|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proof for God's Non-existance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Looking and not finding is not absence of evidence, it is evidence of absence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
crash, just a tip for clarity, you can use ≠ by typing: "≠"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
~(~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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024