Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[BrightShadow]

Sure, I can define anything as God but it wouldn't change the logic. For example I can say God is a rock and God has no other properties than is self-evident to being a rock. However this is not really to help me in defining what God is and defending it, it is to help you so you can logically support what you define as God.



Ok, here you are claiming a property of God, "God is everywhere". What is it, what exists everywhere which is God. You are claiming a property without specifying the substance which has this property. Energy is everywhere. So is God energy? Or did you have something else in mind?



What something is there all the time?



We are proof that what exists?



Yes, that is where logic helps. In the case where you can't provide the self-evident substance of your claim you can provide self-evident evidence which infers the truth of your claim.



Sure, without the laws of nature, everything would be chaos. So are you claiming that the laws of nature are God?



What other realms? If you can provide self-evident evidence of these other realms then we can examine this and together perhaps infer some conclusion about them.



That's a simple answer. Without any self-evident evidence the answer is no. So are you saying without self-evident evidence you cannot know what God is. Without knowing what God is, you certainly can't know the properties of something you don't know. Welcome the the agnostic club.



Yes, that is where logic comes in. With self-evident evidence, you can infer what is true. However first you have to define what it is evidence of to support the idea that your evidence actually supports what you are inferring is true.



However you have yet to define God. You could for example define a baby and that definition would be self evident by having examined a baby.

So far you have only claim that God has properties, like the baby would have the properties of gender, which again, self-evident. Nothing to prove. However, without defining what a baby was. The substance of what you are giving properties to how can you determine what properties to assign to it?

So, you don't believe in a God (creator of all things) and you want to know why a creator is even needed since (you believe) things can just create by itself out of nothing (thin air)?

Well, I don't really know what you believe but it surely seems like you believe things just created by itself!

You are also not only seeking proof of God's existence (because that is not enough for you) - you also want proof that someone claiming to be God must immediately also prove he is indeed God and that the universe cannot sustain itself if he was absent. So, he has to prove his presence is needed.
Yeah! That is one step further than what most people are seeking.
Problem is - as I already mentioned - you don't possess the right tool for you endeavor!
So, you may need to settle for less!

Imagine someone told you - you have a mole on your back and just left the room. Now you want to know what that mole looks like. Is it big or is it small? Is it red or is it black? Is it something out of this world? Is it even a mole or something else?

You don't have any mirror in the house, you don't possess any camera or even a cell phone to take a picture of it and see. for yourself You can't turn your neck that far. What do you do?

You wait for that person who told you about your mole. When you see him/her again - you ask for description and then you believe whatever they tell you because at the end of the day - what choice do you have? You don't possess any mirror or camera!

Now testimonies are out there from some people claiming to be messengers of that God. They have provided us with some knowledge. Sometimes you just have to do your research and believe one of those testimonies!
Your other choice is - remain an atheist or an agnostic or whatever you claim to be!

I know "mole" was a terrible example and I am not comparing God with a mole. But a mole can get you good if you don't watch it!

Here is a basic description of God (from God) relayed by one of those prophets:
God is One and Only
God is Eternal
He neither begets nor is born
And there is nothing like Him.

God has 99 names and each describes him good. It is long. If you want it then let me know I could find it and post it.

Btw,I don't think you will have the kind of proof you are looking for since there is a reason why we are not given any empirical evidence right now. And as mentioned - you don't have the right tools either!

 

[Balthazzar]

You are not understanding the God is everything fallacy in play .. and the worm is just as much God as you are .. and the grain of sand is also God in the God is everything monotheistic paradigm that you do not understand .. likely not having actually thought about it and thus not tried to understand .these utterances a parroting of a learned deflection ..

How is it that you did not understand that "God is everything" is not an allowed choice ? was that not made crystal clear? I think it was and so we must ask the source of this "thought stopping" exercise / mantra / reaction / defense mechanism ?

You were asked for a metric .. quantification .. asked a specific question .. yes or no is all that is required .. lightling bolts from the sky --- via force of will .. is this a "God-like" power .. yes or no .. why did you avoid this simple clarification question ?

Going back to the beginning, before order became and chaos was, illumination spurred an action of order. Growing from each, became that which we identify as existing, to and of which we belong as. Going back to my beginning, becoming a new creation in, much of the same became true for me. From ignorance came illumination spurring an action towards order. Each contributing to the paradigm I now operate under as a man. Powers, they are inherent to all that is and ability to harness them left to the illumination and actions towards order and manifestation of a thought, or idea, and ideals. We are. All is. This is the qualification of what you insisted wasn't enough to be qualified as being a god. We already are. We are very much children of our parents, the universe, even the worm. You would suggest a degree is required to be qualified as a god. I suggest we already are and that we are learning as we go.

The grand facade: "I don't want to be an angel; I just want to be god." Cory Taylor

 

[F1fan]

I dismiss it, because if it would be possible, we would see it happening in nature.

But it is possible since it is a natural process. And that the conditions on earth aren't right for abiogenesis to occur today it certain was in that condition at a time in the past, so your dismissal is not based on knowledge and clear thinking. And what alternative is there for abiogenesis? There is none. It's like you dismissing the notion that your parents ever had sex, yet here you are. There is no alternative explanation for why you exist, so they had sex (unless you were a product of IVF).

Feel free to explain how any other alternatives are possible.

 

[F1fan]

So, you don't believe in a God (creator of all things) and you want to know why a creator is even needed since (you believe) things can just create by itself out of nothing (thin air)?

Well, I don't really know what you believe but it surely seems like you believe things just created by itself!

What created God?

Let's note that if you insist that God allways existed, why couldn't energy/matter always exist?

You are also not only seeking proof of God's existence (because that is not enough for you) - you also want proof that someone claiming to be God must immediately also prove he is indeed God and that the universe cannot sustain itself if he was absent. So, he has to prove his presence is needed.

Is that unreasonable? If a fellow is God they shouldn't have any trouble proving it. He's an all powerful God, afterall.

Yeah! That is one step further than what most people are seeking.
Problem is - as I already mentioned - you don't possess the right tool for you endeavor!
So, you may need to settle for less!

What is the right tool to determine if any God exists? If it's not evidence and reason, then what is it?

Imagine someone told you - you have a mole on your back and just left the room. Now you want to know what that mole looks like. Is it big or is it small? Is it red or is it black? Is it something out of this world? Is it even a mole or something else?

Imagine it was a dermatologist.

Now testimonies are out there from some people claiming to be messengers of that God. They have provided us with some knowledge. Sometimes you just have to do your research and believe one of those testimonies!
Your other choice is - remain an atheist or an agnostic or whatever you claim to be!

Research tends not to favor religious claims, unless you are biased and really want to believe in magic. Are you a seeker of truth, or seeking justification for established beliefs? Remember, non-belief is the logical default.

I know "mole" was a terrible example and I am not comparing God with a mole. But a mole can get you good if you don't watch it!

Except moles actully exist. No gods are known to exist. Terrible example indeed.

Here is a basic description of God (from God) relayed by one of those prophets:
God is One and Only
God is Eternal
He neither begets nor is born
And there is nothing like Him.

God has 99 names and each describes him good. It is long. If you want it then let me know I could find it and post it.

Notice these descripions are of fictional characters, not of a real entity. You can add more attributes of God if your imagination runs wild.

I'll add that I have 7 nicknames, and I actually exist. Am I God, or do I need a few more names?

Btw,I don't think you will have the kind of proof you are looking for since there is a reason why we are not given any empirical evidence right now. And as mentioned - you don't have the right tools either!

If the proof isn't available, and reasoning isn't the right tool, how were you convinced? Just guessing and way too confident in your guess?

Is there any possibility that you are mistaken in your religious beliefs?

 

[firedragon]

God is not a real world situation or argument, however. Demanding "evidence" for God is therefor irrational. All that is going to be available is the evidence of our subjective personal experience resulting from our acting on our individual understanding of the philosophical meta-ideal called "God" (theism).

Not at all. There is plenty of evidence and multiple with out getting into "personal experience". You might not accept them, but you are wrong or are unaware.

 

[Sargonski]

Going back to the beginning, before order became and chaos was, illumination spurred an action of order. Growing from each, became that which we identify as existing, to and of which we belong as. Going back to my beginning, becoming a new creation in, much of the same became true for me. From ignorance came illumination spurring an action towards order. Each contributing to the paradigm I now operate under as a man. Powers, they are inherent to all that is and ability to harness them left to the illumination and actions towards order and manifestation of a thought, or idea, and ideals. We are. All is. This is the qualification of what you insisted wasn't enough to be qualified as being a god. We already are. We are very much children of our parents, the universe, even the worm. You would suggest a degree is required to be qualified as a god. I suggest we already are and that we are learning as we go.

The grand facade: "I don't want to be an angel; I just want to be god." Cory Taylor

No Brother B - once again you fail to answer a simple quantification-clarification question - deflecting. Is having the Power to bring lighting from the sky through force of will a godly power ... a simple yes/no all that is required ?

Then - you put for a black vs white paradigm .. and claim that this is a qualification .. this time putting for the God of Nothing .. as opposed to the God of Everything .. but both the same existentialist fallacy.

If there is no distinction between You .. and your God .. such that you are God .. which is what you are claiming .. is the God of Nothing. This is not a God that has any power to do anything beyond moving your pinkie .. through force of will.

you have given no quantification of the powers of this God .. beyond your own ability .. and as such these powers are non existent .. this God of nothing is non existent.

So .. is the having of supernatural powers .. well beyond that of your God of Nothing .. a higher class of God by way of having far greater powers than your God ?

 

[PureX]

Not at all. There is plenty of evidence and multiple with out getting into "personal experience". You might not accept them, but you are wrong or are unaware.

EVERYTHING is "personal experience" for we humans. As we cannot experience or "know" anything any other way. "God" is a logical necessity derived from our collective personal experiences of existing. How we then choose to conceptualize that necessity is up to us. And the result of our doing so in the 'real world' will be our "evidence". That "evidence" IS our personal experience of the ideal. There is no way around this.

Sorry.

 

[firedragon]

EVERYTHING is "personal experience" for we humans. As we cannot experience or "know" anything any other way. "God" is a logical necessity derived from our collective personal experiences of existing. How we then choose to conceptualize that necessity is up to us. And the result of our doing so in the 'real world' will be our "evidence". That "evidence" IS our personal experience of the ideal. There is no way around this.

Sorry.

Nope. That's wrong.

It's like saying scientific evidence is nothing but hearsay because someone else does the so called experiments. It's absurd.

Do you truly believe a logical deduction for example is "personal experience"? Is that your worldview?

 

[Balthazzar]

No Brother B - once again you fail to answer a simple quantification-clarification question - deflecting. Is having the Power to bring lighting from the sky through force of will a godly power ... a simple yes/no all that is required ?

Then - you put for a black vs white paradigm .. and claim that this is a qualification .. this time putting for the God of Nothing .. as opposed to the God of Everything .. but both the same existentialist fallacy.

If there is no distinction between You .. and your God .. such that you are God .. which is what you are claiming .. is the God of Nothing. This is not a God that has any power to do anything beyond moving your pinkie .. through force of will.

you have given no quantification of the powers of this God .. beyond your own ability .. and as such these powers are non existent .. this God of nothing is non existent.

So .. is the having of supernatural powers .. well beyond that of your God of Nothing .. a higher class of God by way of having far greater powers than your God ?

I will answer with a simple yes or no, but before I do this, I should state you are doing the very same thing. Is having the Power to bring lighting from the sky through force of will a godly power? Yes - If I'm not mistaken, you suggested as much, but according to a single requirement or power suggested as a litmus test to quantify utilization of the term "god", you likewise limit God existing as anything other than actively able to create lightening, so a no goes with that yes answer.

Genesis and origin of life is an infinite thing - 8, ok, so maybe the symbol should be sideways. It takes two to tango, so with that stated the seed we sow, which is the logos, stated to be in, with, and in actuality God, is how we articulate how we understand something as a truth. Luke warm will never truly suffice, so I suggest Luke warm to be one sided as opposed to two being one together.

O

Although circular, and repeating, cyclic, and ever returning, from eternal to finite within the eternal itself, God is.

This isn't Frankenstein.

 

[Sargonski]

I will answer with a simple yes or no, but before I do this, I should state you are doing the very same thing. Is having the Power to bring lighting from the sky through force of will a godly power? Yes - If I'm not mistaken, you suggested as much, but according to a single requirement or power suggested as a litmus test to quantify utilization of the term "god", you likewise limit God existing as anything other than actively able to create lightening, so a no goes with that yes answer.

O

Although circular, and repeating, cyclic, and ever returning, from eternal to finite within the eternal itself, God is.

This isn't Frankenstein.

I am not doing what you are doing ? I ask you a simple question of clarification .. 4 or 5 times .. .. getting a simple Yes/no like pulling teeth

You finally clarify with a resounding YES to the Powers of Zeus being worthy of the Title God but fail to distinguish if the entity having such power is different from the Powers of the Human Gods . and No .. there was no sole characteristic or litmus test provided .. what I have asked for is such to be provided in the way of Some Metric .. not specifying what that metric will be .. as it is up to you to specify what your metric is for God .. this is about your definition .. which thus far .. you are sitting in a pile of black vs white Paradigm contradiction and existentialist fallacy .. as outlined previously .. deflecting here and there . in some circular dance .... that you realize is a circular dance (kudo's for small realization) but let us not project that dance my direction ..

I did not limit God at all .. so yes .. you are mistaken once again .. nor limit God to a single power .. You are the one limiting the power of God .. presenting the God of Nothing .. with power over nothing but one's own bodily fuction. .. .. I put no such limitations in place .. just suggested a minimum that a God should have .. differentiating this entity from the Lesser Human Gods.

Differation . Quantification .. in this you have failed Brother B .. Is there room for a HIgher power in your " God of nothing" definition .. talking about limiting the power of God ... and then accusing me of limiting the the Power of the Gods .. completely failing to break out of the monotheistic paradigm .. again putting limitations onto the Gods. .. yet claiming it is me putting limitations on the Gods.

Are you starting to see a pattern here ? You need to come up with a better definition for God .. as told you at the beginning of this party .. The God of Everything doesn't count .. nor the God of Nothing .. which are the same Gods in any case .. the primordial duality if you wish.

beyond the primordial black hole to which we are all connected .. is there an entity that has power of will so much greater than humans .. that you would put this entity in a different category of God ... such as the one suggested to you at the beginning of the show .... the ability to manifest a thought into physical reality ...beyond the entities own physical body. differentiating this entity from the Godly powers of the human .. who through force of will are only able to manifest thought into physical reality within their own body .. not manipulate matter and energy externally to their own body.

There is no limitation in place on this metric .. infinite power is possible .. .. and so how is it that you are claiming I am the one putting limitations on the power of any God .. or Gods. What is being suggested to you .. is that an entity does not need to be "ALL POWERFUL" in order to be a God .. and it is to these lesser Gods that our attention is supposed to be focused .. rather than head spinning around between the God of Everything and Nothing.

Differentiation - Quantification -- there is no argument without these ... nothing but fallacy

 

[PureX]

Nope. That's wrong.

It's like saying scientific evidence is nothing but hearsay because someone else does the so called experiments. It's absurd.

"Scientific evidence" is more than here-say because it is demonstrable via the shared medium of physicality. "God evidence" is also demonstrable, but not via the shared medium of physicality. It's only demonstrable via the shared medium of subjective understanding and personal experience. If the subjects do not agree on the ways they understand (conceptualize) God they will not agree of what constitutes a God experience.

And by simply observing the world and the people around you, you can easily see that this is true.

Do you truly believe a logical deduction for example is "personal experience"? Is that your worldview?

Logical deduction is not an "experience" of anything but one's own mind. It's simply a logical deduction.

 

[firedragon]

"Scientific evidence" more than here-say because it is demonstrable via the shared medium of physicality.

You did not understand what I said.

"God evidence" is also demonstrable, but not via the shared medium of physicality.

Obviously. It's a category error to mix both the metaphysical to physical sciences. It's an oxymoron.

It's only demonstrable via the shared medium of subjective understanding and experience.

Nope. I asked you. Is a deductive argument "subjective experience"? Is that a category?

Do you even understand how big your error is.

No point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't know anything about your religious affiliation or lack of religious beliefs. So, yes, you need to define what do you mean by "God".
Nevertheless - here is my two cents...

The evidence of absence of God is not possible because God is present everywhere.

What's your test for that?

How is a universe with an invisible but omnipresent god measurably different from a universe without such a god?

 

[Balthazzar]

infinite power is possible .. .. and so how is it that you are claiming I am the one putting limitations on the power of any God .. or Gods. What is being suggested to you .. is that an entity does not need to be "ALL POWERFUL" in order to be a God .. and it is to these lesser Gods that our attention is supposed to be focused .. rather than head spinning around between the God of Everything and Nothing.

Differentiation - Quantification -- there is no argument without these ... nothing but fallacy

I have stated God to be all powerful. I have stated being all things makes this so. I have stated that all is formed from that substance; thus we are that substance. As a lesser god than that God , we require honor because we lack that which we have yet to achieve, so in this is our learning, our need, and our becoming ... to be what we are and greater than we are present day. The spin, the ebb and flow between worlds, from life to death to life to death to life to death x infinity seems a reasonable understanding, knowing that my transformation will be with, and in that to which I belong.

 

[Nakosis]

So, you don't believe in a God (creator of all things) and you want to know why a creator is even needed since (you believe) things can just create by itself out of nothing (thin air)?

Where did this God come from?

Well, I don't really know what you believe but it surely seems like you believe things just created by itself!

Do you believe God created themselves?

You are also not only seeking proof of God's existence (because that is not enough for you) - you also want proof that someone claiming to be God must immediately also prove he is indeed God and that the universe cannot sustain itself if he was absent. So, he has to prove his presence is needed.
Yeah! That is one step further than what most people are seeking.
Problem is - as I already mentioned - you don't possess the right tool for you endeavor!
So, you may need to settle for less!

Actually, I'm not seeking proof for God because I have no need for God. However, I don't mind evaluating what someone else offers as proof.
Just because I see no need for a God doesn't mean one doesn't exist nor that evidence can be found for one. The point here though is that you just claim evidence for something if it doesn't support your conclusion. That's the tricky part. You have to make sure at least the evidence you bright exclusively leads to the conclusion. So you test if the opposite of your conclusion is still a possibility regardless of how self evident you feel your evidence is.

Imagine someone told you - you have a mole on your back and just left the room. Now you want to know what that mole looks like. Is it big or is it small? Is it red or is it black? Is it something out of this world? Is it even a mole or something else?

You don't have any mirror in the house, you don't possess any camera or even a cell phone to take a picture of it and see. for yourself You can't turn your neck that far. What do you do?

Me, forget about it. Accept that there is no way to find out the answer. That' to me is ok. I don't have to have an answer for everything.

You wait for that person who told you about your mole. When you see him/her again - you ask for description and then you believe whatever they tell you because at the end of the day - what choice do you have? You don't possess any mirror or camera!

Again, evidence is nice. Not just the claim. So the person supplies the evidence but you have to critically think about it. Does the evidence actually support the claim or even if the evidence itself is verifiable could the opposite of the claim still be true?

Now testimonies are out there from some people claiming to be messengers of that God. They have provided us with some knowledge. Sometimes you just have to do your research and believe one of those testimonies!
Your other choice is - remain an atheist or an agnostic or whatever you claim to be!

I've heard a lot of testimonies from people claiming to be messengers from God. They don't all say the same thing to the point they can't all be right. So, who do you listen to and why? God also gave me a message but why should you listen to me. Just because I am alive is not particularly good reason. Certainly if I was dead, I don't see that as making it better.

I know "mole" was a terrible example and I am not comparing God with a mole. But a mole can get you good if you don't watch it!

Here is a basic description of God (from God) relayed by one of those prophets:
God is One and Only
God is Eternal
He neither begets nor is born
And there is nothing like Him.

Here is another message. God is unknowable. Since God is unknowable man can't know anything about God. Which means no one can actually say God is this or that. However, for whatever reason, you've chosen to believe a different message. And I'm not going to say you shouldn't. But at the same time, I don't really see a valid reason why you should.

So, I'm an atheist not because I believe there is no God but because I'm not smart enough to know who to believe.

God has 99 names and each describes him good. It is long. If you want it then let me know I could find it and post it.

Btw,I don't think you will have the kind of proof you are looking for since there is a reason why we are not given any empirical evidence right now. And as mentioned - you don't have the right tools either!

One reason as I said is God, like the mole on my back, is unknowable to me.

 

[Nakosis]

I just gave you an example of God in previous post .. "The Sun" .. to which you respond by saying I was not willing to give an example. ? did I miss the willy wonka and the chocolate factory entrance sign ?

If a Tree is God .. then finding a piece of wood is evidence for the existence of this/these God(s)

Sorry, I guess I missed that. but yes you got it. You could probably provide evidence for the existence of the Sun which wouldn't exist if there was no sun.

 

[Nakosis]

"Proof" is not the goal. Logical validity is. This is philosophy, not science or a courtroom. And yes, it is based on various self-evident axioms. Like for something to come from nothing, "magic" (of some kind) is required.

Proof in this case just means the ability to provide a convincing argument for your claim.

When people claim evidence for God, they are proclaiming their own subjective evidence for their own subjective idealization of the philosophical proposition (theism) commonly referred to as "God". Such experience may feel axiomatic to them, but that does not make them philosophical axioms. So debating/negating them is not debating/negating theism. It's just a personal debate about how one chooses to conceptualize "God" and the results (as evidence) of acting on that conceptualization. There may be some individual value in such a debate but there is no philosophical value in it.

Not a big fan of philosophy anyway.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, I guess I missed that. but yes you got it. You could probably provide evidence for the existence of the Sun which wouldn't exist if there was no sun.

Brother. I think you reworded this. It doesn't make sense.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, I guess I missed that. but yes you got it. You could probably provide evidence for the existence of the Sun which wouldn't exist if there was no sun.

Brother. I think you reworded this. It doesn't make sense. Do you mean the "evidence" would not exist if the sun does not exist? If that's the case, it make more sense than many would imagine.

Thus, I would just like to clarify your statement for me to understand better. When you have time.

 

[PureX]

Proof in this case just means the ability to provide a convincing argument for your claim.

Convincing you or anyone else is completely irrelevant. Has nothing at all to do with philosophical discussion or debate.

Not a big fan of philosophy anyway.

Philosophical materialists never are.