Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Dimi95]

Democracy?

I would think a consensus has some measured importance associated with it. I do agree that this wouldn't dictate an absolute truth, but it would be suggestive of a truth and an understanding of it.

I seem to be a student of Aristotle , Plato and Sokrat.
I learned about many things from young age about democracy.

The question was not asked in that sense.
But i agree with what you said if it is of value to you.

 

[Balthazzar]

Some people make up bad arguments. But creating a bad argument to counter that first argument gets no one anywhere.

One can make an argument that belief in God isn't irrational, or at least it doesn't need to be. One can make an argument that the possibility of God isn't negligible, and one can build on this by providing philosophical proofs.

But relying on science, in either way, is silly as the question of God is not a scientific question.

Why is belief in God not associated with scientific inquiry? The dynamics are very similar. I rely on science. I also rely on the possible, that which I do not know. To be perfectly honest, I know significantly less than I know, which leaves a monumental amount left for me to come to terms with. I'm ignorant, yet knowing. Go figure. If ever God is to be accepted by the scientific community, I would suggest the community itself would be left without reason not to. This doesn't equate to never. It doesn't even equate to not likely. Time will tell or it won't. It appears I'll be long dead before it happens.

 

[Balthazzar]

I seem to be a student of Aristotle , Plato and Sokrat.
I learned about many things from young age about democracy.

The question was not asked in that sense.
But i agree with what you said if it is of value to you.

I understand the premise of the statement and I agree. It's just that it isn't always applicable, whether the consensus measures truer legitimacy of a thing or if it doesn't. It's a concept we sometimes take for granted. I will suggest that when it happens, the credence given is due and for a reason.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm not convinced that God doesn't exist.

Me either.

The point I'm trying to make, to all it "good" evidence for your conclusion requires you to show a correlation between your evidence and your conclusion. IOW, even given that all of evidence you provide is self-evident, you'd also have the show that in light of your evidence, the opposite of your conclusion is not possible.

IOW, you say "A" your evidence is true then "B" is true. That only works if you can also show that "B" cannot be false while "A" is true.

I disagree. If I can show that my conclusion is true, it doesn't matter if the opposite is true or false. My conclusion is still true. If I have good evidence that god exists that does not mean god cannot exist. If i provide good evidence that my shoes are green I don't have to provide evidence that they cannot be green. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.

 

[Sargonski]

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.

Non sequitur fallacy -- A does not follow from B God can be scientifically accepted on the basis of evidence .. regardless of the existence of a test for God's absence. Just because one can not prove that the earth does not exist does not rule out the existence of the earth to be accepted scientifially

 

[SalixIncendium]

Since when consensus is the measure of importance?

Since 10:29am EST.

 

[Balthazzar]

What fascinates me is how both of these 'sides of God' actually work together. It's the fact that God cannot be captured and nailed down as an idea that allows us to envision God however we choose without suffering any valid negation. And that freedom is what makes the idea of God so important and so effective in the lives of so many people. We each get the God that we need. And to me that is an amazing thing.

A God that can be all things to all people, all while being nothing of what we or others might envision God to be at all. It's a journey and can be quite a difficult one. I don't know. I mean I didn't know. I know I was informed, but how could I know? Sometimes the know is more difficult than the not knowing, and vice versa. Is ignorance bliss? Yes ... sometimes, just not always. Is ignorance difficult? YES ... but not always. Is ignorance beneficial? Hmm ... Umm ...

Yes, but not always?

Figure it out for yourself. I can't teach you anything.

 

[Nakosis]

Non sequitur fallacy -- A does not follow from B God can be scientifically accepted on the basis of evidence .. regardless of the existence of a test for God's absence. Just because one can not prove that the earth does not exist does not rule out the existence of the earth to be accepted scientifially

Of course the existence of the earth is self-evident. No one is going about trying to prove that Earth exists.
If only we had the same level of being self-evident for God.

 

[Sargonski]

Of course the existence of the earth is self-evident. No one is going about trying to prove that Earth exists.
If only we had the same level of being self-evident for God.

Of course absense of Evidence is not evidence of absense and the existentialist fallacy that goes along with it .. the question is what is the Evidence .. ? .. Notice the distinction between Evidence .. and Proof .. note again that only one who does not understand the concept runs around asking for Proof.

What the "Evidence" suggests .. "The Science" suggests about God .. is wholely dependent on how one is defining "God" - Notice that the "God is Everything" definition is not allowed / accepted .. as ends up being the God of Nothing Fallacy..

Aside from the "God is Everything - God is Nothing" definition -- every other definition results in God being part of the equation .. or rather .. and this is an important distinction "God(s)" being part of the equation -- is what the evidence suggests .

 

[Nakosis]

Me either.

I disagree. If I can show that my conclusion is true, it doesn't matter if the opposite is true or false. My conclusion is still true. If I have good evidence that god exists that does not mean god cannot exist. If i provide good evidence that my shoes are green I don't have to provide evidence that they cannot be green. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.

You don't need a conclusion if you can show your shoes are green. That would simply be self-evident to anyone looking at your shoes. If only God could be as self-evident as your green shoes.

IOW, the claim that because of "A" (your evidence for God) is true, that God must be true only works if you can show how the absence of God can't be true if "A" is true.

See if I can make this simpler. The premise "A" is true therefore "B" is true only if you also provide evidence that "B" cannot be false if "A" is true.

"A" has a level of self-evidence that it need not be proven. If "B" held the same level of self evidence then there'd be no need for the premise.

However if "A" is the only thing provided as self-evident and you are using it to support the conclusion "B" then you would also need to show if "A" is true then "B" cannot be false.

We're not talking about the conclusion "that God exists". We are talking about any evidence used to used to support the conclusion inferred by the premise. You need evidence that the opposite of the premise is not possible.

 

[Nakosis]

Aside from the "God is Everything - God is Nothing" definition -- every other definition results in God being part of the equation .. or rather .. and this is an important distinction "God(s)" being part of the equation -- is what the evidence suggests .

Only if you can show that the equation cannot exist without God. IOW, you'd have to show how the absence of God falsifies the equation. Otherwise the equation doesn't need God.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course absense of Evidence is not evidence of absense and the existentialist fallacy that goes along with it .. the question is what is the Evidence .. ? .. Notice the distinction between Evidence .. and Proof .. note again that only one who does not understand the concept runs around asking for Proof.

We're not talking about the absence of evidence. In the absence of evidence there is no premise to be made.

What the "Evidence" suggests .. "The Science" suggests about God .. is wholely dependent on how one is defining "God" - Notice that the "God is Everything" definition is not allowed / accepted .. as ends up being the God of Nothing Fallacy..

The logic does not depend on how God is defined.

 

[Sargonski]

We're not talking about the absence of evidence. In the absence of evidence there is no premise to be made.



The logic does not depend on how God is defined.

Evidence of the absence of a God is not possible = absence of evidence

What logic does not depend on how God is defined ? Why are you talking in riddles ? what is it that you want us to guess at ?

 

[F1fan]

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.

No, first you have to assume a God exists, and then that it has known properties that can be observed as present or absent in the universe.

Only then can a God's absence (or presence) be known.

What are the properties of a God?

 

[Nakosis]

Evidence of the absence of a God is not possible = absence of evidence

That is not what is being asked.

Lets try it this way, what is your evidence for God?

What logic does not depend on how God is defined ?

Logic only requires one or more self-evidenced axioms while showing your conclusion is also self-evident or can't be false in light of those axioms.

Why are you talking in riddles ? what is it that you want us to guess at ?

If you are still guessing at logic, then I've failed.

 

[Nakosis]

No, first you have to assume a God exists, and then that it has known properties that can be observed as present or absent in the universe.

Yes, we are talking about a person who A-accepts God's existence and B-wants to provide evidence of that existence.

Only then can a God's absence (or presence) be known.

God's absence or presence can be inferred if the evidence provided is self-evident and the only possible conclusion from that evidence is of God's absence or presence. If neither conclusion can be inferred then the evidence provided does not support either conclusion.

What are the properties of a God?

Purely up to the person wanting to make the claim of having evidence for whatever God they claim to exist.

I see it as it possible to define a God which does exist. I'm not trying to say this is impossible. However those properties would either have to be self-evident or to put it simply, falsifiable. To make a claim about a property that was neither would not be convincing, ought not be convincing to anyone.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, we are talking about a person who A-accepts God's existence

Whose say so that a God exists is "a person" accepting? Is it tradition of belief? A pastor? Like I said, it is an assumption, not known existence.

and B-wants to provide evidence of that existence.

An investigation that's been ongoing for about 5000 yaers. There must be truck loads of conclusive evidence by now, yes?

God's absence or presence can be inferred if the evidence provided is self-evident and the only possible conclusion from that evidence is of God's absence or presence. If neither conclusion can be inferred then the evidence provided does not support either conclusion.

This suggests the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that the logical default takes effect, and that goes against the claim of existence. This is where most atheists see themselves.

Purely up to the person wanting to make the claim of having evidence for whatever God they claim to exist.

So emotional appeal and highly subjective. Eye of the beholder. Those who seek truth don't follow your suggestion here.

I see it as it possible to define a God which does exist. I'm not trying to say this is impossible. However those properties would either have to be self-evident or to put it simply, falsifiable. To make a claim about a property that was neither would not be convincing, ought not be convincing to anyone.

How does this help the title of this thread? And make the topic in any way plausble?

 

[Nakosis]

Whose say so that a God exists is "a person" accepting? Is it tradition of belief? A pastor? Like I said, it is an assumption, not known existence.

If a person doesn't accept Gods existence and/or have no desire to convince anyone else of that then nothing in the OP applies to them.

An investigation that's been ongoing for about 5000 yaers. There must be truck loads of conclusive evidence by now, yes?

Yes, and I've provide a way to support that conclusion.

This suggests the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that the logical default takes effect, and that goes against the claim of existence. This is where most atheists see themselves.

Yes, I think we can agree that God's existence is not self evident. Or what you'd probably see as strong evidence. Nor what has been provided as evidence strong because of the inability to falsify the conclusion.

So emotional appeal and highly subjective. Eye of the beholder. Those who seek truth don't follow your suggestion here.

Yes, they are not going to be very convincing because of that.

How does this help the title of this thread? And make the topic in any way plausble?

The point being to explain why the evidence provided and the conclusion reached from that evidence is not convincing. So really for my benefit or anyone else's who'd care to explain why the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn from that evidence is not convincing/ought not be convincing to anyone. And, in the remote possibility that someone does want to provide a convincing argument for God, how to go about it.

 

[F1fan]

If a person doesn't accept Gods existence and/or have no desire to convince anyone else of that then nothing in the OP applies to them.

Then why does the title mention evidence at all? If a person is going to accept that a God exists, then there's no need for evidence, no need for reasoning.

Yes, and I've provide a way to support that conclusion.

When? Where is the truck loads of evidence that hasn't been revealed yet?

Yes, I think we can agree that God's existence is not self evident. Or what you'd probably see as strong evidence. Nor what has been provided as evidence strong because of the inability to falsify the conclusion.

So why accept that a God exists? Again, whose say so dictates that?

The point being to explain why the evidence provided and the conclusion reached from that evidence is not convincing. So really for my benefit or anyone else's who'd care to explain why the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn from that evidence is not convincing/ought not be convincing to anyone. And, in the remote possibility that someone does want to provide a convincing argument for God, how to go about it.

OK, so we are at the logical default, and the lack of evidence means the agnostic atheist position is most reasonable.

 

[1213]

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

Life seems to be impossible without God, because it doesn't come spontaneously from dead non-organic material.