look at the OP of this thread. It is a demand that atheists present "proof" that there is no God. Why?
For what it's worth, in my opinion the burden of proof is not on atheists, to prove God doesn't exist.
I am only arguing against a strong dose of logical positivism.
I'm not a Christian-creationist either, so all the points you made are understandable to me. It will be true of many of them. But on a forum, what can I say if I agree other than; "I agree". This might perhaps give the illusion that I agree with Christians, always. But to me, the world isn't split, and it amuses me. For I know that we all agree and disagree about nearly everything, within and not within ideologies.
- I do not even claim Christianity as this stage, as I differ so greatly from those of my ilk that they constantly find it hard to believe I am a believer.
I don't know what it is like in the UK, but here in the US we have people who really do believe that they know God, and that they have indisputable evidence for God. Look at the Flood threads and the ID threads. These are the people who want to force women to have babies because God wants to punish sluts, and that we need to burn homosexuals at the stake otherwise God will fly more airplanes into tall buildings
As Sirius Black says; the world doesn't ony consist of good people and deatheaters.
Here's my scripture; we should all have a unique name, for not one of us is exactly the same in beliefs nor opinions.
- It enables me to look at people as people, some generally good - some generally bad, but not all good, and not all bad. Not atheists, theists, fundies, evolutionists, etc... just people in the same boat as me. And so I can embrace all. The creo is my friend - and the atheo-evo. I don't consider the unbelievers fried untill further notice, any more than the believer.
(Apologies for the long post, I don't expect a response to my rant).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 2:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 66 of 317 (420850)
09-09-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Jack
09-09-2007 2:17 PM


You can't prove a negative
Mr Jack wrote:
"You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative statement. So if you can know it is true you can prove a negative and it must be false...
Mr Jack, try reading this article "You can't prove a negative" to see if it doesn't change your mind.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Jack, posted 09-09-2007 2:17 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 7:13 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 317 (420854)
09-09-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Fosdick
09-09-2007 7:03 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
See above in regards to knowing when you're out of beer. People can and do prove negatives every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 7:03 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 7:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 68 of 317 (420857)
09-09-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
09-09-2007 7:13 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
crash writes:
People can and do prove negatives every day.
Isn't that like proving that nothing exists? Hard to do. Where's the evidence?
(Oh, no, here it comes again!)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 7:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 7:31 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 317 (420861)
09-09-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Fosdick
09-09-2007 7:21 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
Isn't that like proving that nothing exists?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 7:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 7:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 70 of 317 (420863)
09-09-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
09-09-2007 7:31 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
Do you mean to tell me that if there is no beer in my refrigerator this proves that nothing exists? What is the meaning existence if nothing can exist? Of course there is always a meme of a beer in my refrigerator. Does that qualify for your existence?
(Here come da fuzz now to put a keebosh on this nonsense.)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 7:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 7:49 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 317 (420864)
09-09-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Fosdick
09-09-2007 7:40 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
Do you mean to tell me that if there is no beer in my refrigerator this proves that nothing exists?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 7:40 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 8:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 72 of 317 (420869)
09-09-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
09-09-2007 7:49 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
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.
crashfrog, that's a classic! I may nominate this one as the POM.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 7:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 8:24 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 317 (420870)
09-09-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Fosdick
09-09-2007 8:13 PM


Re: You can't prove a negative
I agree that it's a good one. I'm using it myself on this very thread.

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 72 by Fosdick, posted 09-09-2007 8:13 PM Fosdick has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 74 of 317 (420871)
09-09-2007 8:33 PM


Topic threatening to degenerate into general goofiness
Also starting to look like chatroom like messages.
Maybe tighten up on the quality?
Any replies to this message should go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below. Otherwise, possible 24 hour suspension.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 317 (420873)
09-09-2007 9:19 PM


-proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
Just because you cannot find yes-God, does not mean you have found no-God. I would like to repeat my other analogy, here:
There's a show, and we know it runs either Saturday or Sunday (yes-Saturday or no-Saturday). There's a God, and we know He either exists or does not exist (yes-God or no-God). We search; and we search; and we search through our house like mad-folk. We look and look and look for God. In the end, we fail to find any evidence telling us the show is on Saturday (there's 'negative-proof' of 'yes-Saturday'). In the end, we fail to find any evidence telling us that there is a God (there's 'negative-proof' of 'yes-God') Is it safe to assume the opposite of yes-Saturday: no-Saturday (Sunday)? Is it safe to assume the opposite of yes-God: (no-God)?
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.
We can switch this up however you want, really. We can have us looking for evidence of no-Saturday and finding none; we still couldn't assume that it is yes-Saturday. Same thing goes for the existence of God. As Mike pointed out, and I referenced once before, you can't just tell me there is negative-evidence of yes-God, and so = positive-evidence no-God. The ignorance argument fallacy runs both ways.
Jon
__________
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by subbie, posted 09-09-2007 9:28 PM Jon has replied
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 10:31 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 80 by purpledawn, posted 09-10-2007 7:16 AM 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