can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Sees]

My apologies.
I misunderstood the context of your reply.

Using a phone for forums, I often put my reply before a large quote, so it encourages this and it happens often.

I need to figure out the partial post quoting mysteries

 

[Copernicus]

The existence of god is purely a semantical issue and is only relevant on what a person accepts as proof of god. I hold to a fairly strong panentheistic acceptance of god so you can easily imagine that I do not find anything special about god.

Nobody questions your right to hold an opinion, but the question of what counts as acceptable evidence is not merely a matter of opinion. If you claim that something exists, then you are making an empirical claim. It is reasonable to ask what evidence you have for the claim and why you consider it valid evidence. If that evidence only makes sense you personally, then you ought not to fault others for rejecting your claim.

The reason for being a panendeist are as reasonable as being an atheist. No matter how you re-quote what I said earlier it will do you no benefit since you are only speaking in circles about a subject matter.

My purpose was only to show you that you made a rather weak argument. An atheist could make exactly the same argument, and it would be just as weak. None of us is really concerned about whether God's existence can be believed or disbelieved with absolute certainty. It would be absurd to expect that, because no empirical claim can be known to be true or false with absolute certainty. What we are interested in is whether the claim can be made with reasonable certainty. And that is where we all disagree and why we consider the issue worth debating.

It is not a matter of if you are gnostic or not it is a matter of how you remove yourself from the loop of agnosticism. Theists hold to some sort of proof or conclusion based upon odds that the existence of a particular deity is evident. Atheists on the other hand usually just rebuttal the existence of 1 particular god or a select few in the category yet have no answer for the non acceptance of the existence of other deities or theologies.

I am not the kind of atheist who relies solely on "burden of proof" arguments, but I still consider it a valid point that the burden of proof lies with theists. I can tell you why I do not believe that Santa Claus exists, and I can tell you why I do not believe that gods exist. That doesn't mean that I think we carry an equal burden of proof.

There are your gnostic theists and gnostic atheists yet being a gnostic about a particular matter can be a major fallacy as it will rely upon the burden of proof.

I don't quite follow you here. All positive claims carry a burden of proof. It's not a bad thing to try to meet that burden. I may not be able to prove absolutely that anyone or anything exists, but I can certainly provide reasonable arguments pro and con.

Atheism is not a standpoint on the opposite end of the nonexistence of god, there is no line where you atheism on one side, agnosticism in the middle and theism on the other. Atheism purely means the lack of disbelief in a god yet many atheists like yourself conclude that you are an atheist to the existence of all gods.

Sterling, you should proofread your posts. That paragraph was barely comprehensible. Atheism is not "lack of disbelief". It is disbelief. I take atheism to be rejection of belief in gods, and I do feel justified in rejecting belief in gods. I've given my reasons for that rejection before in this forum, and I will be happy to do so again.

If you refutation to this is that you find no evidence to conclude that a god exist then you are making an agnostic argument but if you say you have found significant proof(the validity of it does not matter) that no god exists at all then you must readily attempt to refute ALL religions and theologies.

You use the expression "significant proof", because you don't want to consider the possibility that there could be "reasonable evidence" to reject belief in gods. You keep trying to make this more difficult than it needs to be. I am perfectly happy to justify my rejection of belief in the existence of gods (that's right--all of them), but there is no point in talking to someone whose mind is closed on the subject.

The burden of proof relies upon both parties not on the party making the positive

Actually, existence claims are quite special in that they are always empirical. It is easier to prove a claim of existence, because all you have to do is produce the thing that you claim exists--or provide reasonable evidence for existence. So, even if I can't produce an atom for you to look at, I can still produce very good evidence that atoms exist. OTOH, it is very difficult to prove that atoms don't exist, because you would have to prove, in principle, that one could never find one no matter how hard one tried--that there could be no reasonable evidence ever for existence. Because it is so much harder to disprove a claim of existence, the burden of proof usually lies with the person making the existence claim. I don't need to prove to you that the Tooth Fairy does not exist (although I could tell you why I think she doesn't exist), but the burden of proof is certainly on you, if you want to claim that she exists.

 

[Ingledsva]

Wow! Just Wow! I can't believe you said that. The reality is that the indigenous people had every right to try and save their culture, and land, and to fight off the invaders.

1. No they do not. If we find an island full of people systematically torturing another islands culture by force they have no right to anything beyond a 100 megaton explosion. Once again the abject failure of your moral methodology reveals it's self in the most diabolical way. 2. I can stop systematic torture, chattel slavery, and human right suppressions and remain consistent with my world views. You must either allow it as you suggest here or you must abandon your world view to find justification for intervention. Thank God almighty most of the world does not agree with you. If they did Hitler and Stalin would control everything and be systematically killing off all opposition. All cultures do not have justifiable reasons in defense of their existence.

1. You continue to ignore that the Christian people doing this conquering were the same, or worse! ALL of Christian Europe attacked, tortured, and murdered, their neighbors. And then attacked, tortured, and murdered, on other continents. Guess they needed a "100 megaton explosion."


It is also funny how you keep trying to twist how we got our "codes of conduct."

So called "moral conduct" is decided and evolved by people over time. This is why we have differences in cultures, and over time, etc. Your belief in an invisible man has nothing to do with how we actually evolved such to this point. No God is needed to evolve moral conduct ideas.


2. It is NOT my "moral methodology." It is how they evolved over time. That is a fact.

You and your world views cannot change systematic torture, slavery, and human rights violations, any more then the human majority world moral view can. Both want to stop such, but there will always be some whom won't comply with such laws from either side. The idea that Hitler and Stalin would still be in power is just ridiculous - as they obviously aren't. Moral ideas will continue to evolve, and gather more nations into more humane human action.



*

 

[Sees]

1. You continue to ignore that the Christian people doing this conquering were the same, or worse! ALL of Christian Europe attacked, tortured, and murdered, their neighbors. And then attacked, tortured, and murdered, on other continents. Guess they needed a "100 megaton explosion."


It is also funny how you keep trying to twist how we got our "codes of conduct."

So called "moral conduct" is decided and evolved by people over time. This is why we have differences in cultures, and over time, etc. Your belief in an invisible man has nothing to do with how we actually evolved such to this point. No God is needed to evolve moral conduct ideas.


2. It is NOT my "moral methodology." It is how they evolved over time. That is a fact.

You and your world views cannot change systematic torture, slavery, and human rights violations, any more then the human majority world moral view can. Both want to stop such, but there will always be some whom won't comply with such laws from either side. The idea that Hitler and Stalin would still be in power is just ridiculous - as they obviously aren't. Moral ideas will continue to evolve, and gather more nations into more humane human action.



*

The fact that it was people who abolished slavery large scale, and not divine law or command, is really enough simple proof.

In many traditions the God/Gods give advice through nature, experiences, old stories, etc. and guide us with the gifts of innate sense of justice, compassion, quest for knowledge/intelligence/wisdom...the ones that have divine laws or commands set in stone better have got them perfect!

Would any divine mind not understand the need for these things to adapt and grow with the evolution of humanity?

 

[Trantorfuzz]

1. Abolitionist movements were often religious. See this article. Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Christians maintain that people are responsible for such atrocities as slavery, owing to the fact that when God gave Humanity the knowledge of good and evil, he gave Humanity the option of doing all sorts of horrible things--even in his name.

3. Being an atheist or agnostic does not relieve one of the responsibility to describe history and theology accurately when criticizing the various Christian movements.

4. However, being an atheist or agnostic does allow one to ignore doctrines about the supernatural with no loss of integrity.

 

[Sees]

1. Abolitionist movements were often religious. See this article. Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Christians maintain that people are responsible for such atrocities as slavery, owing to the fact that when God gave Humanity the knowledge of good and evil, he gave Humanity the option of doing all sorts of horrible things--even in his name.

3. Being an atheist or agnostic does not relieve one of the responsibility to describe history and theology accurately when criticizing the various Christian movements.

4. However, being an atheist or agnostic does allow one to ignore doctrines about the supernatural with no loss of integrity.

No doubt religious and irreligious both wanted to abolish slavery, and some of both also wanted to keep it around. I say it's because they are people first and foremost that they understood it was cruel and wrong and fought to abolish it.

Same as with women's rights and so on. Whether it was the divine gifts working/guiding from within us or not - it wasn't scripture from a mainstream religion that did it.

Our morality and ethics are all about human choices in the end.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let me make this point a little more technical. The most widely used definition for evidence in these contexts is data who's inclusion makes the proposition more likely by it's inclusion. If a huge proportion of those that have seriously investigated a proposition and it's evidence choose to adopt it as true then that is an indication that the quality of evidence justifies belief. Whenever you say that some basically said X. You are really saying you are going to rephrase their statement in a way that improves the chance you can contend with it. The fact that so many people who have investigated the evidence conclude the gospels are indicates the evidence justifies that conclusion. Just as it does in almost every field of academics it reinforces the probability of it being true. Now please use those statements and not a version of them. Numbers are used constantly to indicate truth but they are not valid to use to determine truth. That is the difference and where the misuse of a fallacy employed as a crutch comes in.

Actually this if false. It doesn't matter how many people accept something as true despite how much evidence and contemplation they shift through. If they are wrong then they are wrong. The evidence must speak for itself.

So no that isn't actually evidence or support for anything. It does however make it popular by definition.

 

[s2a]

So far you have only proven you will claim to do what all the experts say is impossible. Next.

"Experts say is impossible".

Well, that should settle matters...

Any of those "experts" you have on call in testimonial or readily producible at your behest, a person utterly absent any religious faith or beliefs?

Any?

I sooo look forward to engaging a theological/philosophical "expert" upon concepts of impossibility...

I still have my "proofs", when you are willing and ready...

*taps fingers*

 

[s2a]

Only atheists who like to pussyfoot. Since atheism is the belief that theism is false, and that there are no gods, atheists generally do a heck of alot more than imply that there is no god.

Indeed.

Matter of fact, "atheism" is a denial (as matter of fact) of divine or super-naturalistic existence as beguiling explanation of natural events...as being otherwise ordained, fashioned, purposed, planned, or "meaningful".

My understanding is NOT simply an "implication"

"Saying something for sure" and being "certain" are pretty much the same thing, so this is a vacuous tautology. You're basically saying "the only way they can say this for sure is if they can say this for sure". Not very insightful.

No, but it is pretty clear.

This isn't strictly speaking correct. For "god" to be a general term, there's gotta be some universal commonalities, in virtue of which something qualifies as a particular god- there is something "godlike", that makes something a god. If, however, this/these necessary, sine qua non properties of gods are incoherent, then this is extremely compelling and conclusive evidence that there are no such things. And, as it happens, these essential properties of gods are incoherent- namely, transcendence and action/causal potency. Put simply, a transcendent cosmic creator/intervener is contradictory, and could not exist, even in principle.

Well, Santa could...soo... let's stick to science on this one...

Such an argument completely bypasses your objection. Showing that the conjunction of "round" and "square" are contradictory proves that round squares do not exist- and similarly with gods. We don't have to look around to see if they exist, because we can see that the very concept is incoherent.

Again (and excuse my lack of confounding Latin here), argumentation against philosophy or faith-based beliefs alone will always fall short.

"Faith" is the willingness of the mind to accept certain claims as "true".

Period.

Of course, "belief" demands no evidences, no scientific scrutiny, no "proof" of any sort. Zero. None. Nada.

What "science" can best provide today...

...is "evidential proof" that the cosmos CAN and DOES "exist" absent any wishing or faith based claims that ANY deity need exist as explanation OF the cosmos.

If you "wish" that a "god did it": that's ok, and is kinda sorta harmless superficially...

What contemporary scientific insight, knowledge, and testable proofs (not allege, mind you) demonstrate is that the cosmos does not require, demand, nor seek a "reason to be".

Conceptual gods, forces, or mean cave bears...may yet satisfy those that believe wishful or magical thinking will provide a personalized and elemental "purpose" to an individual absent a particular "reason" to "be"...

...all I suggest is that anyone can look upon the night sky, and witness with the unaided human eye first hand...only a sliver of the entirety of the cosmos and it's billions of galaxies, each with their own billions of stars, each and every star within potentially possessing a dozen or more planets/moons of it's own...

...and wonder why oh why you can not find any personalized "purpose" in that unimaginable vastness of the cosmos...if a "god" does not "exist".

If you can accept a simple premise that the cosmos does not care, and has no concern for picking winners or losers, or that cosmological events never determine reward nor punishments (especially upon you)...

Maybe then you can look around and see the here and now, and not trash the place for the billions of humans that will follow and never acknowledge you were even here.

Remember that guy that invented the wheel?
The guy that invented written language?

Me neither.

20,000 years from now, NO ONE will examine your efforts, pastimes, hobbies, or favorite books.

Remember your great-great-grandfather's favorite color? His job? Was he "good"? His dreams, wishes, or beliefs? Anything?

and so...about you...

 

[Contemplative Cat]

When it comes down to it a limited quality cannot be the source of other limited qualities. The Creator could not be anything created like a person. This goes against reason.

Its just the force. The source, something actually worthy of being called God.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

When it comes down to it a limited quality cannot be the source of other limited qualities. The Creator could not be anything created like a person. This goes against reason.

Its just the force. The source, something actually worthy of being called God.

 

[Copernicus]

When it comes down to it a limited quality cannot be the source of other limited qualities. The Creator could not be anything created like a person. This goes against reason.

Your reasoning doesn't work very well for me, because there are plenty of created things that were made by created things. For example, chickens create eggs, but they come from eggs that other chickens created.

What you seem to be trying to say is that complex things can only be created by something of greater complexity, but we observe the opposite in nature. Simpler things combine to make more complex things. For example, atoms combine to create molecules. A sodium atom and a chlorine atom combine to form sodium chloride, a molecule of salt. Over time, simpler things in our universe have combined with each other to make more complex things. Less complex organisms have evolved to become more complex organisms. There is no evidence that anything other than simple physical interactions caused all of the complexity that we see around us.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yes but if God was a person then he must be produced by nature, then that would mean nature is higher than this supposed god

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes but if God was a person then he must be produced by nature, then that would mean nature is higher than this supposed god

Or it's all one united thing which we all are part of. Nothing is higher or lower than anything else. All things are just different perspectives of the same.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes but if God was a person then he must be produced by nature, then that would mean nature is higher than this supposed god

Usually, "God" is defined as the "prime mover" or "first cause". This is essentially the cosmological argument, which is usually attributed to Plato and Aristotle. The idea is that there cannot have been an infinite causal regression. Everything had to start somewhere. The logic of the argument is grounded in a posteriori reasoning--that is, that everything in our experience is the result of causation. Whether or not God has the characteristics of a "person" strikes me as a completely separate issue.

Usually, atheists take the position that there is no reason to believe that any intelligent being was necessary to create the physical reality we find ourselves in. Everything can be explained in terms of physical interactions, and science has built up a model of physical reality that seems to support that belief. That is, there is evidence all around us that complex phenomena arise out of the interaction between simpler phenomena. God is conventionally described as a being that is more complex than anything in the universe, but we find no reason to assume that a more complex being was needed to bring about the complexity that we see around us. It can all be explained more coherently, if we assume that physical reality (not God) has just always existed in one form or another. In other words, physical reality itself is the Uncaused Cause. No gods needed to apply for the job of creating it.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Or it's all one united thing which we all are part of. Nothing is higher or lower than anything else. All things are just different perspectives of the same.

Physical reality is Gods body, any divine person exists within this God as a limited object.
This argument does not negate the idea of cosmic will, however it negates the legitimacy for. Worshiping idols of gods.
If nature is higher than the false God, we all obey natures laws, and since there is only one whole Nature. Nature is the one true God. Deus dive Natura!

 

[Copernicus]

Physical reality is Gods body, any divine person exists within this God as a limited object.
This argument does not negate the idea of cosmic will, however it negates the legitimacy for. Worshiping idols of gods.
If nature is higher than the false God, we all obey natures laws, and since there is only one whole Nature. Nature is the one true God. Deus dive Natura!

I think that you may be stretching the metaphor a little too far. There is no dominance hierarchy inherent in our relationship to the universe, and there is no sense to be made of an expression like "cosmic will". Quarks may be attracted or repelled from each other by natural forces, but that does not mean that their attraction or repulsion is anything like emotional attractions or repulsions. When we think of "will", we think of a being with conscious intention. There is no reason to believe that there is any consciousness in the universe outside of that generated by, and dependent on, a living brain.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Usually, "God" is defined as the "prime mover" or "first cause".

Usually God is defined in the terms of classical Greek philosophy? That's news to... well, everyone I expect.

This is essentially the cosmological argument, which is usually attributed to Plato and Aristotle.

The causal argument was Aristotle's, not Plato's, although it certainly has some similarities with Plato's argument from motion, given in Laws.

Usually, atheists take the position that there is no reason to believe that any intelligent being was necessary to create the physical reality we find ourselves in. Everything can be explained in terms of physical interactions, and science has built up a model of physical reality that seems to support that belief. That is, there is evidence all around us that complex phenomena arise out of the interaction between simpler phenomena. God is conventionally described as a being that is more complex than anything in the universe, but we find no reason to assume that a more complex being was needed to bring about the complexity that we see around us. It can all be explained more coherently, if we assume that physical reality (not God) has just always existed in one form or another. In other words, physical reality itself is the Uncaused Cause. No gods needed to apply for the job of creating it.

That's also not quite right; atheists are not committed to an eternally existing universe, and even if they were, that would NOT render the universe as the uncaused first cause- if the universe has always been, this means there is no first cause; there is no X such that X does not have a prior antecedent cause Y.

In any case, this is not the usual basis for rejecting the cosmological argument, or even theism generally- the cosmological argument suffers from some rather serious, basic logical flaws; it simply is not a logically sound argument. And many atheists reject theism not because God is superfluous, but because the notion of God is incoherent and because known facts actually contradict the truth-conditions for God's existence.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

I think that you may be stretching the metaphor a little too far. There is no dominance hierarchy inherent in our relationship to the universe, and there is no sense to be made of an expression like "cosmic will". Quarks may be attracted or repelled from each other by natural forces, but that does not mean that their attraction or repulsion is anything like emotional attractions or repulsions. When we think of "will", we think of a being with conscious intention. There is no reason to believe that there is any consciousness in the universe outside of that generated by, and dependent on, a living brain.

Quantum physics has gained evidence to suggest that. Consciousness exists as a static electromagnetic feild that spans the whole universe and beyond.
The whole for sure dominates the individual whom is totally dependent on nature for any kind of existence. The individual isn't even real since the body is part of nature.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Quantum physics has gained evidence to suggest that. Consciousness exists as a static electromagnetic feild that spans the whole universe and beyond.

The individual isn't even real since the body is part of nature.

There's a term for this, I just can't put my finger on it... Oh yeah, its "non-sequitur".