Evidence for God's nonexistence

[Autodidact]

People do have evidence for their God's existence...the whole world for starters, their answered prayers, the symmetry of flower petals, the fact that Stars forge elements......I could go on.
What you are incapable of doing is emulating their perceptions of reality...you do not understand it and like so many other people resort to as your OP shows, denigration and the labelling of theists as 'uneducated'.
Uneducated with regard to the way your subjective mind works maybe.
You must understand that it is not that theists cannot offer you any evidence of their God (whatever that is), they can, and try to...the problem is the evidence you ask for to back their assertions is A Not qualified (you dont ask for any paricular type/form of evidence) and/or B Impossible to scientifically obtain..as yet.
But you cannot rule out the anecdotal of what they say they experience or feel, just because they are not scientifically validated froms of evidence...all you can do is deny that they have had anything more than a psychotic episode perhaps or some sensory hallucination or that they are simply being mendacious...
You certainly cannot rule out the philosophy as viewing the universe and everything in it a creation of a higher intelligence or power (what some might call God), because that is and remains scientifcally possible even if in your mind only remotely so.

This would all be subject for another thread, which I think is active right now, about evidence FOR God's existence. This thread is about evidence for God's non-existence.

I suppose, theoretically, you could subtract one from the other and on that basis decide whether God exists!

 

[Autodidact]

angellous evangellous wrote:

To be free? Whether you claim God or not ,you are still a slave to one of two masters

Do you have any support for this assertion?
It's just an assumption and oversimplification indicative of a primitive world view.
I am limited by the laws of nature, my own nature and circumstance, but I am not a slave to anyone or anything. Prove me wrong.

-simply being oblivious to either does not change the truth however hidden it is from a person . . .

And simply asserting something does not make it true.

Even a dumb donkey knows who it's master is . . . ..

Unless it doesn't have one. And people are not donkeys.

 

[Autodidact]

We can say that God=God. We're just saying that we cannot say anything else about it. Obviously we can say that it=it.

And yet, oddly entire libraries have been filed with books doing just that, and at least one of those libraries can be filled with books by Jewish thinkers on the subject.

Then I suppose it would come down to whether or not things have causes. Either way, it isn't all that relevant because my point that "at some point in the chain of things before things after you must reach a thing before that is eternal" remains true.

If there were evidence that reality were nothing more than an eternal loop of non-eternal things then the eternal loop would be God.

Again, it would not meet the normal definition or usage of the word "God."

Saying He doesn't exist is still applying your definition of existence to him.

 

[Autodidact]

So Christianity is a religion of slavery?

I think most Christians would gladly accept that definition. In fact, I think most Muslims would as well.

 

[Sunburned]

Anyway, instead of having the argument about burden of proof, I thought it might be interesting to go ahead and have a thread about the evidence for the non-existence of God.

Got any?

Since different g/Gods have vastly different definitions, it would help to know which God are we talking about?

 

[Autodidact]

Since different g/Gods have vastly different definitions, it would help to know which God are we talking about?

Is there any definition for the word "God" in general?

 

[TheKnight]

Can I make that my quote?

For sure.

Why would God give Adam and Eve a command when he doesn't really care what they do? What is the point with making the command? No matter how emotionally perturbed God was, he certainly was harsh so he did care. He cursed the snake, made man work, and made the woman submit to the man and have childbirth pains, and he applied the same punishment to the rest of humanity. I think he cared.

My personal opinion on the matter is that God wanted them to make a choice. In making our own choices we become like Him (I can explain that if necessary). He prefers that we choose to do what He wants (thus choosing to be more like Him), but ultimately is more concerned with the fact that we made the choice.

God gave us the ability to choose and I believe that His desire is that we make choices. Obviously, I think He prefers that we choose to do what He wants, but is ultimately desires that we make a choice.

So He gave them a command because in doing so they had to choose whether or not to follow it. By choosing to follow it they make a choice and choose to do what He wants (thus deepening the relationship) and by choosing to disregard it we make a choice but choose to move out of the relationship.

So why the punishments if He wanted us to make a choice? Personally, I think it was to make it harder for us to make the decision in the future. Although I realize that isn't the best explanation and I don't know the reason for the punishments considering my position.

As I see it, when it comes to a literal passage of events, only one word is right. Either the tree gave knowledge of good and evil or it creates confusion between these (or maybe both which is unlikely). As you said, the former explanation is the most basic and I think it should be accepted. These verses also bring some light on this confusion.

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

I think it is more reasonable to interpret this verse to mean that the tree gives humans knowledge of good and evil just like God. This verse definitely does not mean that humans now confuse good and evil just like God. If God is perfect, then seeing things in terms of good and evil IS the best way to go.



I read all the way through part 4 of the Serpents of desire series, and it was great. I will however have to disagree with some of his arguments. The fact of the matter is that you are either mortal or immortal and cannot be both or anything in between.

This problem can be explained by assuming the Adam and Eve were immortal before eating the fruit. The reason God had no problem with Adam and Eve eating of the tree of life before eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it would no have changed them at all. If you are a female and eat fruit which makes you a female, there is no change and you are still female. If you are male, then there is a change. The tree of life would not have affected Adam and Eve at all so God did not really care because they were immortal. The tree of good and evil makes a person mortal so when they did eat from it, they were changed into mortals. God didn't want them eating from the tree of life which would have reversed the punishment of mortality and make them immortal again, so he kept them from eating from it.



I don't see things in terms of good and evil either, however the bible does. I agree actions are morally neutral because morality does not exist. The only way we can see things is between pain and pleasure, and can use reason to direct the right course for us.

Assuming morality exists the difference between most people and sociopaths is that they don't have an intuition or special feeling telling them what right and wrong are. Determining what right and are, is not only rational but also emotional and intuitive. These emotions and intuitions are what many people think what the knowledge of good and evil are.

The points you make here are good. Unfortunately, I am unable to respond adequately to them. But I will look into it and get back to you.

I think the biggest problem is that I am not well-versed enough in the level of interpretation that makes up for my beliefs. For this reason, for now I must concede that your observations are correct.

I just want to say that I'm enjoying our conversation, which is exactly the sort of thing I hoped to get out of RF, and your arguments are some of the most coherent and logical I've seen from a theist.

I try.

Back up. Don't jump to the reason. Let's imagine we're having a very odd, stilted conversation about something that we're not sure whether it's real, like a bacteria or black hole or something, and I ask, "Can you attribute existence to it?" If you say, "Yes," aren't you just saying that it exists? Isn't attributing existence to something just the same as saying it exists? So you're sort of saying, "God exists, but we can't say so?"

That is what I am saying, and that is what the Rambam argues in the Guide. That is also what various Hasidic groups teach concerning the matter.

We believe that He exists, but recognize that because of how we define God we cannot say that He exists.

No, your conclusion doesn't follow. The universe is changing. That doesn't mean it's necessarily getting better and better. It's just changing all the time, and this is in fact what we observe.

This is correct.

This is in fact a currently respected, if not mainstream, theory in physics. The universe is eternal and cyclical. Some call it The Big Bounce. I really don't get physics very well, but it's something about the universe expanding till it slows down and stops, when it contracts back into the singularity, when it Big Bangs again, over and over, for eternity.

That's just one of the eternal universe theories being bandied about these days.

I have no problem with such an idea. It doesn't necessarily invalidate our idea of God. However I do realize that it is problematic.

 

[TheKnight]

...Continued

I just don't think you can equate "change" or even "expand" with advance. What you're saying is that the sum total of all the matter/energy in the universe has always been here in one form or another, and just constantly changes and rearranges. And that looks like it might be the case.

Anyway, if universe = God, we don't need a separate word for God, do we? And it seems unlikely that the universe commanded us not to trim the edges of our beards, or to build houses without parapets, doesn't it? I don't think most people mean "the universe" when they say "God." "Blessed be the universe, which has commanded us..." "I, thy universe, am a jealous universe..." I don't think so.

This is true. However, we use a separate word because the word universe implies a certain lack of sentience. We believe that God is sentient.

I agree with this. Sounds like you've progressed to agnosticism.

I wouldn't agree with that, although I do see how you might view it that way.

Not quite. There is something that caused non-eternal things to be. It may itself have been non-eternal. It could have been a cosmic accident, we don't know.

Something at some point must have been eternal.

I reach this conclusion because I do not believe that existence comes from non-existence. The fact that things exist means that at some point something must have always existed, even if that thing is a cycle of non-eternal things coming and going.

Now this is the part where you don't even try for logic. Jews believe this because we're Jews. What? Because I'm born into a certain tribe, the world is a certain way, or I have to believe it's a certain way, whether it is or not?

This is a bit personal for me. I was born into the tribe of Jews, but I don't feel constrained to believe anything in particular because of that accident. The universe is as it actually is, and this is my only chance to figure out to the best of my ability what, how, and why it is, using my Jewish brain. The last thing I want to do is assume my conclusion, and cheat myself out of using evidence and logic.

I suppose. However you must ask yourself what good it does to view the universe "as it actually is."
I do not believe we can perceive anything beyond what our senses tell us. That being the case, it does no good to convince yourself of one perception because ultimately it doesn't matter.

There you go--agnosticism again.

And for me, agnosticism is just the functional equivalent of atheism. What I mean is, agnosticism is more than just not knowing, it's an assertion that we cannot know. And if God, by nature, cannot be known, then to me that's the functional equivalent of non-existence. A thing that cannot be known is, for all intents and purposes in my life, a thing that functionally either doesn't exist, or may as well no exist.

That is a logical conclusion, I suppose. Of course a large part of the reason I do not settle with that conclusion is because of the fact that I think there is sufficient evidence to validate reasonable belief in revelation.

If it has a purpose at all.

It has no purpose in that scenario, which means that whatever purpose you ascribe to it, while ultimately unimportant, will motivate you to behave a certain way.

Doesn't follow. If we are created, which seems extremely unlikely, it could have been for no purpose at all. We may be an accidental by-product of whatever the Creator was actually working on, the cosmic equivalent of static.

Perhaps. But sentient things tend to make things on purpose, even if it is for their own personal enjoyment (which is ultimately the reason God made us).

A purpose of serving a non-existent entity, or an entity you cannot know to exist, seems like a colossal waste of your life.

I have considered this. However, I have come to conclude that if I am a good person, support the poor, fight for freedom, liberate the oppressed, build a family, work for peace and contribute to human advancement all because I am motivated by my desire to serve a non-existent being then my life has not been wasted.

While I don't agree with your argument, I do not find it filled with these fallacies and inaccuracies, which is refreshing. I just think you assume things that we don't know.

I admit that I assume things we do not know. This because I think belief in the revelation of the Torah is reasonable.

Of course, logically speaking, I also realize that from my position (even if I am right about everything I assume) ultimately what we do is only as meaningful as we want it to be. Thus, it doesn't do anyone any good to believe what I believe unless they will be similarly motivated to become a better person as a result.

I find quarrels over religion pointless because it really does not matter. The only disagreements I have are with Christians who are usually very shallow-minded and use their shallow-mindedness to affect the lives of others negatively.

 

[Sunburned]

Is there any definition for the word "God" in general?

I haven't found any that fit all the types of "gods" I have studied, but I'm guessing that everyone's after the exoteric version of the Christian God or a projection of that into other Abrahamic faiths. And on those we can just quote Dawkins and move on... :beach:

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

This thread is about evidence for God's non-existence

Close enough....

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

And on those we can just quote Dawkins and move on... :beach:

LOL ...sure.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

I admit to the the premise that George Burns did a really fine job of portraying a character called God in Oh God. He did a fine job of proving to the character portrayed by John Denver that he (God) actually existed. What we need to understand here is that the movies are make believe. Ther characters in them aren't real except in the sense that they are played by real actors.
Same goes for protrayals and special effects in every movie from the silent Solomon's Temple to Charleston Heston's best supporting actor (the thunderous dude), to Allanis Morrisett. All these examples demonstrate that god is a fictional character. AKA not really existent.
What further non proof do we need.

 

[Autodidact]

That is what I am saying, and that is what the Rambam argues in the Guide. That is also what various Hasidic groups teach concerning the matter.

"God exists but I can't say so?" How do you teach that? You can't even say it.

We believe that He exists, but recognize that because of how we define God we cannot say that He exists.

Cannot say in what sense? In the sense that you're not allowed to say it, or in the sense that it isn't true.

Once again I appreciate your openness to thinking and challenging your own position, all very unusual in a theist.

 

[TheKnight]

"God exists but I can't say so?" How do you teach that? You can't even say it.

Cannot say in what sense? In the sense that you're not allowed to say it, or in the sense that it isn't true.

Once again I appreciate your openness to thinking and challenging your own position, all very unusual in a theist.

We are limited by our inability to effectively use language to describe God. To say that God exists is to put Him in the category of everything else that we say exists, even though He is far above it.

Simply speaking, it's easier to say that He exists. Just like it's easier to say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" than it is to say "In the beginning of...God created the heavens and the Earth."

I suppose it's a matter of different levels of understanding. At the most basic level we say that God exists, but at higher levels of understanding recognize that we cannot say He exists because to use that, or any, word in describing Him to do Him injustice and fail at accurately describing. He more than exists, He is existence itself.

 

[Autodidact]

We are limited by our inability to effectively use language to describe God. To say that God exists is to put Him in the category of everything else that we say exists, even though He is far above it.

Simply speaking, it's easier to say that He exists. Just like it's easier to say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" than it is to say "In the beginning of...God created the heavens and the Earth."

I suppose it's a matter of different levels of understanding. At the most basic level we say that God exists, but at higher levels of understanding recognize that we cannot say He exists because to use that, or any, word in describing Him to do Him injustice and fail at accurately describing. He more than exists, He is existence itself.

But if God is existence itself, then:
(1) we don't need a separate word for God. We have a word for existence, and a much clearer idea of what it means than the word "God."
(2) It doesn't match what we think of or say of God, for example within Judaism. Existence doesn't command us what to eat or wear. Existence doesn't speak directly in a human manner to anyone. We don't worship or entreat existence.

 

[TheKnight]

But if God is existence itself, then:
(1) we don't need a separate word for God. We have a word for existence, and a much clearer idea of what it means than the word "God."
(2) It doesn't match what we think of or say of God, for example within Judaism. Existence doesn't command us what to eat or wear. Existence doesn't speak directly in a human manner to anyone. We don't worship or entreat existence.

And that is why we have a separate word. Because existence doesn't imply sentience and we believe that God is sentient.

 

[Willamena]

But if God is existence itself, then:
(1) we don't need a separate word for God. We have a word for existence, and a much clearer idea of what it means than the word "God."

But if we do that then we emphasize the equivalence between "God" and "existence" but totally ignore the distinction between "God" and "existence." Not acceptable. Both perspectives exist.

(2) It doesn't match what we think of or say of God, for example within Judaism. Existence doesn't command us what to eat or wear. Existence doesn't speak directly in a human manner to anyone. We don't worship or entreat existence.

It doesn't matter, anyway. Nobody listens.

 

[PolyHedral]

But if we do that then we emphasize the equivalence between "God" and "existence" but totally ignore the distinction between "God" and "existence." Not acceptable. Both perspectives exist.

But God and "existence" (which is an abstract property) are either the same thing or not. God being both the same as and distinct from existence is nonsensical.

 

[Willamena]

But God and "existence" (which is an abstract property) are either the same thing or not. God being both the same as and distinct from existence is nonsensical.

Seeing is often simply a matter of perspective.

 

[Autodidact]

And that is why we have a separate word. Because existence doesn't imply sentience and we believe that God is sentient.

Would you call this view pantheism? Or Panentheism?