can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Willamena]

The definitions I've heard:

Soft agnosticism: "the question of God's existence is currently unanswerable based on what we know right now."

Hard agnosticism: "the question of God's existence can never be answered."

Rather, these should (jokingly) be called A Sound Epistemology and An Unsound Epistemology.

While agnosticism hopefully embraces a sound epistemology, the sound epistemology doesn't define it.

 

[Willamena]

Nobody can be 100% sure of anything. It's just assumptions.

Are you sure of that?

 

[kloth]

Nobody can be 100% sure of anything. It's just assumptions.

if people want to be 100% convinced of something, then they can be. even if nobody else is as convinced as they are. doesn't mean they are right with their conviction either, but they may believe they are.

I am one of those.

Real history of our past, and how mythology and religions formed, to me make it perfectly clear that man has created all of these deities.

Man has a long history of making deities, and someone like you may have no problem discounting the thousands created in the past, the only difference between you and me is I personally discount one more then you do.

Scientifically, there is no evidence for god. But there are mountains of evidence man has defined and redefined many different gods. The Abrahamic deity is not safe from this profile either. The Jewish god is defined differently then the Christian god and that is also defined differently then the god of islam. Instead of claiming one is correct only using personal bias to reach said conclusion, I say they are all wrong, and each has defined what they want and needed, thus creating their deity.

i understand that mankind has a habit of making up deities. but does that mean a deity really doesn't exist? even if it is one that has not acknowledged itself to any human ever, whatsoever? but just watches us and/or plays us perhaps?
are you a one up guy?...never mind on that question.

if scientists can't prove a deity exist, does that still 100% rule out a deity existing?
how do we know there isn't a deity that just doesn't need to be acknowledged at all to humans? at least not in this life, maybe in death it happens. i'm not saying that's the case though, just a wonder.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

if people want to be 100% convinced of something, then they can be. even if nobody else is as convinced as they are. doesn't mean they are right with their conviction either, but they may believe they are.

i understand that mankind has a habit of making up deities. but does that mean a deity really doesn't exist? even if it is one that has not acknowledged itself to any human ever, whatsoever? but just watches us and/or plays us perhaps?
are you a one up guy?...never mind on that question.

if scientists can't prove a deity exist, does that still 100% rule out a deity existing?
how do we know there isn't a deity that just doesn't need to be acknowledged at all to humans? at least not in this life, maybe in death it happens. i'm not saying that's the case though, just a wonder.

What you're saying here makes sense to me.

 

[s2a]

i notice some people who are 100% convinced there can't be any kind of deity. but how can you be so certain? rather than just not be so sure.
what solid proof do you have there is no chance of there being some kind of deity that maybe you are just not aware of?

I suppose that is ultimately dependent upon you own fair applications of a qualified "disproof".

What would satisfy your doubt?

Is there any "proof" at all that you would name or qualify as sufficient "disproof" of a claimed "divine entity" or "god"?

Any?

Perhaps if you could define or quantify the definitive "disproof" you seek, then maybe someone might lend you that proof.

Fair enough?

 

[nash8]

You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

You can't prove the existence of anything either, in my opinion.

 

[s2a]

You can't prove the existence of anything either, in my opinion.

So much for that alternate universe on the tip of my index finger next time I wash my hands... so pleased that our care keeper in the nondescript realm of never never land is such a dirty bird...

 

[1robin]

Are you sure of that?

As the great Descartes said. The only think we can actually know for certain is that we think and there for must exist. Everything else has faith involved of some level.

 

[kloth]

I suppose that is ultimately dependent upon you own fair applications of a qualified "disproof".

What would satisfy your doubt?

Is there any "proof" at all that you would name or qualify as sufficient "disproof" of a claimed "divine entity" or "god"?

Any?

Perhaps if you could define or quantify the definitive "disproof" you seek, then maybe someone might lend you that proof.

Fair enough?

i don't know what kind of exact proof i would need, to proof to me that a deity doesn't exist. so i ask in case someone has some kind of proof that maybe i was not thinking of.

What you're saying here makes sense to me.

i do my best. :redx:

 

[1robin]

You can't prove the existence of anything either, in my opinion.

I can prove I think (or think I do). Beyond that only a probability of reliability can be established. Nothing is demonstrable fact but some things are more certain than others.

 

[Meow Mix]

i notice some people who are 100% convinced there can't be any kind of deity. but how can you be so certain? rather than just not be so sure.
what solid proof do you have there is no chance of there being some kind of deity that maybe you are just not aware of?

Well, that depends on what "deity" is supposed to mean. If a deity is supposed to be something with contradictory properties or is otherwise defined incoherently or illogically* then that "deity" can't possibly exist.

(*-Divine Simplicity comes to mind, as do universal possibilist conceptions of omnipotence [those unconstrained by logical possibility])

For instance, a common intuition with monotheist deities is that God exists a se: to have aseity is for something to exist unto itself without being dependent** on any other thing outside itself.

(**-Dependency here is probably best understood as this: x is dependent on y iff y's existence is a necessary precondition for x's existence yet x's existence isn't a necessary precondition for y's existence.)

Another common intuition with monotheist deities is that God has absolute sovereignty: all things are within God's sovereign ability to control so long as it's logically possible to do so.

Most of the time, these intuitions are held together, at which point a paradox called the Aseity-Sovereignty Paradox emerges. It's actually impossible for God to both exist a se and to have absolute sovereignty; and the problem can be demonstrated in many ways, but it's easiest by putting it in a simple question not unlike Euthyphro's Dilemma:

-----
If God exists a se and has absolute sovereignty, then that is God's nature to be those things. The question is then, "Did God have any control over its nature?"

1) "Yes" is impossible because in order for God to have sovereignty over anything, God must be God to do so (must have God's nature). This puts the cart before the horse: how could God have had any control over God's nature without already having God's nature to be able to do so?

2) "No" is impossible given the premises because if God had no control over its nature being what it is, then that immediately implies that God is dependent on some transcendental thing to God -- whatever that is which makes God have that nature which is beyond God's control.
-----

Thus it's impossible for God to exist a se and to be absolutely sovereign. One or both of those premises must be wrong by reductio ad absurdum, and any "deity" which is defined as both existing a se and totally sovereign is impossible to exist.

Does this disprove the existence of ALL deities? No. Just the ones people try to define that way.

There are other examples, such as Euthyphro's Dilemma for deities defined as the source of objective moral facts; or the Problem of Evil for deities with more convoluted groups of properties.

 

[1robin]

Well, that depends on what "deity" is supposed to mean. If a deity is supposed to be something with contradictory properties or is otherwise defined incoherently or illogically* then that "deity" can't possibly exist.

(*-Divine Simplicity comes to mind, as do universal possibilist conceptions of omnipotence [those unconstrained by logical possibility])

For instance, a common intuition with monotheist deities is that God exists a se: to have aseity is for something to exist unto itself without being dependent** on any other thing outside itself.

(**-Dependency here is probably best understood as this: x is dependent on y iff y's existence is a necessary precondition for x's existence yet x's existence isn't a necessary precondition for y's existence.)

Another common intuition with monotheist deities is that God has absolute sovereignty: all things are within God's sovereign ability to control so long as it's logically possible to do so.

Most of the time, these intuitions are held together, at which point a paradox called the Aseity-Sovereignty Paradox emerges. It's actually impossible for God to both exist a se and to have absolute sovereignty; and the problem can be demonstrated in many ways, but it's easiest by putting it in a simple question not unlike Euthyphro's Dilemma:

-----
If God exists a se and has absolute sovereignty, then that is God's nature to be those things. The question is then, "Did God have any control over its nature?"

1) "Yes" is impossible because in order for God to have sovereignty over anything, God must be God to do so (must have God's nature). This puts the cart before the horse: how could God have had any control over God's nature without already having God's nature to be able to do so?

2) "No" is impossible given the premises because if God had no control over its nature being what it is, then that immediately implies that God is dependent on some transcendental thing to God -- whatever that is which makes God have that nature which is beyond God's control.
-----

Thus it's impossible for God to exist a se and to be absolutely sovereign. One or both of those premises must be wrong by reductio ad absurdum, and any "deity" which is defined as both existing a se and totally sovereign is impossible to exist.

Does this disprove the existence of ALL deities? No. Just the ones people try to define that way.

There are other examples, such as Euthyphro's Dilemma for deities defined as the source of objective moral facts; or the Problem of Evil for deities with more convoluted groups of properties.

Actually there are scholars who suggest there is proof of a deity. I do not agree and never use their arguments but allow they may be right. I will post one, but I do not think it persuasive. I have subjective proof personally by experiencing God and have no need of semantic exercises but non-theists seem to love them so here is one.

1. God is defined by the Bible and philosophy as a Omni-maximal being. The greatest conceivable being. He is non-contingent (necessary) and has all great making properties.
2. The stupid but often used multiverse concept has a potential infinite number of universes. If it is true at all then there is no finite restriction on the number of them.
3. If an infinite number of universes exist then all possibilities exist in at least one universe.
4. That means that every not impossible being or concept is present in at least one.
5. God is not impossible.
6. God must exist in at least one universe.
7. If he exists in one and is an optimal being he must exist in all.
8. God exists in all universes.

The multiverse argument is ridiculous but far from being an argument against God if true it proves God exists. I reject arguments that depend on semantic technicalities used by non-theists so this one is just for fun.

 

[s2a]

I can prove I think (or think I do). Beyond that only a probability of reliability can be established. Nothing is demonstrable fact but some things are more certain than others.

Interesting.

So...if I understand your ultimate disclaimer well enough... no available DNA test today would satisfy your doubts as to whether of not your son/daughter was indeed derived directly of your own DNA bis/parts?

Really?

No demonstrable "facts" exist?

None?

Remind me not to ask you what the time of day might be locally, or what the apparent color of the sky might be... because hey, nothing is a demonstrable fact... not even silly ole love...

OK.

PS. (Since you can NEVER prove your 12 yo son is *yours*, I'll pick him up after school on Mon., and adopt him on Tues. since he has no "parents" to claim as "proof".)

TY

 

[1robin]

Interesting.

So...if I understand your ultimate disclaimer well enough... no available DNA test today would satisfy your doubts as to whether of not your son/daughter was indeed derived directly of your own DNA bis/parts?

Really?

No demonstrable "facts" exist?

None?

Remind me not to ask you what the time of day might be locally, or what the apparent color of the sky might be... because hey, nothing is a demonstrable fact... not even silly ole love...

OK.

PS. (Since you can NEVER prove your 12 yo son is *yours*, I'll pick him up after school on Mon., and adopt him on Tues. since he has no "parents" to claim as "proof".)

TY

Go ahead, I do not like him anyway. Actually I don't have a 12 year old son so Good luck.

Of course I personally believe that DNA and a billion other claims are true. Unlike most however I admit they contain faith. Have you never read Descartes'. The only thing we know is that we think. It is not provable that we are not brains in a vat somewhere being fed a false reality. You can't prove reality did not appear 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I and you believe they did not but that is the point. We believe it, we can not prove it. No absolute proof of anything exists beyond the fact we think and I have even had Atheists deny that.

Prove anything beyond the fact we think is true:

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Go ahead, I do not like him anyway. Actually I don't have a 12 year old son so Good luck.

Of course I personally believe that DNA and a billion other claims are true. Unlike most however I admit they contain faith. Have you never read Descartes'. The only thing we know is that we think. It is not provable that we are not brains in a vat somewhere being fed a false reality. You can't prove reality did not appear 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I and you believe they did not but that is the point. We believe it, we can not prove it. No absolute proof of anything exists beyond the fact we think and I have even had Atheists deny that.

Prove anything beyond the fact we think is true:

It's not possible. Which is why solipsism is a ridiculous premise. If it's false, then it's false, and if it's true, it's completely unhelpful.

The standard argument I've heard is that for solipsism to be true, your brain has to be capable of generating every thought, every movie, every classical piece of music or literature, all porn, evil, good, etc. But the assumption there is that we are actually somewhat like we think we are. I could be a 400km wide brain for all I know, or I could be fed thought from an external source (Matrix style). But given that it's useless and possibly harmful to consider the world in such a light, I don't.

 

[Willamena]

Go ahead, I do not like him anyway. Actually I don't have a 12 year old son so Good luck.

Of course I personally believe that DNA and a billion other claims are true. Unlike most however I admit they contain faith. Have you never read Descartes'. The only thing we know is that we think. It is not provable that we are not brains in a vat somewhere being fed a false reality. You can't prove reality did not appear 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I and you believe they did not but that is the point. We believe it, we can not prove it. No absolute proof of anything exists beyond the fact we think and I have even had Atheists deny that.

Prove anything beyond the fact we think is true:

Despite Descartes' conclusions, Neitzsche showed that there is no proof of anything, given the fact that we think.

 

[Willamena]

The standard argument I've heard is that for solipsism to be true, your brain has to be capable of generating every thought, every movie, every classical piece of music or literature, all porn, evil, good, etc. But the assumption there is that we are actually somewhat like we think we are. I could be a 400km wide brain for all I know, or I could be fed thought from an external source (Matrix style). But given that it's useless and possibly harmful to consider the world in such a light, I don't.

It's not a stretch to demonstrate that, given the brain capable of thought, all that we think we are is nothing more than what we think we are.

 

[ladybug77]

Its Simple. 'GOD'...is that someONE? or someTHING? simply doesnt matter...'God' is thought. Not a mind, not a brain or body...a thought...that realizes its thinking. That very moment that pure thought acknowledged itself...that was God. No rules, no exceptions...he/she/it is AWARE of existing...now this thought...is the ONE AND ONLY THOUGHT at this moment! not the one and only molecule...the very first thought! Wow! Time didnt exist...no other thoughts existed...do we know the exact thought? No. Do we understand that something must be aware of existing before it actually exist WITHIN itself? Yes. We assume the plants of earth are 'alive'. Well yes...they are alive to us...because we are aware they exist. But is the plant alive to ITSELF? We dont know!! We arent in charge of the plant! We cant force it to realize its there! We are 'created in 'God's' image...because we think! Because we ask these silly question...we are 'God' like! We exist and we know it! And its beautiful! So if you believe all this...the question is what now?? Ok...fine...im aware that i exist...big stinking deal right? Well...we are on common ground then! All of us...can agree AT LEAST THIS: we are aware of our existence. REGARDLESS of HOW...or WHY ...we are aware. The actual awareness is the root of all questions. But if we were FULLY aware...there would be no questions. We must be somewhere in the middle of 'all knowing'...and not knowing at all! And btw...if my statements are correct...this 'God' would be 'all knowing' considering its the only knowing!! And the 'i am, that i am'...totally makes sense too! That little 'voice' inside your head...do you listen to it? Or ignore it? Are you so conformed to societies 'box' that listening to the very part of you that makes you you is 'crazy?' And if it was crazy...then God is crazy. But its not crazy!!! Its LOVE!! we can experience!! LOVE is the experience! 'GOD' is LOVE! we are love. We are aware...so we reach out to thank someone, anyone for this life! We reach out to curse this life at times! We desire to understand...when we already understand!! We get it! Its the questions that hold us back...we simply just ARE. We share this awareness...that makes us all equal. we cannot make a false idol to God...because its not a 'seeing'...its a 'knowing'.God couldnt have written the bible...people did! Who asked questions...and became aware of something far greater than existing! Yes...KNOWING you are existing! (And reflecting inward) being born again? Yea...this works too...makes since. We are existing withOUT realizing...first birth. We are AWARE...second birth. It can be explained viewing 'God' this way...but ive started a short novel already. Lol. 'God' has given us a great gift! If you understand this...you can see how we are all one. Yet all different. thats what makes us worthy. Unique awareness. ) ahhh....so glad i got that off my chest.ope you are willing to read this:

 

[Willamena]

Its Simple. 'GOD'...is that someONE? or someTHING? simply doesnt matter...'God' is thought. Not a mind, not a brain or body...a thought...that realizes its thinking. That very moment that pure thought acknowledged itself...that was God. No rules, no exceptions...he/she/it is AWARE of existing...now this thought...is the ONE AND ONLY THOUGHT at this moment! not the one and only molecule...the very first thought! Wow! Time didnt exist...no other thoughts existed...do we know the exact thought? No. Do we understand that something must be aware of existing before it actually exist WITHIN itself? Yes. We assume the plants of earth are 'alive'. Well yes...they are alive to us...because we are aware they exist. But is the plant alive to ITSELF? We dont know!! We arent in charge of the plant! We cant force it to realize its there! We are 'created in 'God's' image...because we think! Because we ask these silly question...we are 'God' like! We exist and we know it! And its beautiful! So if you believe all this...the question is what now?? Ok...fine...im aware that i exist...big stinking deal right? Well...we are on common ground then! All of us...can agree AT LEAST THIS: we are aware of our existence. REGARDLESS of HOW...or WHY ...we are aware. The actual awareness is the root of all questions. But if we were FULLY aware...there would be no questions. We must be somewhere in the middle of 'all knowing'...and not knowing at all! And btw...if my statements are correct...this 'God' would be 'all knowing' considering its the only knowing!! And the 'i am, that i am'...totally makes sense too! That little 'voice' inside your head...do you listen to it? Or ignore it? Are you so conformed to societies 'box' that listening to the very part of you that makes you you is 'crazy?' And if it was crazy...then God is crazy. But its not crazy!!! Its LOVE!! we can experience!! LOVE is the experience! 'GOD' is LOVE! we are love. We are aware...so we reach out to thank someone, anyone for this life! We reach out to curse this life at times! We desire to understand...when we already understand!! We get it! Its the questions that hold us back...we simply just ARE. We share this awareness...that makes us all equal. we cannot make a false idol to God...because its not a 'seeing'...its a 'knowing'.God couldnt have written the bible...people did! Who asked questions...and became aware of something far greater than existing! Yes...KNOWING you are existing! (And reflecting inward) being born again? Yea...this works too...makes since. We are existing withOUT realizing...first birth. We are AWARE...second birth. It can be explained viewing 'God' this way...but ive started a short novel already. Lol. 'God' has given us a great gift! If you understand this...you can see how we are all one. Yet all different. thats what makes us worthy. Unique awareness. ) ahhh....so glad i got that off my chest.ope you are willing to read this:

Not bad. But now take the "we" out of the equation, and there's another image of "God."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not a stretch to demonstrate that, given the brain capable of thought, all that we think we are is nothing more than what we think we are.

Exactly.
Whilst in a more literal sense, that is true of solipsism, it's kinda true more metaphorically in any case...lol