Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Sargonski]

However, how I defined or you defined God was not important as the logic would work the same. Only that some definitions of God couldn't be logically supported. We only showed a couple that could which wasn't really the point of the thread.

The logic is completely dependent on there being "valid" definition .. so the logic may not work the same ... which is exactly on track to the point the thread is trying to make = without valid definition .. there is no logic -- there is no God .. nor the absence of that God .. nor evidence for the absence of a God. With a proper definition evidence for the absense of this God is abundantly possible refuting the premise of the OP using either the Sun or the Tree as you suggested..

Surely you can come up with evidence for the absence of the Sun God in our Solar system .. or for the extinction of one of the other sun Gods throughout the universe .. Sons of God who live and die ... all of this and any logical deduction related to this is wholey dependent on the definition.

Now, are you not happy you have a Scientist in the room to sort all these complexities out .. better would be a Philosopher but Scientist with a few classes in Philosophy the next best thing : )

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

John 7:17 states, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is of God or whether I speak on My own accord and by My own authority".

The Angels had a choice, created sanctified and with a choice, defiled with internal temptations and in need of salvation just as mankind, only mankind has flesh, to do the works of salvation, to become glorified and transfigured, but Angels couldn’t repent and do the good works of penance to restore sanctified grace for salvation without flesh. The Angels know of the Becoming power of Mankind, flesh in Heaven. The Angels that did not fall still carry infallibility, the chance to defile and choice from the spirit for the souls of the Angels. The Body of Christ is how mankind will save the Angels and all mankind, reborn of the flesh and spirits for all, saints and angels and martyrs and Old Covenant Saved and Dismas, the repentant thief from the Cross, and Longinis, the soldier blind in one eye, can now see with new eyes, rebirth, where the blood and water flowed, for all mankind.

To me in logic and faith on earth as it is in Heaven, the first Christ is Mary in 0 AD, Anno Domini, Latin for The Beginning of Church Time when the intelligence of Creation comes to Earth when Mary taking in to Her being the Will of Creation when Mary said, "Let it become to me, your will," the logical Pentecost of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the manifestation of God in Mary, the Logical First Christ and first disciple of The Christ, to become the Immaculate Conception to deliver in the Virgin Birth. Blood and water creates the Soul and The Soul of Jesus and The Holy Spirit pre-existed before creation was ever created was even created, of the Christ. Jesus in the Mind of Creation as The Christ is the firstborn in the Kingdom of Heaven in 33 AD when The Christ says, "It is finished" and gives up The Ghost, where the blood and water did flow for The Christ, the firstborn from the cross reopening the gates, rebirth for all mankind back to Heaven from where The Ark of the New Covenant came, The Exodus, Greek for The Road Out. The intelligence of Creation as The Holy Spirit Being becomes shared in union with all mankind together with the Father and The Son as one in being, glorified and transfigured becomes again the image of the Creator God for The Father.

In all respect, take this to A Priest and have him evaluate the logic, thanks in advance.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew

 

[anotherneil]

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

You have to show that the absence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Loch Ness Monster is not possible, of course.

 

[Nakosis]

The logic is completely dependent on there being "valid" definition .. so the logic may not work the same ... which is exactly on track to the point the thread is trying to make = without valid definition .. there is no logic -- there is no God .. nor the absence of that God .. nor evidence for the absence of a God. With a proper definition evidence for the absense of this God is abundantly possible refuting the premise of the OP using either the Sun or the Tree as you suggested..

Surely you can come up with evidence for the absence of the Sun God in our Solar system .. or for the extinction of one of the other sun Gods throughout the universe .. Sons of God who live and die ... all of this and any logical deduction related to this is wholey dependent on the definition.

Now, are you not happy you have a Scientist in the room to sort all these complexities out .. better would be a Philosopher but Scientist with a few classes in Philosophy the next best thing : )

Yes, as you say, the logic would point out the valid(or logical) and invalid(or illogical) definitions.
Having an "invalid" definition would not be convincing.

 

[Sargonski]

Have you not acknowledged the expressed other hand associated with the Hands of human origins? I thought I had made this clear enough. Apparently not. I can't decide whether you're being disingenuous or if you're just not comprehending the concept of one being two, and two becoming more, yet all existing within that "nucleus" that enables life. The throne region, specifically according to the literature I've read about angels. In other words, the "universe" and all its planetary bodies.

You have done anything but make anything clear up to this point. .. I would say a rabbit hole of disingenuous oblivion a more apt description ... pretending to be unable to comprehend the concepts expressed .. now projecting this behaviour on to me .. all the while failing once again to respond to simple Yes-No clarification question .. just another deflection.

Now -- that said .. you actually manage to make an interesting point .. an arrow at least pointed at the target .. doing so in the form of a question a correct observation instead of strawman fallacy .. .. even a broken clock right twice a day but kudu's when Kudo's are due .

Yes .. there seems evidence for the "invisible hand" not just in the creation of human but of the Environment in which this creation has been placed. .. only for those who have valid definition of the invisible hand however .. that should be said .. do you understand the action imperative . the difference between a noun and a verb if you like .. and notice how there is no action out of the God of Nothing .. nor God of Everything that can be differentiated from powers of the Human.

 

[Balthazzar]

You have done anything but make anything clear up to this point. .. I would say a rabbit hole of disingenuous oblivion a more apt description ... pretending to be unable to comprehend the concepts expressed .. now projecting this behaviour on to me .. all the while failing once again to respond to simple Yes-No clarification question .. just another deflection.

Now -- that said .. you actually manage to make an interesting point .. an arrow at least pointed at the target .. doing so in the form of a question a correct observation instead of strawman fallacy .. .. even a broken clock right twice a day but kudu's when Kudo's are due .

Yes .. there seems evidence for the "invisible hand" not just in the creation of human but of the Environment in which this creation has been placed. .. only for those who have valid definition of the invisible hand however .. that should be said .. do you understand the action imperative . the difference between a noun and a verb if you like .. and notice how there is no action out of the God of Nothing .. nor God of Everything that can be differentiated from powers of the Human.

I would agree, actually. How many times would a broken clock be correct if given an infinite amount of time to tell time as a broken clock? I would suggest a broken clock tells correct time correctly as a broken clock for infinity, if not destroyed first with rust and corruption, in which case the clock would go back from where it came.

Where might that be?

 

[Sargonski]

I would agree, actually. How many times would a broken clock be correct if given an infinite amount of time to tell time as a broken clock? I would suggest a broken clock tells correct time correctly as a broken clock for infinity, if not destroyed first with rust and corruption, in which case the clock would go back from where it came.

Where might that be?

In the same room as the sound of one hand clapping Where might that be ?

 

[Balthazzar]

In the same room as the sound of one hand clapping Where might that be ?

Depends on who's standing next to me and where we are, I guess.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA? Could you develop a computer code that would perform any reasonable function, just by making random changes to the code and keeping anything that seemed to be an improvement? ( Answer: No - you couldn't even get the code to work to begin with, if you didn't know anything about it. )

 

[ppp]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

DNA Isn't a code.

Could you develop a computer code that would perform any reasonable function, just by making random changes to the code and keeping anything that seemed to be an improvement?

Yes. But that is irrelevant, because DNA isn't a code.

 

[F1fan]

Possibly, but I like the term, I'm accustomed to the term, and the term seems to be in need of use, so I utilize the term in reference. I also reference Einstein, and Darwin, and Newton, Jesus, Buddha, among others.

That you have a habit of using the word doesn't justify using it when it attracts critique. And actual people are not in the same category as imaginary characters. You can refer to the Easter Bunny, but it's not similar to referencing your grandmother.

God is a vague and general term, but so is the term universe.

Except we actually have a universe to investigate and describe, and science is doing an excellent job at it.

Each planet or galaxy, etc having their own unique qualities, contributing data from themselves to us for our processing pleasure.

Right, and that's because these objects actually have observable properties that behave according to natural laws, unlike any of the many thousands of gods. Gods are whatever the human imagination can invent.

 

[F1fan]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

OK, if you think a God created DNA why did it create some DNA that causes cancer in children? How is that an intelligent thing to design?

 

[McBell]

OK, if you think a God created DNA why did it create some DNA that causes cancer in children? How is that an intelligent thing to design?

Um...
It is a bug in the code that has not yet been patched?

 

[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.

Mate. People have been doing that for centuries. Most arguments hinge on this.

 

[firedragon]

You have to show that the absence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Loch Ness Monster is not possible, of course.

Very good. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a physical being. Lack of physical evidence could be deemed as "no physical evidence" for agnosticism. Also physical means it's a physical being with a birth. I am sorry they preach you about this physical being as God in your church but one could use their intellect rather than having absolutely blind faith.

So it's actually possible to scientifically analyze your God. Unlike a metaphysical necessary being.

 

[F1fan]

Um...
It is a bug in the code that has not yet been patched?

Almost as if God is just like an ordinary human programmer who's out of Redbull and struggling to get through his shift.

 

[Balthazzar]

That you have a habit of using the word doesn't justify using it when it attracts critique. And actual people are not in the same category as imaginary characters. You can refer to the Easter Bunny, but it's not similar to referencing your grandmother.

Except we actually have a universe to investigate and describe, and science is doing an excellent job at it.

Right, and that's because these objects actually have observable properties that behave according to natural laws, unlike any of the many thousands of gods. Gods are whatever the human imagination can invent.

The term puts you and other people like you off enough that you seem so hesitant to accept its usage that it appears you'd rather the term just "go away" as if it's irrelevant. I feel the same way sometimes (irrelevant), so if this is your stance, then I shouldn't take you very seriously as an earnest intellect. I could illustrate the premise of my position if you like. My point is the term "God" has been in use for a few thousand years to my understanding. When was the term universe "coined" and would you insist it should not be used based on not liking it? It certainly is not irrelevant. I happen to find both terms somewhat vague and, yet neither having too many differing characteristics to be of no value. I agree with your sentiment about science doing an excellent job of defining the universe. I hold that position, specifically, just not exclusively.

Do you happen to hold a contrary position to how I utilize the term God, perhaps more in line with what you have chosen to accept in an effort to dismantle and or dismiss religion and make light of those who utilize religious texts as a way to conduct themselves in life? If so, I understand. People can display more lunacy arguing religious ideals and concepts than those in mental institutions doped up on Thorazine. Who's fault is this, though? We're the crazy one's, not those who refuse to view human history as being anything of value.

"To justify holding a stance, despite being critiqued against the stance itself."

It would be more so true to suggest I found your post a little insulting.

 

[McBell]

Almost as if God is just like an ordinary human programmer who's out of Redbull and struggling to get through his shift.

Other than I would not personally classify programmers as "ordinary"....

 

[F1fan]

The term puts you and other people like you off enough that you seem so hesitant to accept its usage that it appears you'd rather the term just "go away" as if it's irrelevant.

I use the term "God" quite a bit during the day. God dammit. I'm all for using it it in this context.

It is the cultural habit of treating the ideas of gods as if they are real and true, nd relevant as a fact when it isn't. My interest is the search for truth, not the reinforcement of a tradition of religious belief that is laregly obsolete.

I feel the same way sometimes (irrelevant), so if this is your stance, then I shouldn't take you very seriously as an earnest intellect. I could illustrate the premise of my position if you like. My point is the term "God" has been in use for a few thousand years to my understanding.

It was pretty much a fact until the age of reason, and then when science became the best way to decribe what is true about how things are, with gods not being included. God lost its purpose as an explanation, but has remained as a cultural element. It's caused a lot of rift in the USA between those educated in science versus creationists who reject biology. This Chritian extremism has expanded into being anti-vaccine and denying climate change, and even to rejecting expertise.

When was the term universe "coined" and would you insist it should not be used based on not liking it?

The universe was there and observed by humans well before they invented any of the many ideas of God. Humans had questions, but no way to answer them. So gods were invented to explain the magic of earthquakes, the seasons, floods, thunder, etc.

It certainly is not irrelevant. I happen to find both terms somewhat vague and, yet neither having too many differing characteristics to be of no value. I agree with your sentiment about science doing an excellent job of defining the universe. I hold that position, specifically, just not exclusively.

Religions have been relevant and still are to many citizens in all parts of the world. These are traditions of belief. These ideas get passed down to the next generation through social learning. Science is knoweldge and practical, and there's an interest in understanding it for the sake of advancing civilization.

Do you happen to hold a contrary position to how I utilize the term God, perhaps more in line with what you have chosen to accept in an effort to dismantle and or dismiss religion and make light of those who utilize religious texts as a way to conduct themselves in life? If so, I understand.

I have no contrary position. I'm critical of how many still assign meaning to the word when there is nothing that correlates to the word God. I've studied the psychology of religion and it is explained how religious ideas are tied to the emotional security of believers to a degree that they can't easily let go of the idea and meaning. In essence they are trapped in an emotional box and can't escape it. Many aren't aware they are trapped, they believe they have the truth.

People can display more lunacy arguing religious ideals and concepts than those in mental institutions doped up on Thorazine. Who's fault is this, though? We're the crazy one's, not those who refuse to view human history as being anything of value.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

"To justify holding a stance, despite being critiqued against the stance itself."

It would be more so true to suggest I found your post a little insulting.

Well pride can sting the ego.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA? Could you develop a computer code that would perform any reasonable function, just by making random changes to the code and keeping anything that seemed to be an improvement?

Um...
It is a bug in the code that has not yet been patched?

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA? Could you develop a computer code that would perform any reasonable function, just by making random changes to the code and keeping anything that seemed to be an improvement? ( Answer: No - you couldn't even get the code to work to begin with, if you didn't know anything about it. )

That has nothing to do with "science" and everything with reason and logic...

There is two explanations for life to exist, either it is created, or it was formed spontaneously on its own. Because we can't see life appearing spontaneously, the best explanation is the creator.

Almost as if God is just like an ordinary human programmer who's out of Redbull and struggling to get through his shift.

Where did you come from ? .. and why would you expect the answer to be any different than for this God that you don't know ?

Peace to all,

If we look around, we see what people are saying salvation is, maybe, and always asking who is God.

To me in logic, the intelligence of Infallible Creation becoming "The Word became Flesh" through The Christ and is what will never fail and is infallible certainty through fulfilled faith and morality as the intelligence that "follows the logic" of what would the Creator God do in all cases of fulfilled faith and morality.

In logic and faith, We are created mortal and corrupt and we become born again and transformed immortal and incorruptible from the living waters of Baptism. The mind of God is delivered through the Power of The Holy Spirit Person being conceived in the person of Jesus as The Christ for the Father brought to earth in the Ark of The New Covenant. And the Holy Spirit Person is the Paraclete, left behind from the Cross for all mankind, shared as one in being. And we become again, glorified and transfigured as one in being together with the Father and The Son in the intelligence, teh Will of Creation that will never fail, saved through Penance And Sacrifice in Confirmation re-Sanctified in our own soul through Atonement of sin in Confession and hearing the Words of Absolution forgiven in Penance an Sacrifice of The Host that transforms and transfigures through contact of Jesus in the Will of The Father as The Christ. We become again in union with all mankind as one in being together with the Father and the Son glorified and transfigured as the image of The Creator God for The Father.

We know we are not to judge others and with the Power of the Holy Spirit being we can judge ourselves, to check the some call "Code", the "DNA" and verify the outcome, examining the conscience, the selected intelligence in the Will of Creation through the manifestation by the choices and trust but verify the Will we select is in union with the intelligence of creation as one in being unfailing.

Peace always,
Stephen