Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[F1fan]

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.

Good point. As @Nakosis says theists have to accept that God exists, and in doing so (for no reason at all) God is assumed to be possible. But how is any God possible? They are said to have always existed. They are said to have creaed something from nothing. They are said to be loving. But they also created cancers that kill children and mothers with young children, and disorders and defects that are negative qualities in life, all which goes unanswered as to how nature is consistent with these God claims. If we are going to look at circumstantial evidence let's not ignore how nature functions, and contrast that to the claims of what God is supposed to be. To my mind it isn't consistent or plausible. It's more likely that the believer is dead wrong in their tradition of religious belief.

 

[McBell]

Good point. As @Nakosis says theists have to accept that God exists, and in doing so (for no reason at all) God is assumed to be possible. But how is any God possible? They are said to have always existed. They are said to have creaed something from nothing. They are said to be loving. But they also created cancers that kill children and mothers with young children, and disorders and defects that are negative qualities in life, all which goes unanswered as to how nature is consistent with these God claims. If we are going to look at circumstantial evidence let's not ignore how nature functions, and contrast that to the claims of what God is supposed to be. To my mind it isn't consistent or plausible. It's more likely that the believer is dead wrong in their tradition of religious belief.

BUt.
But..
But...

God works in mysterious ways.

Check mate

 

[wellwisher]

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.

All you need to do is use black box science and math; statistical. This places the phenomena; God, to be addressed in a black box, so you never need to know its definitive substance. Then you measure input and outputs, and based on those, you draw the best curve and find margins of certainty and uncertainty. We can use miracles as god output. This allows much more slack for any theory.

Atheists prefer God be subjected to rational and objective science, and not the black box treatment, with the former method of science much more watered down and slack. But since slack is still consider a valid science approach, why not use that watered down one to level the playing field with say evolution, which uses that standard.


If you look at the natural law of physics, how did these come to be, since many have constants; Planck's constant? You start with the primordial atom of the BB, with very little if anything in terms of variety and differentiation at any scale. As things separate; BB, why did all default to this one way we now have?

For example, hydrogen bonding, within water and life, requires a very specific value for the strength of hydrogen bonds. If we slightly tweak this strength up or down, it can have considerable consequences. Below is the impact on water, which is needed for life.

​

Property	Change on hydrogen-bond strengthening	Change on hydrogen-bond weakening
Melting point​	Increase​	Decrease​
Boiling point​	Increase​	Decrease​
State, at ambient conditions on Earth​	Solid glass​	Gas​
Adhesion​	Decrease​	Decrease​
Cohesion​	Increase​	Decrease​
Compressibility​	Increase​	Decrease​
Density​	Decrease​	Increase​
Dielectric constant​	Increase​	Decrease​
Diffusion coefficient​	Decrease​	Increase​
Dissociation​	Decrease​	Increase Decrease​
Enthalpy of vaporization​	Increase​	Decrease​
Glass transition​	Increase​	Decrease​
Solubility, hydrophile​	Decrease​	Decrease​
Solubility, small hydrophobe​	Increase​	Decrease Increase​
Specific heat​	Increase​	Decrease​
Surface tension​	Increase​	Decrease​
Thermal conductivity​	Decrease​	Increase Decrease​
Viscosity​	Increase​	Decrease​

If hydrogen bonds were too strong between, the DNA double helix, would be much harder to use as a template since separation would be resisted. If the same hydrogen bonds were too weak, we would not have the DNA double helix. But like the story of the three bears, it was just right for life and DNA.

Above if hydrogen bonding was much stronger in water, we would have oceans of water based glass, and not liquid. If less we have only atmospheric water vapor. The universe offered us sweet spots needed of life and consciousness. How does science explain this coincidence, or does it even try?

Ion pumping and exchange, is critical to neuron function, with sodium and potassium ions having more of less binding strength with water compared to water self binding with hydrogen bonds, respectively. If we make hydrogen bonds weaker or stronger, this change how the ions behave and could preclude any neuron firing. There are no other ions, useful as a replacement, if we tweak these out of their now usefulness. Life may not have appeared, with consciousness even less likely.

The natural law work based on constants that became the default for the universe. The idea of consciousness is easier to accept if we treat the universe as both hardware and software, with the software controlling the bonding strength for this hardware based simulation. The computer has one set of hardware, with software making it possible; apps, to get a wide range of uses out of a single set.

A computer could be inputting variable hydrogen bonding, and based on this simulation,, we can see the impact on life. The hardware is more a constant but the software is what can tweet the constants of the hardware. Consciousness and software have a connection, with software less offensive to science, but still allowing for the same output effects attributed to consciousness.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

One day, I was given an ice cube. I sat it on the table. It turned into water. A few hours later it had disappeared entirely. I was told the ice cube came from the air and the sky. How did it come from the air and sky when you gave it to me? The message, I guess, is that the one who gave it to me was a messenger.

Is the message that the ice cube existed or still exists? It turned into water, then vanished. Why do we hate the messengers when life operates similar for everyone?

 

[PureX]

I might agree that trying (to know) 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.

We humans chase after 'knowing' because knowing gives us control. And we humans survive and thrive by being able to control our environment, and ourselves in relation to the environment that we find ourselves in. So when it comes to God, we want to control that, too. So we want to know what God is and how to control it to our advantage.

But that can't happen with God. God is beyond our understanding or control. We cannot know God in that knowledge-is-control way. All we can do is choose to trust in the idea of God, or not. And then rely on that trust, or rely solely on our ability to know and control the world around us to the degree that we need to. And then see what comes of it.

 

[F1fan]

All you need to do is use black box science and math; statistical. This places the phenomena; God, to be addressed in a black box, so you never need to know its definitive substance. Then you measure input and outputs, and based on those, you draw the best curve and find margins of certainty and uncertainty. We can use miracles as god output. This allows much more slack for any theory.

Atheists prefer God be subjected to rational and objective science, and not the black box treatment, with the former method of science much more watered down and slack. But since slack is still consider a valid science approach, why not use that watered down one to level the playing field with say evolution, which uses that standard.


If you look at the natural law of physics, how did these come to be, since many have constants; Planck's constant? You start with the primordial atom of the BB, with very little if anything in terms of variety and differentiation at any scale. As things separate; BB, why did all default to this one way we now have?

For example, hydrogen bonding, within water and life, requires a very specific value for the strength of hydrogen bonds. If we slightly tweak this strength up or down, it can have considerable consequences. Below is the impact on water, which is needed for life.

​

Property	Change on hydrogen-bond strengthening	Change on hydrogen-bond weakening
Melting point​	Increase​	Decrease​
Boiling point​	Increase​	Decrease​
State, at ambient conditions on Earth​	Solid glass​	Gas​
Adhesion​	Decrease​	Decrease​
Cohesion​	Increase​	Decrease​
Compressibility​	Increase​	Decrease​
Density​	Decrease​	Increase​
Dielectric constant​	Increase​	Decrease​
Diffusion coefficient​	Decrease​	Increase​
Dissociation​	Decrease​	Increase Decrease​
Enthalpy of vaporization​	Increase​	Decrease​
Glass transition​	Increase​	Decrease​
Solubility, hydrophile​	Decrease​	Decrease​
Solubility, small hydrophobe​	Increase​	Decrease Increase​
Specific heat​	Increase​	Decrease​
Surface tension​	Increase​	Decrease​
Thermal conductivity​	Decrease​	Increase Decrease​
Viscosity​	Increase​	Decrease​

If hydrogen bonds were too strong between, the DNA double helix, would be much harder to use as a template since separation would be resisted. If the same hydrogen bonds were too weak, we would not have the DNA double helix. But like the story of the three bears, it was just right for life and DNA.

Above if hydrogen bonding was much stronger in water, we would have oceans of water based glass, and not liquid. If less we have only atmospheric water vapor. The universe offered us sweet spots needed of life and consciousness. How does science explain this coincidence, or does it even try?

Ion pumping and exchange, is critical to neuron function, with sodium and potassium ions having more of less binding strength with water compared to water self binding with hydrogen bonds, respectively. If we make hydrogen bonds weaker or stronger, this change how the ions behave and could preclude any neuron firing. There are no other ions, useful as a replacement, if we tweak these out of their now usefulness. Life may not have appeared, with consciousness even less likely.

The natural law work based on constants that became the default for the universe. The idea of consciousness is easier to accept if we treat the universe as both hardware and software, with the software controlling the bonding strength for this hardware based simulation. The computer has one set of hardware, with software making it possible; apps, to get a wide range of uses out of a single set.

A computer could be inputting variable hydrogen bonding, and based on this simulation,, we can see the impact on life. The hardware is more a constant but the software is what can tweet the constants of the hardware. Consciousness and software have a connection, with software less offensive to science, but still allowing for the same output effects attributed to consciousness.

You don't explain why you need to assume a God at all.

 

[Koldo]

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.

I think that is actually one of the saddest part concerning human existence. Too many of us live through too many crappy experiences, and we end up feeling the need to tell ourselves stories that will keep ourselves motivated, no matter if there is actual substance to those stories, and then we cling to those stories as if our very lives depended on it, particularly in moments of despair, like an addict feeling the need to get high when they are feeling down. And this is exactly why atheism is far more common in rich countries.... since there is less of a need to cope with harsh realities.

 

[Koldo]

One day, I was given an ice cube. I sat it on the table. It turned into water. A few hours later it had disappeared entirely. I was told the ice cube came from the air and the sky. How did it come from the air and sky when you gave it to me? The message, I guess, is that the one who gave it to me was a messenger.

Is the message that the ice cube existed or still exists? It turned into water, then vanished. Why do we hate the messengers when life operates similar for everyone?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is when such is then trumped up as being some kind of notion about reality that must be taken seriously instead of the fallacious drivel that it is.

 

[F1fan]

One day, I was given an ice cube. I sat it on the table. It turned into water. A few hours later it had disappeared entirely. I was told the ice cube came from the air and the sky. How did it come from the air and sky when you gave it to me? The message, I guess, is that the one who gave it to me was a messenger.

Is the message that the ice cube existed or still exists? It turned into water, then vanished. Why do we hate the messengers when life operates similar for everyone?

Ice cubes are a state of matter. Water is a state of matter. Water vapor is a state of matter. Today we trust messengers who explain how nature works, scientists. The old messages of magic being behind nature have vanished as plausible explanations. But they are stll valued as a tradition of belief. It's those messengers that try to claim that the old tradition is factually true that are rejected by rational minds.

 

[Balthazzar]

We humans chase after 'knowing' because knowing gives us control. And we humans survive and thrive by being able to control our environment, and ourselves in relation to the environment that we find ourselves in. So when it comes to God, we want to control that, too. So we want to know what God is and how to control it to our advantage.

But that can't happen with God. God is beyond our understanding or control. We cannot know God in that knowledge-is-control way. All we can do is choose to trust in the idea of God, or not. And then rely on that trust, or rely solely on our ability to know and control the world around us to the degree that we need to. And then see what comes of it.

We do know God. God is like everything else. We learn more as we go. It may be about control for some people. For me, it's more so about the learning and co-op with what is. Truth makes a good guide, but it isn't always good although nothing is inherently bad. This is where truth and the co-op with God work as a unit for the benefit of us who learn to co-create with our creator.

 

[Balthazzar]

Ice cubes are a state of matter. Water is a state of matter. Water vapor is a state of matter. Today we trust messengers who explain how nature works, scientists. The old messages of magic being behind nature have vanished as plausible explanations. But they are stll valued as a tradition of belief. It's those messengers that try to claim that the old tradition is factually true that are rejected by rational minds.

Who hates Jesus? How about Mohammad? Ghandi? Dali Lama? Einstein? Hermes Trismegistus? Ok, so your messenger wasn't my messenger. Why should I ever hate your messenger unless your messenger sets you to become my enemy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good point. As @Nakosis says theists have to accept that God exists, and in doing so (for no reason at all) God is assumed to be possible. But how is any God possible?

I don't know.

Actually demonstrating that something is possible is tricky unless you have direct evidence of the thing's existence: that which exists is necessarily possible.

... but in any situation where someone tries to prove God by establishing that a category of thing must exist (e.g. universe-creators, maybe) then whittle down the possible options in that category to only God, you run into two problems that may be insurmountable:

- to keep God as a possible option, you'd need to establish that God is in fact possible.

- to leave God as the only option left, you'd need to exclude every other option including ones that nobody has ever thought of.

 

[PureX]

I think that is actually one of the saddest part concerning human existence. Too many of us live through too many crappy experiences, and we end up feeling the need to tell ourselves stories that will keep ourselves motivated, no matter if there is actual substance to those stories,

The stories are their own "substance". Their existence is a part of the whole of existence as experienced by we humans. The stories are like pocketbooks carrying our hopes and ideals and lessons learned. All the things that make our lives meaningful, and important to is.

and then we cling to those stories as if our very lives depended on it, particularly in moments of despair, like an addict feeling the need to get high when they are feeling down.

Of course. That's what they're for. And that's when they work for us.

And this is exactly why atheism is far more common in rich countries.... since there is less of a need to cope with harsh realities.

Sure, because the rich can push those harsh realities onto everyone else. And then scoff at their pathetic need for 'stories'.

 

[F1fan]

We do know God.

What does this mean? That you know the thing that the word "god" corresponds to? Or you mean you what the basic concept of god is?

God is like everything else.

How is God anything at all that is real? How do you know? Or is this a baseless claim that is in essence a bluff inviting a challenge to the truthfulness of your comment?

We learn more as we go.

Over time what has been learned is that nothing really corresponds to any of the many gods claimed to exist. The exception is Hindu gods that often represent real material things. But these are still symbolic, not exising entities.

It may be about control for some people.

Like what we see the Christian right doing when they eliminate women's reproductive rights? They are exploiting the belief in God for their support.

For me, it's more so about the learning and co-op with what is. Truth makes a good guide, but it isn't always good although nothing is inherently bad.

You don't think cancers are inherently bad?

This is where truth and the co-op with God work as a unit for the benefit of us who learn to co-create with our creator.

What truth? How?

 

[F1fan]

Who hates Jesus?

From what I observe it is right wing Christians. They behave as if they have near complete contempt for everything Jesus taught.

How about Mohammad? Ghandi? Dali Lama? Einstein? Hermes Trismegistus? Ok, so your messenger wasn't my messenger.

Why need a guru at all? Gandhi taught practical methods of tolerance. So he as a messenger for his time was helpful. Buddhism is a set of pracical lessons in managing our minds, not any sort of message. But religions have a dogma that has many details that don't correspond to reality as we know it in the 21st century. How are these messages practical when it puts a believer at odds with modernity and reality?

Why should I ever hate your messenger unless your messenger sets you to become my enemy?

Why have you suddenly started talking about hate? We were talking about truth, and how we humans can discern truth from faslehoods.

 

[PureX]

I don't know.

Actually demonstrating that something is possible is tricky unless you have direct evidence of the thing's existence: that which exists is necessarily possible.

... but in any situation where someone tries to prove God by establishing that a category of thing must exist (e.g. universe-creators, maybe) then whittle down the possible options in that category to only God, you run into two problems that may be insurmountable:

- to keep God as a possible option, you'd need to establish that God is in fact possible.

- to leave God as the only option left, you'd need to exclude every other option including ones that nobody has ever thought of.

It's a philosophical inquiry. So every proposition is "possible" until it is logically determined not to be. Otherwise, the inquiry itself becomes impossible.

You want to "know God" exists, and what and how, before you will accept the possibility that God can exist. This is fundamentally irrational. You are killing the query before it can happen.

 

[Balthazzar]

What does this mean? That you know the thing that the word "god" corresponds to? Or you mean you what the basic concept of god is?

How is God anything at all that is real? How do you know? Or is this a baseless claim that is in essence a bluff inviting a challenge to the truthfulness of your comment?

Over time what has been learned is that nothing really corresponds to any of the many gods claimed to exist. The exception is Hindu gods that often represent real material things. But these are still symbolic, not exising entities.

Like what we see the Christian right doing when they eliminate women's reproductive rights? They are exploiting the belief in God for their support.

You don't think cancers are inherently bad?

What truth? How?

Figure it out yourself. I can't teach you anything. I have my understanding. One you appear not to understand. This is perfectly fine with me. It has been stated that Odin set his eye to acquire knowledge, and that the gods were as real as we are. I said "What's true and what isn't? He said: "Figure it out for yourself. I can't teach you anything."

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

A piece of evidence (A) that supports the existence of god (B), still supports the existence of god (B) even if you cannot provide evidence that god is not possible to exist.

 

[F1fan]

I don't know.

Actually demonstrating that something is possible is tricky unless you have direct evidence of the thing's existence: that which exists is necessarily possible.

The category of "possible" is so broad that it can include the improable. Theists will include any number of gods as possble even though they can't articulate how they are possible in a universe that behaves via natural laws.

... but in any situation where someone tries to prove God by establishing that a category of thing must exist (e.g. universe-creators, maybe) then whittle down the possible options in that category to only God, you run into two problems that may be insurmountable:

- to keep God as a possible option, you'd need to establish that God is in fact possible.

- to leave God as the only option left, you'd need to exclude every other option including ones that nobody has ever thought of.

And the progress of science has squeezed the gaps where theists desperately try to keep their God fitted into. Some theists have gone so far as to simply reject science, as if that works for rational minds. Look at the hostility towards abiogenesis.