Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[F1fan]

Figure it out yourself. I can't teach you anything. I have my understanding. One you appear not to understand.

If your understanding is true then you would be able to explain it. This is the dilemma for theists, they have beliefs that aren't consistent with reason and facts. Look at how you blame me for "not getting it". What exactly is there to understand? In my study over the decades I have come to understand why some people end up believing in religious ideas, and all the while the believers are unaware of what I have learned. So irony at work here. Have you ever asked why you want to believe in religious ideas at all?

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."

Odd how you mimic Odin as if you are a god yourself.

 

[Balthazzar]

If your understanding is true then you would be able to explain it. This is the dilemma for theists, they have beliefs that aren't consistent with reason and facts. Look at how you blame me for "not getting it". What exactly is there to understand? In my study over the decades I have come to understand why some people end up believing in religious ideas, and all the while the believers are unaware of what I have learned. So irony at work here. Have you ever asked why you want to believe in religious ideas at all?

Odd how you mimic Odin as if you are a god yourself.

I'm not blaming you. I stated something from an observation I made about your stated position. I don't care. Why should I feel a need to place blame on you for not being privy to my understanding? Should I make the effort to teach you? Why would I? From what I've gathered, you've already made up your mind.

He said, "I could use a f.a.g"

so ... I reached in my pocket and handed him a cigarette.

He said: Gracias.

I said" Prego

He seemed gay enough about it.

 

[Balthazzar]

If your understanding is true then you would be able to explain it. This is the dilemma for theists, they have beliefs that aren't consistent with reason and facts. Look at how you blame me for "not getting it". What exactly is there to understand? In my study over the decades I have come to understand why some people end up believing in religious ideas, and all the while the believers are unaware of what I have learned. So irony at work here. Have you ever asked why you want to believe in religious ideas at all?

Odd how you mimic Odin as if you are a god yourself.

I could go further than I have already. I'm limited in my understanding and ability to comprehend some things. It's a good way to be if you ask me. To become more knowledgeable, better equipped, more capable, etc. Why do I refer to the giants of history? Why wouldn't I? I refer to Einstein, also and Newton, Darwin, etc. I'm an evolutionist. I try to honor what's true. I attempt to discern between truth and error. I fall short sometimes. So, I continue the aim to acquire knowledge and understanding. I think that's how life has always been. We learn as we go and from our experiences. Ok, so maybe I never knew Kant, or Plato, or Socrates, or Jesus, or Einstein, Newton, Darwin, or Ghandi, or Odin ...

I do have access to how they understood life - that which they learned over the span of their own.

 

[George-ananda]

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


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


Not holding my breath

You misinterpreted my post. I never claimed to have a proof of God. I called it 'my best argument'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

Yes. To make claims to another about “God” without an agreed upon definition of what “God” results in those people talking past each other.

What, exactly, does "universally defined" mean?

Having a definition agreed upon by those parties discussing the term.

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

“Word”

 

[George-ananda]

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.

This fundamental consciousness is the alleged direct experience of many sages/masters/mystics of the Advaita Vedanta tradition in their deepest meditative state. For those of us that have not reached that state we take what they say as a hypothesis. I don't see any way to prove that physically, so I am not claiming anything like proof.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Not when they are coping mechanisms.

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

And that's the sad part. It is like getting high to cope with life.

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

I am not even talking about rich people per se, but rather rich countries. The average Joe in Norway is far more likely to be an atheist than the average Joe here in Brazil.

 

[Koldo]

“Word”

You mean the Microsoft software?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You mean the Microsoft software?

Touché.

However, the definition of “word” can be ascertained in the context of the discussion.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

I hold the starting point is Fundamental Consciousness Brahman/God/Source. And Brahman is a mystery we cannot get our minds behind. I am not claiming to give an understanding of everything.

 

[PureX]

Not when they are coping mechanisms.

What does that even mean? What isn't a "coping mechanism"?

And that's the sad part. It is like getting high to cope with life.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everyone else's truth is an illusion, and a "drug" of some sort, except for yours.

I am not even talking about rich people per se, but rather rich countries. The average Joe in Norway is far more likely to be an atheist than the average Joe here in Brazil.

You are equating theism with suffering, and rich people with atheism because they suffer less. I am pointing out that it's rich people that cause the poor to suffer, so if atheism is a luxury of the rich, maybe it's not the high road you imagine it to be.

 

[Balthazzar]

What does that even mean? What isn't a "coping mechanism"?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everyone else's truth is an illusion, and a "drug" of some sort, except for yours.

You are equating theism with suffering, and rich people with atheism because they suffer less. I am pointing out that it's rich people that cause the poor to suffer, so if atheism is a luxury of the rich, maybe it's not the high road you imagine it to be.

Maybe it's a self-appointed parenting position for those of us who own being children of God. I'm a child of God. I claim it, live as if it couldn't be true, and so I aim to conduct my life as if I am one of Gods eternal students, and never apart from the discipline associated with being that which I am.

 

[Koldo]

What does that even mean? What isn't a "coping mechanism"?

Anything that you don't cling out to due to despair (or similar feelings).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everyone else's truth is an illusion, and a "drug" of some sort, except for yours.

Not at all.

You are equating theism with suffering, and rich people with atheism because they suffer less. I am pointing out that it's rich people that cause the poor to suffer, so if atheism is a luxury of the rich, maybe it's not the high road you imagine it to be.

I am not equating rich people with atheism, nor theism with suffering. After all, I am not rich, but I am an atheist. What I am saying is that crappy life conditions (which are more likely to happen if you are poor) lead to a bigger need for a coping (and free) mechanism, thus leading to higher adherence to theism. To be even clearer, theism is not necessarily a coping mechanism, but it often is.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Then the same can be said of God. And I would be happy to posit that God exists in the imagination, in art and literature, while having no existence in reality -- in the way that philosophers commonly define reality: a substance that actually exists in an external world.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Close. From either A or B you should be able to infer not it is not possible for God to not exist.
The evidence should infer that the opposite of the conclusion being claimed is not possible.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

What I'm saying is the evidence you provide for you claim, assuming you cannot provide a real live Pegasus, ought infer that the opposite of your claim, that Pegasus don't exist, is not possible. IOW, you can't claim that "X" is evidence for God if "X" could still exist while the opposite of your claim, could still be true. You have to be able to infer from the evidence being provided to you that the opposite of what is being claimed is not possible or at least not likely.

For example, someone shows you a Bible and claims it is evidence of God. What it is evidence of is someone, a human, wrote a story about God. Could someone write a story about God while it is still true that God doesn't exist?

The evidence given does not infer the opposite of what is being claimed is not true.

The evidence you provide has to infer that the opposite of what you are claiming is not true to support the claim being made. Otherwise it is not really evidence of what you are claiming.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

This whole thread is becoming more and more convoluted, and I think it's largely because it seems to make no sense. Try this:

For a zebra's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for a zebra's absence.

Really? Wouldn't the zebra's existence itself be enough? And secondly, probably more importantly, what is the test for the absence of anything?

The problem is, absence of evidence and evidence of absence are similar but very distinct things. Take for example the question of whether there are mice in the barn: an exhaustive search that found no mice might be taken as absence of evidence suggesting that there are no mice. However, the test must be both completely exhaustive (mice might be hiding somewhere you forgot to look) and also at a single moment in time (mice might move from place to place, for example moving to the place you looked a few minutes or hours previously, and don't intend to look again.)

It gets hard when you go universal. One might, while roaming around the galaxy, find a tribble, and science, when presented with both a description of the tribble and the tribble itself would accept its existence. But let's say you have described a tribble (and it's the same as the previous tribble) but have not yet found one. How would you establish that in all of the universe, such a thing does not exist? How would you do the search? What kind of evidence could you present to prove that it could not exist? Without either the tribble itself, or evidence that the tribble COULD NOT exist, science would remain agnostic on the subject. "Yes, such a thing might exist, but we've no evidence, and therefore we can make no pronouncement either way."

 

[firedragon]

The evidence should infer that the opposite of the conclusion being claimed is not possible.

That's the most obvious statement.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

My cherry pick from page-1:

What is the term "God" pointing to in your OP?

I think before you make the claim you make in the OP, you need to define your terms. Unless the term "God" can be universally defined, the claim made in the OP is rather pointless.

How could I show them evidence that the "absence of a horse is not possible"? Seems strange.

Right?

Regards

 

[PureX]

Then the same can be said of God.

Of course.

And I would be happy to posit that God exists in the imagination, in art and literature, while having no existence in reality -- in the way that philosophers commonly define reality: a substance that actually exists in an external world.

That is not how philosophers define reality.

And the idea of God is that God transcends reality. So looking for God to fit into any definition of reality is just a fools errand.