Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
pbee
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 166 of 317 (421466)
09-12-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by purpledawn
09-12-2007 6:30 PM


Re: Tribal to Universal
quote:
Then show the support, don't just say it. if you don't feel that God is a fictional character then show me that he functions independent of the literature or people. Show that he's not bound by authors or our minds.
Is it not known that a man will grow to look up at the sky and ponder his origin and existence?
Is this phenomenon a characteristic of a book or an inherent trait?
It would seem that without ever telling someone, they would seek out the answers to the big question.
It would seem as though humans are born with the characteristics to think about God. This is interesting, since it was written long ago that people were created to worship and serve their Creator(Ex. 20:2-5) Therefore, no matter how hard people try to dismiss God as a figment of imagination or some fairytale, God has a way of making His way back into our thoughts.
Belief in God, as the expression is generally used in the world, does not necessarily mean ability to explain his existence or purpose. It merely stands for a conviction that there is a Creator. So I wonder now, where does this need come from? How can it occur without any influences or otherwise?
God claimed He created everything. This is the first statement mentioned in the scriptures. We didn't need to know who God was or what He did. But the scriptures provide us with a means to get to know Him and His purpose. When you think about it, there is no need to run about arguing about this and that, since the God's claim alone is plenty to consider and evaluate.
So now the question remains, who can prove that God did not create the universe as it was written? Who can come up with a formula that equates that of God and creation or... satisfies the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by purpledawn, posted 09-12-2007 6:30 PM purpledawn has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 167 of 317 (421473)
09-12-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
09-07-2007 6:25 PM


Re: the atheist challenge
Jon writes:
Atheists would say there is no-God.
Not this one. I would say I don't believe in any Gods.
And to the Theist they would inquire on his proof that there is-God.
Not I, particularly, unless perhaps the theist claims to have proof and I'm curious or want a good laugh, but intelligent theists don't claim to have proof. I sometimes ask people why they believe in specific, described Gods, like the Abrahamic God, but that's not the same as asking them for proof.
But I would like to wonder if Atheists can walk their own walk, practice what they preach.
Practice your version of what we preach, you mean. We're a broad church, anyway. I think it would be rare for an atheist to claim proof of no God. Many might claim that absence of evidence for a God is evidence of absence, but the words "evidence" and "proof" aren't the same, are they?
There's absence of evidence for the existence of elves, but no-one has proof of their non-existence.
I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread.
There are several billion mono-theists on this planet, all believing in Gods, so which one of the several billion Gods are you referring to?
Did you mean "proof that there's no God of any kind"?
If so, then it's the same as for the elves mentioned above, so obviously impossible to prove that one wonders why someone would bother to ask such a question.
Then, we can evaluate each piece of evidence just like for Theists, and determine if the evidence is any good or not.
And now you're talking about evidence, not proof. If you're referring to the type of non-interventionist creator Deity who just creates the universe as it is, however that is, then the only evidence against such an entity is the absence of evidence for it, meaning that, to present human knowledge, we can give this God about the same status of likelihood of existence as the undefined elves I mentioned above.
On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.
Anything in between the two, then the more specific and described the God gets, the more evidence there tends to be against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-07-2007 6:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 2:38 AM bluegenes has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 317 (421515)
09-13-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by purpledawn
09-12-2007 5:15 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
The Socrates in the Plato Dialogues is a fictional character based on a real person.
How do you know he was ever a real person?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by purpledawn, posted 09-12-2007 5:15 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2007 2:51 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 317 (421522)
09-13-2007 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by bluegenes
09-12-2007 8:11 PM


Re: the atheist challenge
I asked the question to point out that Atheists, by the definition of Wikipedia, and not of the type you proclaim to be in particular, declare as truth something which cannot be proven, and so are as guilty as any Theist in pretending it is a truth, despite lack of evidence. I was trying to point out what you've so nicely said:
If so, then it's the same as for the elves mentioned above, so obviously impossible to prove that one wonders why someone would bother to ask such a question.
...
There's absence of evidence for the existence of elves, but no-one has proof of their non-existence.
As for your others:
...we can give this God about the same status of likelihood of existence as the undefined elves I mentioned above.
Indeed.
On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.
This God cannot be disproven either. An absense of a flat Earth is not the same as no-(flatEarth). If we consider (flatEarth) to be positive-[yes]-evidence of yes-God, then in relation to (flatEarth) and God, if we consider the opposite proposal of no-God, then in regards to (flatEarth) the comparable evidence for no-God would be negative-[no]-evidence. An absence of (flatEarth), or negative-[yes]-evidence is not the same thing. Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth). But what is this? Can it exist? Well, can -5 exist outside of the concept? No; negatives do not exist in nature. It is the same with other forms of evidence, -(flatEarth), as it is for numbers; that it cannot exist in nature. So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2007 8:11 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2007 3:54 AM Jon has replied
 Message 174 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2007 5:25 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 170 of 317 (421524)
09-13-2007 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Jon
09-13-2007 12:58 AM


Re: God the Fictional Character
quote:
How do you know he was ever a real person?
I assume you mean the Socrates in the Dialogues.
When we see an advertisement with someone dressed up like President Abraham Lincoln selling a car, what we are viewing is a fictional situation. We know that isn't really Abraham Lincoln, because he is dead. The character on the screen is a fictional character. It would be the same for those who lived in Plato's time.
Socrates the man was not dependent on an author to determine what he said or did. The character in the dialogues does.
Although you still haven't given any parameters for the Christian God, Christianity claims that their God is not dead. The Christian God should not be dependent on authors, etc. to determine what he says or does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 12:58 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 2:56 AM purpledawn has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 317 (421526)
09-13-2007 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by purpledawn
09-13-2007 2:51 AM


Re: God the Fictional Character
Socrates the man was not dependent on an author to determine what he said or did. The character in the dialogues does.
What tells you that 'Socrates the man' ever was? How do you know he was ever a real person? Anything outside of the dialogues that hint at his existence in the 'spatio-temporal' world?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2007 2:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2007 3:46 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 172 of 317 (421534)
09-13-2007 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Jon
09-13-2007 2:56 AM


Re: God the Fictional Character
As I've said, I haven't read them and they were written over 1500 years ago. I personally can't attest to anything that far back or in another country.
But as I stated, one premise of the Christian God is that he isn't dead.
So while we may be dependent on thousand year old documents or records to discern if a person existed, we shouldn't have to for someone or something that currently exists.
If that something or someone's existence is dependent on an author, literary work, people, etc.; then it is a fictional character.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 2:56 AM Jon has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 173 of 317 (421536)
09-13-2007 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jon
09-13-2007 2:38 AM


Re: the atheist challenge
jon writes:
I asked the question to point out that Atheists, by the definition of Wikipedia, and not of the type you proclaim to be in particular, declare as truth something which cannot be proven, and so are as guilty as any Theist in pretending it is a truth, despite lack of evidence.
wiki writes:
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions have been characterized as atheistic because of their lack of belief in a personal god.
Did you miss the "either or" in the first sentence, and not read the second? I sometimes call myself a non-theist.
A simple definition like "atheism affirms the nonexistence of Gods" is the type of thing that theists and agnostics like when they want to pretend that atheism is a faith, which seems to be what you're aiming at. For me, the absence of belief in deities, wiki's broad definition, is the most appropriate. If you don't believe in any deities at this moment, Jon, you are an atheist of sorts, and a non-theist.
Have any of the self-described atheists who've answered your post claimed that they could prove no-God?
jon writes:
bluegenes writes:
On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.
This God cannot be disproven either.
By your logic, a Goddess with red hair who created you as a nine foot tall women with wings cannot be disproven, either. If we're sure that you're not a nine foot tall women with wings, there could still be plenty of non-disproven Goddesses with red hair, but that particular one is non-existent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 2:38 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 1:28 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 174 of 317 (421546)
09-13-2007 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jon
09-13-2007 2:38 AM


Existence or Nonexistence
quote:
So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.
Is there anything (besides you) that supports what you're saying?
In explaining this babble to me in Message 138 you said:
So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world.
By your explanation "no-" in front of something means that thing is a concept only.
So in the OP when you state:
Atheists would say there is no-God.
You're saying that atheists say that there is a concept of God.
quote:
and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.
What you're saying here is that the concept of God is unverifiable. That might have been true before written language, but as soon as you put the concept on paper it is verifiable.
So while the 3D existence of the no-house may not be verifiable in the real world, the written concept can be.
Now concerning the real world you say above that it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence
So if the Book of Luke contains no fiction, then the following statement by Jesus in Luke 11:9-13 (Everyone who asks receives!) is a means to asking for evidence.
I ask the Christian God to reveal himself before me as a small pillar of fire. In the real world the opposite of receiving what you ask for is not receiving what you ask for. So if no small pillar of fire appears, I received no answer and that is my evidence.
So it is either evidence of God's nonexistence or it is evidence that the Book of Luke (and Matthew) contains fictional information, which puts two more ticks in the pro column for God being a fictional character.
quote:
Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth).
The opposite of 5 may be -5 in the numerical world, but opposites in nature don't function in the same way. Something is the opposite of nothing.
The opposite of having a car is not having a car or IOW absence. The opposite of having an idea of a car is not having an idea of a car. Again absence. So the opposite of having flatearth evidence is not having flatEarth evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 2:38 AM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 317 (421639)
09-13-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by bluegenes
09-13-2007 3:54 AM


Re: the atheist challenge
By your logic, a Goddess with red hair who created you as a nine foot tall women with wings cannot be disproven, either.
Correct.
A simple definition like "atheism affirms the nonexistence of Gods" is the type of thing that theists and agnostics like when they want to pretend that atheism is a faith, which seems to be what you're aiming at.
If you don't believe in any deities at this moment, Jon, you are an atheist of sorts, and a non-theist.
It's the definition given by Wikipedia, and the definition that I said we would be using for this thread. WE ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE DEFINITION OF ATHEIST. I am well aware of the many broader definitions regarding the term 'Atheist', but the very problem with using those definitions is just that: they're too broad; and they include everything from strong agnosticism to anti-theistic fundamentalism. What good is the definition of one word if it cannot be used to distinguish it from another word by that same definition? We must adhere to definitions that make each of the words in our debates unique and unambiguous. The fact that Atheist in its more broad definition can apply to other view-points on God makes the broad definition useless when we try to compare Atheists to agnostics to non-theists. It'd be like grouping all believers of God under the title 'Fundamentalist'. Seems foolish. So, I picked the definition that was most applicable and specific; as Wikipedia tells us, the definition being used is in regards to it as 'a philisophical view' (link). Since I would assume this forum debates things on a slightly higher level than just any run of the mill layman crap, I decied that the philisophical definition would be preferable. In the end, my question at the beginning of this thread was aimed at people who:
quote:
... either [affirm] the nonexistence of gods[1] or [reject] theism.[2]
Whether those people call themselves Atheists, agnostics, fools, or ferries; that is not the purpose of this thread. No more discussion on the definition of Atheist, please.
Have any of the self-described atheists who've answered your post claimed that they could prove no-God?
Yes.
I sometimes call myself a non-theist.
Good for you .
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2007 3:54 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2007 4:19 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 178 by ikabod, posted 09-14-2007 7:29 AM Jon has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 176 of 317 (421659)
09-13-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Jon
09-13-2007 1:28 PM


Re: the atheist challenge
It's the definition given by Wikipedia, and the definition that I said we would be using for this thread.
I replied directly to your O.P. in order to point out that atheists don't think that they can prove no-God. If you wanted only atheists who fit your preferred definition to participate, you should've stated that in the O.P., not further down the thread.
Essentially, it seems that you want to define atheists as morons who think they can prove no-God, in order to prove that they're morons who think that they can prove no-God.
What good is the definition of one word if it cannot be used to distinguish it from another word by that same definition?
What you're doing is just re-defining people like Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and all other well known atheists as agnostics, against the common usage, meaning that all non-believers would end up described as agnostics, leaving no room for differences in emphasis.
As you say, this is not about definitions, so enjoy yourself with the atheists who think that they can prove "no-God", and I'll leave you on your own intellectual level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 1:28 PM Jon has not replied

camanintx
Junior Member (Idle past 5211 days)
Posts: 4
From: 3rd rock from the Sun
Joined: 09-11-2007


Message 177 of 317 (421671)
09-13-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
09-07-2007 6:25 PM


Re: the atheist challenge
Jon writes:
Atheists would say there is no-God. And to the Theist they would inquire on his proof that there is-God. But I would like to wonder if Atheists can walk their own walk, practice what they preach. I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Then, we can evaluate each piece of evidence just like for Theists, and determine if the evidence is any good or not.
If it can be shown that anything worthy of definition "God" (ie, intelligent creator of the universe) is logically impossible, would you accept that as proof that there is no God?

"Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?" -- Karen Owens

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-07-2007 6:25 PM Jon has not replied

ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 178 of 317 (421738)
09-14-2007 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Jon
09-13-2007 1:28 PM


Re: the atheist challenge
The problem using the Wikipedia def
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]
is that the basis for reaching the athesit view start from exposure to a theist view .. therefore the conclusion reached , the atheism ,is based on looking at what the theist claims as the evidence for god and finding that evidence wanting . No evidence for the NON-existance is needed because they are never convince by the theist evdience in the first place . There is no absence to account for , you dont try to disprove something that has not been proven.
The problem is you cannot look for the hole made by the non-existance of god , if god never existed to make the hole .
What you need is a world where no one has even considered gods, then one person to float the idea , then you can look to see if there is any evidence for either existance or non existance .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Jon, posted 09-13-2007 1:28 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Quetzal, posted 09-14-2007 8:43 AM ikabod has not replied
 Message 180 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2007 9:00 AM ikabod has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 179 of 317 (421751)
09-14-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by ikabod
09-14-2007 7:29 AM


Re: the atheist challenge
is that the basis for reaching the athesit view start from exposure to a theist view .. therefore the conclusion reached , the atheism ,is based on looking at what the theist claims as the evidence for god and finding that evidence wanting . No evidence for the NON-existance is needed because they are never convince by the theist evdience in the first place . There is no absence to account for , you dont try to disprove something that has not been proven.
Very cogently stated. This is the essence of why I consider myself atheist. Humans have come up with a bewildering myriad of conceptions for god(s), spirits, djinni, etc ad infinitum from the remotest times for which we have records. To date, none of these conceptions have anything remotely resembling evidentiary support. I would add further that many of these conceptions have disconfirming evidence against them. Does that rule out totally the possibility of the existence of ALL conceptions? No, clearly not. However, the burden of proof, as you state, is on the theist/believer to produce evidence in favor. It isn't incumbent upon the "atheist" (however defined) to prove the negative when there has been no proof offered for the positive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ikabod, posted 09-14-2007 7:29 AM ikabod has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 180 of 317 (421752)
09-14-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by ikabod
09-14-2007 7:29 AM


Re: the atheist challenge
ikabod
No evidence for the NON-existance is needed because they are never convince by the theist evdience in the first place .
I placed a similar explanation early on in the thread and I would like to repost it since I never got a comment on it and my ego is in jeopardy of being bruised.
Since non-existence has no evidence {evidence can only be available for that which exists} then I maintain that there can only be evidence for God. Since there is no evidence for God then I say that there is no god. I cannot, however, say that there is no god by giving evidence {proof} for it since by definition of non existence there can never be any.
The only "proof" for God's non existence is tentative and dependent upon the submission of a proof for God's existence.
God does not exist until there is proof he does.
There. I feel so much better.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ikabod, posted 09-14-2007 7:29 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by pbee, posted 09-14-2007 12:27 PM sidelined 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