Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

So to you, the term "God" doesn't imply any of the characteristics typically ascribed to God (e.g. agency, will, design, desire for worship, etc.)?

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to agree with @SalixIncendium back in post #2.

We have to establish what a "god" would be like before any talk of whether it can be tested for existence or absence acquires any meaning.

 

[George-ananda]

So to you, the term "God" doesn't imply any of the characteristics typically ascribed to God (e.g. agency, will, design, desire for worship, etc.)?

I'm not referring to the Abrahamic God concept but Brahman (infinite consciousness with a creative aspect).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not referring to the Abrahamic God concept but Brahman (infinite consciousness with a creative aspect).

But your definition didn't mention anything about consciousness or creativity (or an infinite nature, for that matter).

Hypothetically, if we determined that "the fundamental source of the physical existence" was not conscious or creative, would you say "yep - that's still God"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Then the way you formulate it seems unnecessary confusing to me.
You could just say "show me a horse" instead of "provide evidence that the non-existence of a horse is not possible".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The best argument is that the physical cannot create itself from nothingness.

1. demonstrate there ever was "nothingness"
2. demonstrate that this "nothingness" cannot produce anything like the physical

It would be impossible for me to exist.

3. let's see if that follows from point 1 and 2


Not holding my breath

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Sounds like that idea is the thing that the religious just believe. Meaning it's one of the claims that would require evidence.
You can't use such claims as an axiom and expect it to be logical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"God" is it's own evidence. Or rather, it provides it's own evidence depending on how one chooses to envision it. If "God is love", then love is the evidence. If "God is justice" then karma is the evidence. If "God is righteousness" then our moral ethicality becomes the evidence. If "God is our personal friend" then the feeling of our not being alone is the evidence of it. And on and on it goes. We can define God however we need to or want to, and we will then perceive God as being that in our reality.

So when I define pixies as being responsible for making trees grow, then trees are evidence of pixies?

It's rather an amazing thing, really, that so many people can envision God in so many different ways and yet somehow God can becomes all those things for all those people.

It's not that amazing when you realize people are able to make stuff up.

 

[Nakosis]

Then the way you formulate it seems unnecessary confusing to me.
You could just say "show me a horse" instead of "provide evidence that the non-existence of a horse is not possible".

Yes, but I think there remains a possibility of providing evidence other than the horse itself which would lead to the conclusion that horses exist but it would be necessary that the evidence also negates the possibility that horses don't exist.

For example I could show you a horse shoe and claim this proves horses exist. The point being that the horse shoe by itself doesn't prove that horses don't exist.

Logically however, you should be able to take your evidence which itself being self-evident and reach a conclusion which is not self-evident as long you can infer from the evidence that the opposite of that conclusion is not possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but I think there remains a possibility of providing evidence other than the horse itself which would lead to the conclusion that horses exist but it would be necessary that the evidence also negates the possibility that horses don't exist.

For example I could show you a horse shoe and claim this proves horses exist. The point being that the horse shoe by itself doesn't prove that horses don't exist.

Logically however, you should be able to take your evidence which itself being self-evident and reach a conclusion which is not self-evident as long you can infer from the evidence that the opposite of that conclusion is not possible.

Myeah. I stand by my viewpoint. Seems like unnecessarily complicating things.
When it comes to claims of entities existing, any demonstration is always going to involve demonstrations of existence, be it directly or indirectly.

A demonstration of the "non-possibility of non-existence"... I don't even know what that would look like, if not a demonstration of existence.

 

[McBell]

Unless the term "God" can be universally defined, the claim made in the OP is rather pointless.

Does this mean that any claim about "God" is rather pointless unless the term is "universally defined"?

What, exactly, does "universally defined" mean?

Is there a word a that is "universally defined"?
What word?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Myeah. I stand by my viewpoint. Seems like unnecessarily complicating things.
When it comes to claims of entities existing, any demonstration is always going to involve demonstrations of existence, be it directly or indirectly.

A demonstration of the "non-possibility of non-existence"... I don't even know what that would look like, if not a demonstration of existence.

One take on it is that old line from Sherlock Holmes: "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

In theory, this works. For God, though, it runs into some practical difficulties:

- we'd need to justify why we aren't eliminating God as one of the impossible things.

- we'd need to justify how we can be sure that we've eliminated all other explanations besides God.

 

[PureX]

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.

Trying to 'know' isn't going to work with the God thing. We have to just decide to trust in the idea (whatever idea we think makes sense) or not to. And then see what comes of it.

 

[PureX]

So when I define pixies as being responsible for making trees grow, then trees are evidence of pixies?

It's not that amazing when you realize people are able to make stuff up.

That people are able to make stuff up IS amazing. And all the more so that what we make up can become our reality. I'm sorry that this bothers you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Then let's change it from horse to flying horse -- Pegasus, say. How could you provide evidence that such a beast cannot exist? The fact that you haven't seen one (at least not a real one, outside of a movie)? Not good enough, because it is still possible that they are perfect hiders, never to be seen unless they want to be seen.

Do you,then, accept that Pegasus and his kin are real?

 

[F1fan]

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

Yet abiogenesis is a natural process that is plausible. How can you dismiss this natural and plausible process as impossible?

Could it be you just dismiss this natural process because it eliminates a traditional need for your idea of a God? Many believers lack even the most basic understanding of science, and seem to work hard to avoid learning it.

 

[PureX]

Then let's change it from horse to flying horse -- Pegasus, say. How could you provide evidence that such a beast cannot exist?

Cannot exist where? Cannot exist in what ways? You have to define what the "evidence" that you're seeking is before you can use the lack of it to justify any sort of conclusion. Pegasus exists in some way and not in others.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, but I think there remains a possibility of providing evidence other than the horse itself which would lead to the conclusion that horses exist but it would be necessary that the evidence also negates the possibility that horses don't exist.

But we have horses as evidence of themselves exitsing. Why look for alternative evidence at all?

You can look at evidence that a horse walked through your yard because you can see hoof prints.

For example I could show you a horse shoe and claim this proves horses exist. The point being that the horse shoe by itself doesn't prove that horses don't exist.

Why would it, and who thinks like this? No one. A kid might find a horseshoe in a barn and have no idea wat it is used for. And that kid might also have no idea what a horse is, and their existence is irrelevant to them at the moment.

Since you are trying to make a case for why a God exists via some other evidence other than the God itself, a better example would be you having a light saber and it doesn't prove that Jedis don't exist. Nor does it prove they do. Jim might have a Bible, and the stories themselves don't prove that a God exists or doesn't exist. It's just stories. Critical thinkers want evidence of any God existing with evidence that is compelling.

Logically however, you should be able to take your evidence which itself being self-evident and reach a conclusion which is not self-evident as long you can infer from the evidence that the opposite of that conclusion is not possible.

In law it's called circumstantial evidence. Typically there has to be a significant set of circumstantial evidence to make an argument reasonable. Theists don't have this with any of the many Gods.

 

[Balthazzar]

Trying to 'know' isn't going to work with the God thing. We have to just decide to trust in the idea (whatever idea we think makes sense) or not to. And then see what comes of it.

I might agree that trying isn't going to work. Why? We already know, we may not recognize or acknowledge, but we already know God. My post was more about how we approach understanding and the process involved. We can be stubborn. So, we've been informed about a thing, but how could we know? We learn a difficult lesson. What we were informed about ended up to be true, and that knowledge becomes a difficult to pill to swallow. Sometimes not knowing things is great, other times it isn't. So, ignorance becomes the tool for the teaching. Is it bliss? Yes and no. Is it burdensome? Yes and no. Is ignorance beneficial? Sames answer as the others. To understand is better than not understanding and vice versa.

It's one of those weird dynamics where an ecclesiastic truth is realized. There are seasons and appropriate times for everything.

 

[Koldo]

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.

You are only pushing the issue further back.
The physical cannot create itself from nothingness, but... nor can anything else. For starters, it doesn't even make sense to say that something created itself.