Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


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 91 of 317 (420955)
09-10-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Jack
09-10-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Atheism as a Positive Belief
I enjoyed reading that, shaem it was so short. I can't see much wrong with the reasoning.
If it helps, I don't think you're fried untill further notice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Jack, posted 09-10-2007 12:10 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 317 (420972)
09-10-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by mike the wiz
09-10-2007 8:57 AM


Fair is fair; but lacking fairness is not un-fair
Crash, the reason you can't win isn't because of anything your opponents argue - but is because of what logical laws disallow.
Thank you, for pointing this out. In the end, this is what I wanted this thread to demonstrate: the illogicalness of the Atheist position. Like a Theist, the Atheist must admit that part of their belief rests on something that they cannot prove. However, as we can see, the Atheists, instead of admitting this flaw in their logic/belief, pretend that it does not exist, and try to make their belief out to be somethin that is an evidenced truth, in the same way Creationists push their 'evidence' and arguments for creation, as though the former exist and the latter are sound.
The best we can admit is that we have yet to find any positive-evidence for yes-God, and cannot (by rule of logic) find any positive-evidence for no-God. We would be most honest in admitting this, and simply saying that for lack of positive-evidence for yes-God, we are willing to accept the opposite: negative-evidence for yes-God. This will give us an 'absense of belief', so to speak, and this is the most honest route to take. On all matters, not just God.
And, so we end with saying: 'we have negative-belief in yes-God', or, 'we haven't belief in God.' To say 'we have belief in no God' is to take that extra leap which can only be carried forth on the step of Faith; faith in evidence we cannot see.
Jon

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2007 8:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by subbie, posted 09-10-2007 3:04 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:12 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2007 2:14 PM Jon has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 93 of 317 (420976)
09-10-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jon
09-10-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Fair is fair; but lacking fairness is not un-fair
The best we can admit is that we have yet to find any positive-evidence for yes-God, and cannot (by rule of logic) find any positive-evidence for no-God.
You can't even say that without addressing my argument.

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 92 by Jon, posted 09-10-2007 2:34 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 94 of 317 (420978)
09-10-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mike the wiz
09-10-2007 11:57 AM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
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?
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.
Seems I can talk about logic, without know your preferred symbols.
You can talk about it, you just won't mean anything.
I thought this meant, NOT, "not God" = God.
~(~A) = A. In words: Not not A is equal to A.
You're merely repeating what I said, like it refutes me or something.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2007 11:57 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2007 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 103 by Dr Jack, posted 09-10-2007 3:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 95 of 317 (420979)
09-10-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jon
09-10-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Fair is fair; but lacking fairness is not un-fair
Thank you, for pointing this out.
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?"
In the end, this is what I wanted this thread to demonstrate: the illogicalness of the Atheist position.
So when are you going to start doing that?
Like a Theist, the Atheist must admit that part of their belief rests on something that they cannot prove.
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.
The best we can admit is that we have yet to find any positive-evidence for yes-God, and cannot (by rule of logic) find any positive-evidence for no-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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 09-10-2007 2:34 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by subbie, posted 09-10-2007 3:24 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 96 of 317 (420980)
09-10-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by mike the wiz
09-10-2007 12:06 PM


Re: Fair is fair
What astounds me is that you think it is relevant that the universe is unconcerned whether I live or die.
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?
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
Of course it's arrogant. Who on Earth are you that Heaven should give a damn? The incredible arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2007 12:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 97 of 317 (420981)
09-10-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Fosdick
09-10-2007 12:14 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
That means ~A = 0, which imposes a violation of algebraic rules in the above equation.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Fosdick, posted 09-10-2007 12:14 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by arachnophilia, posted 09-10-2007 3:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 98 of 317 (420982)
09-10-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:12 PM


Absense of evidence is evidence of absence
Perhaps part of the reason people are having trouble with this concept is that there is an unstated premise, that one has actually sought evidence where it would be expected. You certainly illustrated this idea in your beer example, but making it explicit might help one or two people see it more clearly.

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 95 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Jack, posted 09-10-2007 3:28 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 99 of 317 (420983)
09-10-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by subbie
09-10-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Absense of evidence is evidence of absence
Looking and not finding is not absence of evidence, it is evidence of absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by subbie, posted 09-10-2007 3:24 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 100 of 317 (420984)
09-10-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:07 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
Crash, please - what are you trying to prove here?
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.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here Crash. Mikey isn't on trial. All I have to do is make sound points.
Your argument is like saying that unless I am Einstein, I can't talk about E=MC2
You can talk about it, you just won't mean anything.
That's silly. My points are clear and I provide sources to show that I mean something.
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.
Your proposition is that there is some kind of evidence you would expect there to be if God existed.
That is only an your argument. Objectivites don't agree with you that there is some all-refuting evidence that would certainly be there.
Qualify what would evidence God, so that I can evidence him. You can't - you'll only come up with some impossible standard.
Hey Crash, I don't know what 2 + 2 = 4 means, does that mean I can't say that two add two equals four, as it won't mean anything?
Do you seriously think anyone will treat you with anything more than derision for asserting that?
~(~A) = A. In words: Not not A is equal to A.
IOW, mikey - you understood.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:42 PM mike the wiz has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 101 of 317 (420985)
09-10-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:16 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
crash, just a tip for clarity, you can use ≠ by typing: "≠"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 102 of 317 (420990)
09-10-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by mike the wiz
09-10-2007 3:32 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
That's silly. My points are clear and I provide sources to show that I mean something.
I haven't seen any sources from you.
Your proposition is that there is some kind of evidence you would expect there to be if God existed.
Yes. Certainly this is what the theists assert; they have absolutely no problem pointing to things and trying to pass them off as evidence for God.
It's hardly fair to say to atheists "oh, you have no idea what the evidence would look like" without doing the same for the theists; of course, it's stupid either way, because you'd have to be pretty unimaginative to draw a complete blank on the question of what evidence for God would look like.
You can't - you'll only come up with some impossible standard.
It would be impossible for me to do so, give a God defined as "omnipotent." Are you really telling me that the only reason I'm mistakenly concluding that there actually isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent God in my universe is because I've set the bar a little too high?
I'm supposed to take that seriously? Little ol' me is simply asking too much from God? Hilarious!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2007 3:32 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2007 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 103 of 317 (420991)
09-10-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:07 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
~(~A) = A. In words: Not not A is equal to A.
I think this has diverged from what Jon is saying. I believe he is arguing instead not-proved-god does not imply proved-not-god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 104 of 317 (420998)
09-10-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:42 PM


ADDENDUM OF NOTORIOUS GARGANTUA
FINAL ADDENDUM OF IRREFUTABLE WEIGHT, enough to blow your socks off, oh yes!
You are being a tiny little bit defensive. I have made some comments in this thread which assert that I am not against atheists. I also don't think atheists are arrogant, just the conclusion that; "it is not possible God exists".
Yet you have audiatur et altera pars. For example, "the Theists". And, "mikey, kiss my dick you little sheep-shagger"...BZZZT, *bang* smoke.....wrong quote.
I am not out to hunt you down, shave you like a sheep and have sex with your intellect. So make like a lunatic and pop your stresspil, before you rrhain supreme, and bust a vain.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 8:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 105 of 317 (421003)
09-10-2007 4:56 PM


God the Fictional Character
Gods are fictional characters.
The characteristics of a fictional character.
1. Created by an author.
2. Created at a specific point in time.
3. Their existence is dependent on the author, literary work, memory of the work, and people who can read or hear the work.
4. They are not found in the spatio-temporal world.
As fictional characters, gods are created, dependent members of our world and exist within the works that house them; but do not exist within our world. Their attributes are dependent on people.
Since gods are fictional characters they do not exist independently in our world.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Jon, posted 09-10-2007 9:47 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 111 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 11:18 AM purpledawn has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024