Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Balthazzar]

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 gets 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.

In my assessment of life, even from chaos, I am one who holds the premise that we ought to accept that God exists and is. Today, and from chaos, we are able to determine a child's gender before the child is born. This has been "our" progress and from slates that go further back than learning to use stone tools to work with. Stone age, bronze, etc. What age is this one? If each age equates to a year, how old would we be collectively as humans? I'm guessing God is far older than we are and it's difficult to think that God hasn't far outreached our current abilities.

 

[Sargonski]

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

who is the one not willing to engage .. in other than projection ? Strange .. this desperate deflection from support for your claim.

An example of what Nakosis .. once again you are talking in riddles ? .. What is your evidence for God is the question .. for which you desperately want answer . but you have not told us what your definition of God is .. without which .. there can be no evidence of anything.

So .. once again .. in case it was not clear the first two times .. so desperate to disengage from the "bad thought" .. why its bad I have no idea .. but clearly there is a block .. Mr. "not willing to engage so that's fine" .

What is your definition of God ? we can not give you evidence for something you have not defined ? Would you like an example ? some have defined God as the Sun .. wonderful .. now that we know what God is .. we can give evidence for that thing .. but, baby steps , if we don't know what that thing is .. then we can not give any evidence now can we.

So quit deflecting and running away .. and tell us what your definition of God is .. remembering the two examples that are not accepted.

 

[Sargonski]

In my assessment of life, even from chaos, I am one who holds the premise that we ought to accept that God exists and is. Today, and from chaos, we are able to determine a child's gender before the child is born. This has been "our" progress and from slates that go further back than learning to use stone tools to work with. Stone age, bronze, etc. What age is this one? If each age equates to a year, how old would we be collectively as humans? I'm guessing God is far older than we are and it's difficult to think that God hasn't far outreached our current abilities.

and is an entity that has outreached our current abilities a God ? - and if not to what degree of power .. above and beyond that of mere mortals does one need to reach to have God status ?

 

[Balthazzar]

and is an entity that has outreached our current abilities a God ? - and if not to what degree of power .. above and beyond that of mere mortals does one need to reach to have God status ?

God status or god status? We already acknowledge god status as humans, just not God status as the "All", individually. Life goes on without you and me, after all. When our ability to experience the all (God) as we are, the all (God) will remain and we will continue to exist within that which the All (God) is. I have no idea what that might entail. We as gods experience God inasmuch as we are able to as humans. We are finite and we are limited. From what I understand about God, God is always present and without end, all powerful, all knowing, etc. If God isn't ALL, then what is God? God status is required before gods can be. I find mortality to be just. I would think even God rested from all Gods work when it was time for him god to rest in God. Maybe we level up and the levels are ongoing, perhaps both ways. I suppose this is largely determined by the way we navigate life in God as living entities, individually if not collectively. God is the substance from which all things originate. A definition of the universe may or may not suffice to illustrate the premise I hold as a true.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Logic itself is a framework for reasoning, independent of evidence. However, when applying logic to real-world situations or arguments, evidence often plays a crucial role in reaching valid conclusions.

 

[Nakosis]

who is the one not willing to engage .. in other than projection ? Strange .. this desperate deflection from support for your claim.

An example of what Nakosis .. once again you are talking in riddles ? .. What is your evidence for God is the question .. for which you desperately want answer . but you have not told us what your definition of God is .. without which .. there can be no evidence of anything.

So .. once again .. in case it was not clear the first two times .. so desperate to disengage from the "bad thought" .. why its bad I have no idea .. but clearly there is a block .. Mr. "not willing to engage so that's fine" .

What is your definition of God ? we can not give you evidence for something you have not defined ? Would you like an example ? some have defined God as the Sun .. wonderful .. now that we know what God is .. we can give evidence for that thing .. but, baby steps , if we don't know what that thing is .. then we can not give any evidence now can we.

So quit deflecting and running away .. and tell us what your definition of God is .. remembering the two examples that are not accepted.

Sure, I can give an example for you if your are not willing.
A tree is God and God has no other properties then that which is self evident to a tree.

Now that I given you an example, what are you going to do with it?

 

[Balthazzar]

Sure, I can give an example for you if your are not willing.
A tree is God and God has no other properties then that which is self evident to a tree.

Now that I given you an example, what are you going to do with it?

A worm is god, a worm, food for bird gods who nest in tree gods, and useful for a tree god's growth.

I think Thich Nhat Hanh holds similar views.

 

[Nakosis]

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...

Sure, I can define anything as God but it wouldn't change the logic. For example I can say God is a rock and God has no other properties than is self-evident to being a rock. However this is not really to help me in defining what God is and defending it, it is to help you so you can logically support what you define as God.

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

Ok, here you are claiming a property of God, "God is everywhere". What is it, what exists everywhere which is God. You are claiming a property without specifying the substance which has this property. Energy is everywhere. So is God energy? Or did you have something else in mind?

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

What 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 are proof that what exists?

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.

Yes, that is where logic helps. In the case where you can't provide the self-evident substance of your claim you can provide self-evident evidence which infers the truth of your claim.

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.

Sure, without the laws of nature, everything would be chaos. So are you claiming that the laws of nature are God?

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!

What other realms? If you can provide self-evident evidence of these other realms then we can examine this and together perhaps infer some conclusion about them.

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).

That's a simple answer. Without any self-evident evidence the answer is no. So are you saying without self-evident evidence you cannot know what God is. Without knowing what God is, you certainly can't know the properties of something you don't know. Welcome the the agnostic club.

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.

Yes, that is where logic comes in. With self-evident evidence, you can infer what is true. However first you have to define what it is evidence of to support the idea that your evidence actually supports what you are inferring is true.

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.

However you have yet to define God. You could for example define a baby and that definition would be self evident by having examined a baby.

So far you have only claim that God has properties, like the baby would have the properties of gender, which again, self-evident. Nothing to prove. However, without defining what a baby was. The substance of what you are giving properties to how can you determine what properties to assign to it?

 

[Nakosis]

A worm is god, a worm, food for bird gods who nest in tree gods, and useful for a tree god's growth.

I think Thich Nhat Hanh holds similar views.

Yes, if that is how you chose to define God, you can certainly support the existence of a worm. Either by providing a worm, or evidence which support the existence of such a creature. The latter being a little more tricky but doable.

I don't much about the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh other than he was a major influence on Western understanding of Buddhism.

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes, if that is how you chose to define God, you can certainly support the existence of a worm. Either by providing a worm, or evidence which support the existence of such a creature. The latter being a little more tricky but doable.

I don't much about the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh other than he was a major influence on Western understanding of Buddhism.

Evidence may be tricky, depending on location and proximity to the one who demands it. On the other hand, what does the one who demands evidence consider to be evidenced? What is evidence, anyway? When a hammer hits something, it hurts. I mean, haha, when a hammer hits my thumb, it hurts. I mean, sometimes when I hit my thumb with a hammer it hurts. I mean it hurts my thumb, not necessarily the hammer. What is evidence if not that which is all around us and experienced by us?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Sure but then your axioms have to be self-evident. If you want to prove the existence of with self-evident axioms, go for it.

However this case it is a response to having see many people claim evidence for God. I expect in either case, the use of self-evident evidence or self-evident axioms it should work the same.

 

[Nakosis]

Evidence may be tricky, depending on location and proximity to the one who demands it. On the other hand, what does the one who demands evidence consider to be evidenced?

That is why self-evident evidence is preferable. You wouldn't need any convincing. Like the object itself, you wouldn't need to be convinced of its existence.

 

[Sargonski]

God status or god status? We already acknowledge god status as humans, just not God status as the "All", individually. Life goes on without you and me, after all. When our ability to experience the all (God) as we are, the all (God) will remain and we will continue to exist within that which the All (God) is. I have no idea what that might entail. We as gods experience God inasmuch as we are able to as humans. We are finite and we are limited. From what I understand about God, God is always present and without end, all powerful, all knowing, etc. If God isn't ALL, then what is God? God status is required before gods can be. I find mortality to be just. I would think even God rested from all Gods work when it was time for him god to rest in God. Maybe we level up and the levels are ongoing, perhaps both ways. I suppose this is largely determined by the way we navigate life in God as living entities, individually if not collectively. God is the substance from which all things originate. A definition of the universe may or may not suffice to illustrate the premise I hold as a true.

This is the God is Everything / God is Nothing - existentialist Fallacy .. which is why the contestants were asked to give a definition of God that is somewhere inbetween .. which is not to discount the God of evertything ... just looking for a definition of the minimum level of power some entity would have to have to be classified as a God in your books.

I agree with your claim that humans have Godly powers .. in that through force of will humans are able to manifest a thought into physical reality -- but, within the constraints of the human body. .. a higher level God is able to manifest a thought into physical reality outside the human body .. for example you can make your thumb move through force of will, but can not make the chair move .... lest there is something you are not telling me.

"If God isn't All" -- never mind for the moment .. .. Some God may well be everything .. or a Primordial Twin is normally the way things go.. but that does not negate the existance of lesser Gods who interact with the likes of human mortals from time to time .. whereas the primordial Chaos Gods do not ... and hence are both God of Everything and Nothing .. but dwell not on this .. looking for a lesser God .. what level of power .. is making lightning fall from the sky through force of will not enough?

 

[LuisDantas]

Deciding what should be called a "god" and what that actually means are unavoidably arbitrary and very personal decisions. There is no lucid way around that.

That there are whole movements and so-called religions relying on that not to be true only shows how easily they are misguided and how urgent it is to question and challenge that misguidance.

 

[PureX]

Logic itself is a framework for reasoning, independent of evidence. However, when applying logic to real-world situations or arguments, evidence often plays a crucial role in reaching valid conclusions.

God is not a real world situation or argument, however. Demanding "evidence" for God is therefor irrational. All that is going to be available is the evidence of our subjective personal experience resulting from our acting on our individual understanding of the philosophical meta-ideal called "God" (theism).

We can treat those experiences as evidence, and apply logical reasoning to them, but the conclusions will only be related to the specific individual's idealization of God. Not to the universal philosophical proposition called "God".

 

[Balthazzar]

This is the God is Everything / God is Nothing - existentialist Fallacy .. which is why the contestants were asked to give a definition of God that is somewhere inbetween .. which is not to discount the God of evertything ... just looking for a definition of the minimum level of power some entity would have to have to be classified as a God in your books.

I agree with your claim that humans have Godly powers .. in that through force of will humans are able to manifest a thought into physical reality -- but, within the constraints of the human body. .. a higher level God is able to manifest a thought into physical reality outside the human body .. for example you can make your thumb move through force of will, but can not make the chair move .... lest there is something you are not telling me.

"If God isn't All" -- never mind for the moment .. .. Some God may well be everything .. or a Primordial Twin is normally the way things go.. but that does not negate the existance of lesser Gods who interact with the likes of human mortals from time to time .. whereas the primordial Chaos Gods do not ... and hence are both God of Everything and Nothing .. but dwell not on this .. looking for a lesser God .. what level of power .. is making lightning fall from the sky through force of will not enough?

It's all God and many variables through which God operates and functions. Maybe through a thumbnail. Maybe a grain of sand. Maybe a fragment of a flake of skin. I'm human. I'm not a worm but we are both God.

 

[PureX]

Sure but then your axioms have to be self-evident. If you want to prove the existence of with self-evident axioms, go for it.

"Proof" is not the goal. Logical validity is. This is philosophy, not science or a courtroom. And yes, it is based on various self-evident axioms. Like for something to come from nothing, "magic" (of some kind) is required.

However this case it is a response to having see many people claim evidence for God. I expect in either case, the use of self-evident evidence or self-evident axioms it should work the same.

When people claim evidence for God, they are proclaiming their own subjective evidence for their own subjective idealization of the philosophical proposition (theism) commonly referred to as "God". Such experience may feel axiomatic to them, but that does not make them philosophical axioms. So debating/negating them is not debating/negating theism. It's just a personal debate about how one chooses to conceptualize "God" and the results (as evidence) of acting on that conceptualization. There may be some individual value in such a debate but there is no philosophical value in it.

 

[Sargonski]

It's all God and many variables through which God operates and functions. Maybe through a thumbnail. Maybe a grain of sand. Maybe a fragment of a flake of skin. I'm human. I'm not a worm but we are both God.

You are not understanding the God is everything fallacy in play .. and the worm is just as much God as you are .. and the grain of sand is also God in the God is everything monotheistic paradigm that you do not understand .. likely not having actually thought about it and thus not tried to understand .these utterances a parroting of a learned deflection ..

How is it that you did not understand that "God is everything" is not an allowed choice ? was that not made crystal clear? I think it was and so we must ask the source of this "thought stopping" exercise / mantra / reaction / defense mechanism ?

You were asked for a metric .. quantification .. asked a specific question .. yes or no is all that is required .. lightling bolts from the sky --- via force of will .. is this a "God-like" power .. yes or no .. why did you avoid this simple clarification question ?

 

[Sargonski]

Sure, I can give an example for you if your are not willing.
A tree is God and God has no other properties then that which is self evident to a tree.

Now that I given you an example, what are you going to do with it?

I just gave you an example of God in previous post .. "The Sun" .. to which you respond by saying I was not willing to give an example. ? did I miss the willy wonka and the chocolate factory entrance sign ?

If a Tree is God .. then finding a piece of wood is evidence for the existence of this/these God(s)

 

[1213]

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

I dismiss it, because if it would be possible, we would see it happening in nature.