Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Nakosis]

For God's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for God's absence.

Whatever claims you make about God, you would need to come up with a method to test whether the opposite is not true. Evidence for God is not enough. You'd also need to provide evidence that a God's absence in the universe is not possible.

So generally you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to provide evidence for God. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that the opposite of God's existence, the absence of a God is not true.

IOW, in your daily life, what would it be impossible for you to do or impossible to happen if there was no God.

Remember, you can't just make a claim. You also have to provide evidence to back up your claim that the absence of a God is not possible.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is the term "God" pointing to in your OP?

I think before you make the claim you make in the OP, you need to define your terms. Unless the term "God" can be universally defined, the claim made in the OP is rather pointless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really sure I comprehend what you are saying.


Say that I meet some people of a remote tribe on some island that have been living there without contact with the world beyond their island for thousands of years. Suppose there are no horses on said island. They have never seen horses and are unaware of their existence.

I tell them about horses and how they are magnificently elegant, big and strong animals that you can ride as a means of transportation.
Say they don't believe me and ask for evidence.

How could I show them evidence that the "absence of a horse is not possible"? Seems strange.
All I would have to do is bring them a horse. How could I otherwise convince them that horses are real, other actually showing them a horse?

 

[Balthazzar]

I believe in the existence of the universe. I don't even think it possible for the universe not to exist because in order for what has become the universe to be what it is, it is required that it was something before it became that. Whatever that something might have been, it was the universe before it became what we today acknowledge it to be. I acknowledge myself to have been my dad before I became me through my mother. Beyond this line of reasoning, I don't know how else I might attempt to articulate that which I understand to be true.

Proof? Evidence? My pool of data is limited to what I understand about life. I am only able to articulate that which I can understand, and that pool is confined to this little grain of sand planet floating around in a much larger ocean I've never been able to experience beyond how I'm able to experience from where I am.

I don't really feel the need to prove what I know to be and I'm not sure I care if it ever wasn't because at the moment it is and I'm part of it. If I'm ever not to be, or rather if it is ever not to be, then I will also be that with it, confined to whatever it is I will be confined to.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For God's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for God's absence.

Whatever claims you make about God, you would need to come up with a method to test whether the opposite is not true. Evidence for God is not enough. You'd also need to provide evidence that a God's absence in the universe is not possible.

So generally you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to provide evidence for God. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that the opposite of God's existence, the absence of a God is not true.

IOW, in your daily life, what would it be impossible for you to do or impossible to happen if there was no God.

Remember, you can't just make a claim. You also have to provide evidence to back up your claim that the absence of a God is not possible.

No. Without proper evidence, it's completely dismissable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. Without proper evidence, it's completely dismissable.

But it - whatever it may be - doesn't go away just because you dismiss it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the term "God" pointing to in your OP?

I think before you make the claim you make in the OP, you need to define your terms. Unless the term "God" can be universally defined, the claim made in the OP is rather pointless.

The truth of the OP doesn't depend on the specific definition of "God," though. This statement still works:

For a thing's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for the thing's absence.

The person putting forward the argument that a thing must exist (or cannot be absent) would be the one to specify exactly what they think must exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it - whatever it may be - doesn't go away just because you dismiss it.

What is the "it" that you're referring to?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So generally you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to provide evidence for God. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that the opposite of God's existence, the absence of a God is not true.

Believers can do neither. Nor have they any incentive to falsify their faith-based beliefs. God beliefs aren't acquired using evidence and can't be modified by evidence. That's the nature of faith. Faith is belief divorced from evidence.

But it - whatever it may be - doesn't go away just because you dismiss it.

Nor does it become real just because one wants it to be.

The goal of the critical thinker is to accumulate only demonstrably correct beliefs and to avoid false and unfalsifiable beliefs. Claims that can neither be ruled in or out aren't believed or disbelieved. They remain in a separate category from things deemed correct or incorrect. Like known false beliefs, they don't affect decision making. That's why agnosticism for gods leads to agnostic atheism. The agnostic atheist doesn't claim that gods don't exist, nor need he to live as if they don't.

When a god, if any exist, manifests itself unambiguously, then I will become a theist. Until then, there is no reason for the atheist to become one and no value to him to start thinking about gods as if they exist. Even if they do, so what? How is knowing that useful? How should one's life change the day he becomes aware that a god exists? I'd say not at all.

It's kind of like learning that dark matter exists. The information, though interesting, has no practical value. Nothing changes in the typical life knowing that.

 

[Nakosis]

What is the term "God" pointing to in your OP?

I think before you make the claim you make in the OP, you need to define your terms. Unless the term "God" can be universally defined, the claim made in the OP is rather pointless.

Yes, if you can't universally define a God, then any claims about a God are pointless. Thanks for pointing that out.

This is more for folks who do think a God can be universally defined.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The truth of the OP doesn't depend on the specific definition of "God," though. This statement still works:

For a thing's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for the thing's absence.

The person putting forward the argument that a thing must exist (or cannot be absent) would be the one to specify exactly what they think must exist.

This assumes "God" is a "thing." Not everyone agrees that it is.

 

[Nakosis]

Not really sure I comprehend what you are saying.


Say that I meet some people of a remote tribe on some island that have been living there without contact with the world beyond their island for thousands of years. Suppose there are no horses on said island. They have never seen horses and are unaware of their existence.

I tell them about horses and how they are magnificently elegant, big and strong animals that you can ride as a means of transportation.
Say they don't believe me and ask for evidence.

How could I show them evidence that the "absence of a horse is not possible"? Seems strange.
All I would have to do is bring them a horse. How could I otherwise convince them that horses are real, other actually showing them a horse?

You answered your question. By showing them the horse you provided evidence that the non-existence of a horse is not possible.
And, whatever claims you make about a horse for example, a horse can be black. You show them a black horse. Or, a horse can be white, you show them a white horse. You are providing evidence there is not an absence of black or white horses.

Otherwise, they would have no reason to accept your claim.

 

[Altfish]

For God's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for God's absence.

Whatever claims you make about God, you would need to come up with a method to test whether the opposite is not true. Evidence for God is not enough. You'd also need to provide evidence that a God's absence in the universe is not possible.

So generally you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to provide evidence for God. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that the opposite of God's existence, the absence of a God is not true.

IOW, in your daily life, what would it be impossible for you to do or impossible to happen if there was no God.

Remember, you can't just make a claim. You also have to provide evidence to back up your claim that the absence of a God is not possible.

How would you prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Loch Ness Monster don't exist?

 

[McBell]

Seems this thread is already suffering from the "Define god" curse.

 

[firedragon]

For God's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for God's absence.

Whatever claims you make about God, you would need to come up with a method to test whether the opposite is not true. Evidence for God is not enough. You'd also need to provide evidence that a God's absence in the universe is not possible.

So generally you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to provide evidence for God. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that the opposite of God's existence, the absence of a God is not true.

IOW, in your daily life, what would it be impossible for you to do or impossible to happen if there was no God.

Remember, you can't just make a claim. You also have to provide evidence to back up your claim that the absence of a God is not possible.

Actually, most of the proofs or evidences theists provide for the existence of God is also evidences and proofs for the impossibility of God's non-existence. I cannot think of any that's otherwise really.

 

[firedragon]

How would you prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Loch Ness Monster don't exist?

The OP speaks of proof for existence and the impossibility of non-existence of what the God you present.

So how do you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists first?

 

[Altfish]

The OP speaks of proof for existence and the impossibility of non-existence of what the God you present.

So how do you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists first?

There's a book about him, I have it. You can buy it here.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0007231601/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1I9STIO5V3LEA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sA4Z-n5Sl3lU0C4yL11wuyDE11sevKSwW0HNyUFCaJn6t-PLYngHy4XSNMYBgDkJn0QFqFLJlwQdlJH_LT5b6oWyIwnDTC0yGwbmlDJn2WM4klxiUqbf2hKG23nY9XWjRMAdfGJV4xEfCNH3ohmz0LfRdlRz19lP48In4vkQyjCF9HTYeZV-6mkuRruJfgqlvbLBqevzbrJT0KFsAh3ZTaiade5hA8FLHxuDKVC1Rpw.m6UVijQCGUiUY6c1VTgJDl48dD__DL2gajZFTnidhxE&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+gospel+of+the+flying+spaghetti+monster&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1727362277&sprefix=the+gospel+of+the+%2Caps%2C105&sr=8-1

 

[Nakosis]

I believe in the existence of the universe. I don't even think it possible for the universe not to exist because in order for what has become the universe to be what it is, it is required that it was something before it became that. Whatever that something might have been, it was the universe before it became what we today acknowledge it to be. I acknowledge myself to have been my dad before I became me through my mother. Beyond this line of reasoning, I don't know how else I might attempt to articulate that which I understand to be true.

Proof? Evidence? My pool of data is limited to what I understand about life. I am only able to articulate that which I can understand, and that pool is confined to this little grain of sand planet floating around in a much larger ocean I've never been able to experience beyond how I'm able to experience from where I am.

I don't really feel the need to prove what I know to be and I'm not sure I care if it ever wasn't because at the moment it is and I'm part of it. If I'm ever not to be, or rather if it is ever not to be, then I will also be that with it, confined to whatever it is I will be confined to.

This is not about what you believe. This is about getting other people to accept something is true. Of course, if you have no desire to get someone else to accept the truth of something, then this is nothing you need worry about.

This is the realm of the self-evident. You would need to provide evidence to the other person that your claim is self-evident to them. IOW, in this case evidence that the "absence of a God" not being possible would also have to be self-evident to them.

 

[firedragon]

Tell me. What's the evidence he provides?

 

[firedragon]

There's a book about him, I have it. You can buy it here.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0007231601/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1I9STIO5V3LEA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sA4Z-n5Sl3lU0C4yL11wuyDE11sevKSwW0HNyUFCaJn6t-PLYngHy4XSNMYBgDkJn0QFqFLJlwQdlJH_LT5b6oWyIwnDTC0yGwbmlDJn2WM4klxiUqbf2hKG23nY9XWjRMAdfGJV4xEfCNH3ohmz0LfRdlRz19lP48In4vkQyjCF9HTYeZV-6mkuRruJfgqlvbLBqevzbrJT0KFsAh3ZTaiade5hA8FLHxuDKVC1Rpw.m6UVijQCGUiUY6c1VTgJDl48dD__DL2gajZFTnidhxE&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+gospel+of+the+flying+spaghetti+monster&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1727362277&sprefix=the+gospel+of+the+%2Caps%2C105&sr=8-1

So explain why his evidence is implausible and say please how he proves the impossibility of it's non-existence. Thanks.