Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Balthazzar]

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.

Is this a play on Kant or the other guy? Kant was the "ought" guy who suggested something similar, I think. I honestly don't know much about him, but read something of him the other day. Anyway, it seems evident that the universe in some form must have always existed. Can I prove this? I don't think it matters, but it may "ought" to be evident enough to accept.

If morality is about what's right (truth) and what's wrong (error), then we ought to understand morality to be necessitated in our intellectual discourses.

It's funny, I was just thinking about relativity as it might pertain to less tangible fields of matter. It's obvious that morality is necessitated in our intellectual discourses. How could it not be? This ought to be evident, if only based on how we perceive truth and error ourselves, each having an equal and opposite play on this particular field. Newton's 3rd law of motion as applied to Einsteins theory of special relativity, via Kants understanding of morality through the Word the Greeks termed the logos.

Ha ha

 

[Altfish]

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

Well his evidence is based on his observation and pirates and beer. Just like The Bible is based on stories.
And because I can't prove the FSM doesn't exist, he must exist. Simples

 

[firedragon]

Well his evidence is based on his observation and pirates and beer. Just like The Bible is based on stories.

Who spoke of the Bible? This is irrelevant.

And because I can't prove the FSM doesn't exist, he must exist. Simples

That's not the evidence he provides, and it's a ridiculous argument you just made mate. Irrelevant to the OP, irrelevant to the book you provided which is from your religion of FSM, and maybe you didn't even understand your own Gospel you provided.

Thus, please do go ahead and provide the proof the book presents and why it's impossible that FSM does not exist. That's just being relevant to this thread.

 

[Altfish]

Who spoke of the Bible? This is irrelevant.


That's not the evidence he provides, and it's a ridiculous argument you just made mate. Irrelevant to the OP, irrelevant to the book you provided which is from your religion of FSM, and maybe you didn't even understand your own Gospel you provided.

Thus, please do go ahead and provide the proof the book presents and why it's impossible that FSM does not exist. That's just being relevant to this thread.

I spoke of The Bible because that is one of the pieces of evidence used by some religious people as evidence of god's existence.

I have very flimsy evidence that he does exist, but can you prove that the FSM does not exist, because I can't?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Only if you are convinced a god does not exist. I don't think there is any way to give good evidence that a god cannot exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The logic works just as well for any noun.

 

[firedragon]

I have very flimsy evidence that he does exist, but can you prove that the FSM does not exist, because I can't?

Burden of proof fallacy.

Again, please do go ahead and provide the proof the book presents and why it's impossible that FSM does not exist. That's just being relevant to this thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

I only hope that you (and others) are aware that the OP you authored has zero relevance to the title you chose. Perhaps you should take your own words to heart, i.e.,

"Remember, you can't just make a claim."​

 

[George-ananda]

The best argument is that the physical cannot create itself from nothingness. So,
there must be something more fundamental than the physical. So, one could argue if there was no fundamental agency nothing would be here.

So without some fundamental agency there would be nothing. But there is something so a fundamental agency must exist.

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

It would be impossible for me to exist.

 

[PureX]

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.

Testing for God's presence would be the same as testing for God's absence. As testing for Bigfoot's presence is the same as testing for Bigfoot's absence. It's the same test.

Whatever claims you make about God, you would need to come up with a method to test whether the opposite is not true.

There aren't going to be any "tests" because God is not a physical object or phenomenon occurring within a restricted field that can be subjected to testing. God is an idealization derived from logical necessity.

Evidence for God is not enough. You'd also need to provide evidence that a God's absence in the universe is not possible.

Same difference. And it won't be "evidence". It can only be logical reasoning, because "God" is an ideal, not a thing.

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.

That anything exists at all poses the logically reasoned summation that God must exist. Because for something (anything) to exist, it has to be possible that it exist. And that possibility requires a source that is outside and beyond the limitations of what has been deemed possible, and not possible. The proper term for that transcendent, all-powerful mystery source, is "God".

And the reasoning that asserts that it is not possible that God does not exist is that existence does exist and it continues existing. Something that is not at all logical to imagine or presume it could accomplish within and of itself.

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

Everything/anything.

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.

Forget this fantasy about being given "evidence". The question being asked es FAR too big for that.

 

[PureX]

The best argument is that the physical cannot create itself from nothingness. So,
there must be something more fundamental than the physical. So, one could argue if there was no fundamental agency nothing would be here.

So without some fundamental agency there would be nothing. But there is something so a fundamental agency must exist.


It would be impossible for me to exist.

BINGO!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The best argument is that the physical cannot create itself from nothingness. So,
there must be something more fundamental than the physical.

But whether or not something is physical is determined by how it interacts with other physical things. This means that anything that creates physical things is physical itself.

So, one could argue if there was no fundamental agency nothing would be here.

Why did you add "agency"? Why would that necessarily follow?

How do you get from "there must be something beyond the physical" to "the thing beyond the physical must be an agent"?

 

[George-ananda]

But whether or not something is physical is determined by how it interacts with other physical things. Thus means that anything that creates physical things is physical itself.

There is the idea that fundamental consciousness wills the physical to exist but is not physical itself. The physical is not held to create itself so something more fundamental cannot be physical.

Why did you add "agency"? Why would that necessarily follow?

How do you get from "there must be something beyond the physical" to "the thing beyond the physical must be an agent"?

I could have chosen the word 'Fundamental Source'

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Well something has to be acknowledged first that doesn't make it dismissible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is the idea that fundamental consciousness wills the physical to exist but is not physical itself.

Yes, that is certainly an idea.

The physical is not held to create itself.

But I'm saying that the non-physical creating the physical is a contradiction in terms.

I could have chosen the word 'Fundamental Source'

Sure... but how does that get to God?

Remember: it's not good enough to argue for something that's consistent with God. You've only established God if you establish that only God can fit the bill.

 

[PureX]

But whether or not something is physical is determined by how it interacts with other physical things. Thus means that anything that creates physical things is physical itself.



Why did you add "agency"? Why would that necessarily follow?

How do you get from "there must be something beyond the physical" to "the thing beyond the physical must be an agent"?

There is the idea that fundamental consciousness wills the physical to exist but is not physical itself. The physical is not held to create itself so something more fundamental cannot be physical.

I could have chosen the word 'Fundamental Source'

Actually, I think "source agency" is exactly the right combination of terms to refer to the logical existential necessity of what we more commonly refer to as "God".

The ancient Greeks just called it "logos". A term I wish we could still employ, to be honest.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, that is certainly an idea.



But I'm saying that the non-physical creating the physical is a contradiction in terms.



Sure... but how does that get to God?

Remember: it's not good enough to argue for something that's consistent with God. You've only established God if you establish that only God can fit the bill.

I would here define God as the fundamental source of the physical existence.

 

[Nakosis]

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

People are free to define God however they want.

A person provides whatever evidence for God and that evidence is self evidently true. Therefore "God", however they define God must also be true.

IOW, the claim if A is true then B is true must also include evidence the while A is true, B cannot be false.

So whatever evidence one is providing to conclude God's existence they must show that the evidence being provided could not exist if God did not exist.

It is the only way one can appropriately agree with the conclusion.

 

[Balthazzar]

Testing for God's presence would be the same as testing for God's absence. As testing for Bigfoot's presence is the same as testing for Bigfoot's absence. It's the same test.

There aren't going to be any "tests" because God is not a physical object or phenomenon occurring within a restricted field that can be subjected to testing. God is an idealization derived from logical necessity.

Same difference. And it won't be "evidence". It can only be logical reasoning, because "God" is an ideal, not a thing.

That anything exists at all poses the logically reasoned summation that God must exist. Because for something (anything) to exist, it has to be possible that it exist. And that possibility requires a source that is outside and beyond the limitations of what has been deemed possible, and not possible. The proper term for that transcendent, all-powerful mystery source, is "God".

And the reasoning that asserts that it is not possible that God does not exist is that existence does exist and it continues existing. Something that is not at all logical to imagine or presume it could accomplish within and of itself.

Everything/anything.

Forget this fantasy about being given "evidence". The question being asked es FAR too big for that.

The pendulum swings from one side to the other side like clockwork. God is and God isn't, and God is both evidenced and without evidence, both ever present and never present.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Yes but what is evidence? It is not always clear but the evidence should be self-evident. Like one could provide the Bible as evidence for the existence of God. The Bible self-evidently exists. However, it is not enough to provide the Bible as evidence. One would also have to show that the Bible could not exist if God did not exist. It would be the only reason one should accept the Bible as evidence of God's existence.