Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is not how philosophers define reality.

It is quite commonly used, actually.

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.

I don't know what it means to "transcend reality." It would seem to mean, if looked at objectively, to move into being not real. Okay, how much attention should I pay to that which is not real? Well, I like fiction, and I'm quite happy to read stories about what never actually happened -- or plays and operas. But I don't make them part of how I approach my life here in the real world.

 

[Nakosis]

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."

Well, lets rewrite the title and maybe that will help.

The evidence you provide will have to infer that the absence of a God is not still a possibility.

In the case of your Zebra. You provide your evidence for the existence of the zebra.
Question, could the evidence you provide for a zebra exist, while at the same it could still be true that Zebras don't exist?

If the latter part is true, then can you rightly say you have provided evidence for the existence of zebras.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, lets rewrite the title and maybe that will help.

The evidence you provide will have to infer that the absence of a God is not still a possibility.

In the case of your Zebra. You provide your evidence for the existence of the zebra.
Question, could the evidence you provide for a zebra exist, while at the same it could still be true that Zebras don't exist?

If the latter part is true, then can you rightly say you have provided evidence for the existence of zebras.

I truly don't understand what you are trying to get at. What sort of "evidence" could "infer that the absence of a God is not possibility," and what would that evidence then prove about whether God does or does not exist?

You are using double negatives, which confuse everyone: "absence" infers "not a possibility?" I don't even know what that means.

We twist ourselves into knots when we resort to deeply convoluted, pseudo philosophical arguments, rather than looking directly at the question.

Is there a possibility that a "god" could exist? I can't answer that until you define what you mean be "god" in some detail. Regardless, does that possibility entail that a "god" does exist? Not in any way that I can attest. I mean, is there a possibility that a zebra that was blue with red stripes exist? I suppose so -- there are lots of animals with those colours, mandrills or red pandas -- but in what way does that suggest that such a zebra actually does exist? It doesn't. You'd have to find an example or leave the question unanswered. And that's something science can do, which religion does not seem able to -- leave a question unanswered. In other words, admit "I don't know."

 

[F1fan]

Well, lets rewrite the title and maybe that will help.

The evidence you provide will have to infer that the absence of a God is not still a possibility.

In the case of your Zebra. You provide your evidence for the existence of the zebra.
Question, could the evidence you provide for a zebra exist, while at the same it could still be true that Zebras don't exist?

Swap out zebra with Bigfoot. Yes, there is evidence that a Bigfoot exists, but it still could be true that it doesn't exist. If evidence is faked or misinterpreted (the guy really saw a bear) that would be consistent with Bigfoot not existing.

It is similar with those believers who claim to know God exists because they had an experience. That is the evidence for them. Of course we can't rule out that they misinterpreted their experience and it wasn't Bigfoot. I mean it wasn't God.

 

[Sargonski]

That is not what is being asked.

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



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.



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

What a post full of rediculous gibberish .. full of contradiction and faulty logic was your post .. now followed up with false claims .. responding to question with a question.

What is your evidence for God >? .. how about we try it that way .. you answering your own question for us preferably with something other than the existentialist fallacy warned about earlier.

 

[Nakosis]

What a post full of rediculous gibberish .. full of contradiction and faulty logic was your post .. now followed up with false claims .. responding to question with a question.

What is your evidence for God >? .. how about we try it that way .. you answering your own question for us preferably with something other than the existentialist fallacy warned about earlier.

An example might have helped you through it but it seems you are not willing to engage so that's fine.

 

[Nakosis]

I truly don't understand what you are trying to get at. What sort of "evidence" could "infer that the absence of a God is not possibility," and what would that evidence then prove about whether God does or does not exist?

You are using double negatives, which confuse everyone: "absence" infers "not a possibility?" I don't even know what that means.

We twist ourselves into knots when we resort to deeply convoluted, pseudo philosophical arguments, rather than looking directly at the question.

Is there a possibility that a "god" could exist? I can't answer that until you define what you mean be "god" in some detail. Regardless, does that possibility entail that a "god" does exist? Not in any way that I can attest. I mean, is there a possibility that a zebra that was blue with red stripes exist? I suppose so -- there are lots of animals with those colours, mandrills or red pandas -- but in what way does that suggest that such a zebra actually does exist? It doesn't. You'd have to find an example or leave the question unanswered. And that's something science can do, which religion does not seem able to -- leave a question unanswered. In other words, admit "I don't know."

In logic, if you are trying to support a conclusion so you provide some evidence and from that the idea is to infer a conclusion.

However if the evidence provided doesn't exclusively infer "B" the conclusion being true or "-B" the conclusion being false then the evidence doesn't support either case. Simple logic B cannot equal -B.

A double negative shouldn't be that confusing since a double negative is simply a positive.

Logic is not exclusive to science. If may not be as often used in religion but there is no law saying it can't.

 

[PureX]

It is quite commonly used, actually.

No, it's not. The only people that would use that definition of reality are philosophical materialists. And among philosophers in general, philosophical materialism was rejected right out of the gate as being inherently self-contradicting and thereby profoundly illogical. As it basically denies the existence and/or value of philosophy itself.

I don't know what it means to "transcend reality."

That is no ones fault but your own. And no ones responsibility to overcome but yours.

Think of it this way ... if we arrange two flattened discs, two strait poles, and a flat rectangle in a specific configuration, the result will be a 'cart' that can then eneble us to do things that were not previously possible. Thus, the sum of those five parts, when combined, transcends any and all the possibilities inherent within the parts, themselves. Philosophers have called this transcendent phenomena "gestalt" (the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts). A cart or a bycicle would be a very real example of 'metaphysical' reality. Unfortunately, philosophical materialism rejects a metaphysical reality. And so those who persist in that ideology remain blind to it. As you do.

It would seem to mean, if looked at objectively, to move into being not real. Okay, how much attention should I pay to that which is not real? Well, I like fiction, and I'm quite happy to read stories about what never actually happened -- or plays and operas. But I don't make them part of how I approach my life here in the real world.

An excellent example of how blinding a bias becomes when one insists on engaging in it.

 

[firedragon]

In logic, if you are trying to support a conclusion so you provide some evidence and from that the idea is to infer a conclusion.

However if the evidence provided doesn't exclusively infer "B" the conclusion being true or "-B" the conclusion being false then the evidence doesn't support either case. Simple logic B cannot equal -B.

A double negative shouldn't be that confusing since a double negative is simply a positive.

Logic is not exclusive to science. If may not be as often used in religion but there is no law saying it can't.

Nakosis. What are the evidences provided by theists that does not negate the impossibility of Gos's non-existence that you have encountered?

 

[PureX]

In logic, if you are trying to support a conclusion so you provide some evidence and from that the idea is to infer a conclusion.

However if the evidence provided doesn't exclusively infer "B" the conclusion being true or "-B" the conclusion being false then the evidence doesn't support either case. Simple logic B cannot equal -B.

A double negative shouldn't be that confusing since a double negative is simply a positive.

Logic is not exclusive to science. If may not be as often used in religion but there is no law saying it can't.

I would clarify that logic requires no "evidence". Logic is based on basic principals of reasoning. These can be applied to evidence, but no evidence is required.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is no ones fault but your own. And no ones responsibility to overcome but yours.

Think of it this way ... if we arrange two flattened discs, two strait poles, and a flat rectangle in a specific configuration, the result will be a 'cart' that can then eneble us to do things that were not previously possible. Thus, the sum of those five parts, when combined, transcends any and all the possibilities inherent within the parts, themselves. Philosophers have called this transcendent phenomena "gestalt". It's a very real example of 'metaphysical' reality. Unfortunately, philosophical materialism rejects the reality of metaphysicality. And so remains blind to it.

The discs are real, the poles (even straight ones) are real, the rectangle is real --- and the cart is real. Now if, on a sudden, all those parts disappeared and left in their place a zephyr capable of carrying heavy loads in desired directions, I'd say there had been some transcendence.

 

[PureX]

The discs are real, the poles (even straight ones) are real, the rectangle is real --- and the cart is real. Now if, on a sudden, all those parts disappeared and left in their place a zephyr capable of carrying heavy loads in desired directions, I'd say there had been some transcendence.

What you are neglecting to recognize is that it's the configuration that creates the cart, that then enables possibilities that did not exist within the sum of those parts, nor within any if those parts, individually.

That configuration is METAPHYSICAL. And when applied to physical reality, it becomes a metaphysical reality. And thus negates the fundamental premise of philosophical materialism. Sorry, but you've bet on the wrong horse, philosophically speaking.

 

[F1fan]

No, it's not. The only people that would use that definition of reality are philosophical materialists. And among philosophers in general, philosophical materialism was rejected right out of the gate as being inherently self-contradicting and thereby profoundly illogical. As it basically denies the existence and/or value of philosophy itself.

That's why we take pholosophy with a grain of salt.

Think of it this way ... if we arrange two flattened discs, two strait poles, and a flat rectangle in a specific configuration, the result will be a 'cart' that can then eneble us to do things that were not previously possible. Thus, the sum of those five parts, when combined, transcends any and all the possibilities inherent within the parts, themselves. Philosophers have called this transcendent phenomena "gestalt" (the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts). A cart or a bycicle would be a very real example of 'metaphysical' reality. Unfortunately, philosophical materialism rejects a metaphysical reality. And so those who persist in that ideology remain blind to it. As you do.

You are talking in code speak again. Bicycles are engineered objects that are very much just material. The engineering involves computer models and physics, along with data of material properties. Carbon fiber, aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, all real materials. Nothing metaphysical. Are engineers blind in some way? What are they missing as they design the next generation of racing bikes

An excellent example of how blinding a bias becomes when one insists on engaging in it.

Irony.

I would clarify that logic requires no "evidence". Logic is based on basic principals of reasoning. These can be applied to evidence, but no evidence is required.

Only the abstract mathematical logic is this true. But in formal logic you need true premise, and these have to be factual, thus evidence for a true and valid conclusion.

 

[Balthazzar]

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."

All the excrement in life has me in doubt that God (if God exists at all) is or can be "good", sometimes. It's true we deal with a load of bull ****e in life. I do know that God seems bad to some people. I know that life can be seen as good. I know life can also be seen as bad. This much is evident. What is life worth? What is the concept of God worth? What is worth "what" and why? I guess it's how we process the experiences we call life that make the difference.

 

[F1fan]

What you are neglecting to recognize is that it's the configuration that creates the cart, that then enables possibilities that did not exist within the sum of those parts, nor within any if those parts, individually.

That configuration is METAPHYSICAL. And when applied to physical reality, it becomes a metaphysical reality. And thus negates the fundamental premise of philosophical materialism. Sorry, but you've bet on the wrong horse, philosophically speaking.

So you are suggesting thay buying IKEA furniture results in a metaphysical experience? Too bad they don't use that as a marketing tool.

 

[Balthazzar]

I truly don't understand what you are trying to get at. What sort of "evidence" could "infer that the absence of a God is not possibility," and what would that evidence then prove about whether God does or does not exist?

You are using double negatives, which confuse everyone: "absence" infers "not a possibility?" I don't even know what that means.

We twist ourselves into knots when we resort to deeply convoluted, pseudo philosophical arguments, rather than looking directly at the question.

Is there a possibility that a "god" could exist? I can't answer that until you define what you mean be "god" in some detail. Regardless, does that possibility entail that a "god" does exist? Not in any way that I can attest. I mean, is there a possibility that a zebra that was blue with red stripes exist? I suppose so -- there are lots of animals with those colours, mandrills or red pandas -- but in what way does that suggest that such a zebra actually does exist? It doesn't. You'd have to find an example or leave the question unanswered. And that's something science can do, which religion does not seem able to -- leave a question unanswered. In other words, admit "I don't know."

It's funny I remember someone suggesting to me that the serpent in the garden tempting Eve was more of a phallic symbol than anything. I said "rubbish" as if I knew it to not be true, all while my grandfather (a preacher and dedicated man to the faith) sat grinning from ear to ear as if he knew something I didn't.

What might this have to do with your post?

Nothing and everything.

Imagine nothing and to be aware of nothing as a life reality all alone in that nothingness and being conscious of it and then imagine everything else in life that we've known as being us with God. I don't know that I would be as fearful of life in contrast to the former thought. I suppose I would be required to invert and imagine and create that which I wanted as an experience in that nothingness from that time I had spent with what I call God - Life.

We're here together in this together creating the very same thing in the now together. How then do we proceed and make it good for ourselves without offending those here with us?

Life and death - death and life -

What is God anyway?

 

[PureX]

That's why we take pholosophy with a grain of salt.

And then cannot understand it.

You are talking in code speak again.

It only appears that way when your mind is hamstrung by a deficient philosophy.

Bicycles are engineered objects that are very much just material.

Well, no they aren't. They are "engineered" materials. Meaning they are materials that have had ideas imposed upon them, and as a result afford the universe possibilities that they did not, by themselves, offer nor possess.

But you will continue to fight to remain blind to this.

 

[PureX]

So you are suggesting thay buying IKEA furniture results in a metaphysical experience? Too bad they don't use that as a marketing tool.

The money you used is a good example of metaphysical reality. So is the writing on money, and on the box the furniture came in.

 

[Balthazzar]

The money you used is a good example of metaphysical reality. So is the writing on money, and on the box the furniture came in.

I needed that. Sometimes accepted and understood definitions escape my knowing.

 

[BrightShadow]

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.

Don't know anything about your religious affiliation or lack of religious beliefs. So, yes, you need to define what do you mean by "God".
Nevertheless - here is my two cents...

The evidence of absence of God is not possible because God is present everywhere.

A place called "nothingness" cannot exist when something is there all the time.

We exist - we are the proof that God exists. If we didn't exist - then you could say.... I mean you won't be there to say anything!

We may not have the right tool to verify the existence of God the way you would like but we can use common sense via process of reasoning and process of deductions and come to the conclusion that God exists.

Absence of God/creator would possibly mean chaos. Given the complexity and order in the universe suggests intentional design. Complexity of life makes it highly improbable that everything happened by random coincidences.

You are trying to do complex mathematics with a cash register or a simple calculator.
To understand God - you have to understand how other realms work. With the limited available tools and knowledge - it is not feasible to come to an accurate conclusion; at least not at the moment!

If you are on an deserted island with your wife and she gets pregnant - without the availability of any modern medical equipment - can you figure out if she is pregnant with a boy or girl? Would you use your coconuts, rocks and fish to figure out if she is pregnant with a boy or girl? That is what you are doing when you are seeking empirical evidence before God reveals (with your limited tools).

Hence, you should realize - you don't possess the correct tools! All you could do is take an educated guess and try to connect different possible dots. You can see she is pregnant - so you know a baby is coming.

Similarly look at the complexity of life - or even just a human body and realize there is programmer behind it all. Genetic codes didn't write by itself. If you look at the 60.000 miles in length of blood vessels (Arteries, Veins and Capillaries) going through the entire length of the body to supply blood back and forth from the heart and hardly ever get pinched then you should realize there is a designer behind it all.
We are your proof that God exists. Now just wait for the details just like you would wait to see the baby's gender.