Is there proof God can not exist?

[idea]

without a clear definition of "God" the question is moot.

 

[McBell]

without a clear definition of "God" the question is moot.

Without a clea definition of "God, ANY discussion about it is moot....

But that does not stop, nor even slow down, some people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?

No.

Is there anything in science that makes it clear that God can not exist and could not have had anything to do with the universe?

No.

 

[Copernicus]

Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?

The Impossibility of God.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

There are pointers of evidence that many versions of God cannot exist but "proof" is a much stronger and more absolute word than "evidence". You hear is all the time in testimonies in a courtroom. If someone is murdered and some police detective finds a gun in your home that can be tabled as evidence you committed the murder but it is not proof. He would have to corroborate far more evidence than that to draw up any conclusions of proof.

 

[Copernicus]

There are pointers of evidence that many versions of God cannot exist but "proof" is a much stronger and more absolute word than "evidence". You hear is all the time in testimonies in a courtroom. If someone is murdered and some police detective finds a gun in your home that can be tabled as evidence you committed the murder but it is not proof. He would have to corroborate far more evidence than that to draw up any conclusions of proof.

The court metaphor is sometimes useful, but it shouldn't be taken too far. Evidence in court cases is extremely circumscribed compared to what we consider reasonable in informal debates. As for "proof", it has several different senses, and the evidential sense of "proof" is perfectly valid, as just about any dictionary will tell you. It doesn't necessarily have to be a rigorous proof in a mathematical or logical sense. Usually debates over the existence of gods are about plausibility and not logical impossibility. The omnimax God is a special case that many of us think is a logical impossibility.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

The court metaphor is sometimes useful, but it shouldn't be taken too far. Evidence in court cases is extremely circumscribed compared to what we consider reasonable in informal debates. As for "proof", it has several different senses, and the evidential sense of "proof" is perfectly valid, as just about any dictionary will tell you. It doesn't necessarily have to be a rigorous proof in a mathematical or logical sense. Usually debates over the existence of gods are about plausibility and not logical impossibility. The omnimax God is a special case that many of us think is a logical impossibility.

When Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave backgroud radiation back in 1965 that was good evidence for the big bang. But was it proof? I think far from it there needed to be further threads of evidence to verify that theory absolutely. Even today there as some shortcomings create niggling doubts as it constantly has to be refined, redefined and revised with inflation theory etc. I personally believe in the big bang as a more plausible theory than the alternative such as the steady state theory, but that is not to say I know for certain the big bang is true to the extent of clinching absolute proof.

 

[Copernicus]

When Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave backgroud radiation back in 1965 that was good evidence for the big bang. But was it proof? I think far from it there needed to be further threads of evidence to verify that theory absolutely. Even today there as some shortcomings create niggling doubts as it constantly has to be refined, redefined and revised with inflation theory etc. I personally believe in the big bang as a more plausible theory than the alternative such as the steady state theory, but that is not to say I know for certain the big bang is true to the extent of clinching absolute proof.

Not all scientific theories are so well-established that they are considered proven "scientific facts". Usually, that requires an amount of evidence that overwhelms any expectation that the theory will be overturned. Evolution theory, for example, is considered so well-established by evidence that it has been "proven", albeit not in the same way as a mathematical proof. Inductive reasoning is a form of logical proof, but not in the same sense that deductive reasoning is.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No.

No.

But do you agree with my arguments in post #206? If God is something that causes miracles to happen, e.g. the miracles described by traditional faiths, then there is strong evidence such a God does not exist.

 

[Tiberius]

Rubbish.

Or do you think that it is possible that an elephant is sitting on your head at this very moment?

If X MUST produce Y, and Y is absent, then we can conclude that there is no X.

No one has anything to say about this?

 

[Acim]

If X MUST produce Y, and Y is absent, then we can conclude that there is no X.

It would really depend on what we actually are concluding about Y. Perhaps we are in denial about Y? Or misinterpreting Y?

Like, let's say 2 oxygen atoms combined must produce air. And another person concludes, 'but there is nothing there.' Therefore would we conclude that the oxygen molecules are also absent?

I don't know if I can come up with other examples off hand, but am interested in what you are implying and how it really would contradict post #2 of this thread, especially since that is focussing on demonstration.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There is a lot of similar threads. I want to ask a slightly different question ( I think it is)
I am familiar with the idea that Deity is not necessary. I understand not having proof.
But,
Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?
Is there anything in science that makes it clear that God can not exist and could not have had anything to do with the universe?

There are a ton of things, but once known - theists change their God in someway to make it not be impossible.

There are tons of gaps that you can fill your 'God' in that does not contradict science at the moment.

 

[`mud]

hey Tib,
I'll say that X needs an enema, or Y is a bannana that is being eaten,
or Z is still on the tree !
Pass the bannana........please !
~
`mud

 

[ManTimeForgot]

My personal opinion of why god cannot exist, and I really mean personal because there is a list of things you must accept before the following works, is:

Anything that exists can be known, anything that can be known can be understood, anything that can be understood can be reproduced.

If god exists, god can be reproduced, anything can be equal to god.

This ties in with this:

I am not god, I will not produce a god, nothing like me is god.

Humans have the ability to know and understand something, if we can know and understand god, we can reproduce god.

Humans cannot reproduce god, therefore god does not exist.

This is pretty convenient for me since it allows for any god to exist as it is written and it wouldn't be a god to me. Basically, god must be beyond human potential, I don't believe that is possible, so I don't believe god exists.

Just because something can be understood it does not follow that it can be reproduced. I can understand how to make nuclear reactors but if I don't have any fissile material I can't build a nuclear reactor. Understanding is necessary but not sufficient to meet all preconditions for reproduction.

Therefore it does not follow that human inability to produce a god portends the lack of existence of gods. I also have to wonder why you are presupposing an ultimate reality or power as a necessity in order to be labeled a "god." Why should a "god" have to be beyond human potential (not merely current human faculty but potential).

As I understand it "gods" as in the common place usage of the term relating to ancient mythologies are pretty much indistinguishable from super powered extra-terrestrials. Are you suggesting that in order to be labeled a "god" that that being has to be beyond all possible human futures (not merely current human faculty)? So a space alien which was incorporeal and could manipulate time, thought, and sub-atomic particles with a wave of its appendages wouldn't rise to the level of "godliness?"

How do you deal with the maximal entity in existence? Surely whatever being is the ultimate heavyweight of reality deserves the right to be labeled a "god" or perhaps even "God" if it is the absolute upper limit that reality can support?


I also have to wonder why you suppose that homo sapiens which somehow gained the ability to do what would seem like magic to us (even if it came from genetic engineering, string manipulation, etc; things we tentatively understand) would still be humans. I think as a species our potential is vast (though I don't honestly believe it is unlimited as you seem want to believe), but I think at some point the label "Human" no longer applies and we would indeed have become "gods" ourselves.

MTF

 

[Copernicus]

MTF, there is a difference between natural and supernatural forces. Gods are supposed to transcend natural physical laws, whereas us natural beings are incapable of exercising the same control over physical reality. While modern humans can produce miracles from the perspective of ancients, those miracles are still not "supernatural" miracles.

 

[cottage]

MTF, there is a difference between natural and supernatural forces. Gods are supposed to transcend natural physical laws, whereas us natural beings are incapable of exercising the same control over physical reality. While modern humans can produce miracles from the perspective of ancients, those miracles are still not "supernatural" miracles.

Indeed, and the other aspect is that gods are generally considered worshipful or praiseworthy, whereas physical laws aren't normally glorified in that way.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Copernicus & Cottage (pleasure debating with you gentlemen again):

I actually don't recognize the term supernatural to mean anything beyond the following: My current level of knowledge is insufficient for me to realize how this particular effect I observed was accomplished, and thus my explanation is wholly improbable. Hence "supernatural" (exceeding nature).

The only thing I recognize as "supernatural" possibly applying to is if the whole of reality is self-determining (any actions taken by the whole of the system would be of a different nature than the actions taken within the system) or if Consummate Perfection were needed to effect the creation of Reality should Reality ever be shown to have had a beginning (if Reality is created then you need something which exceeds reality, and as such need something above/transcending reality).

Neither of these is something I recognize as having any common place value.


So barring the "God" angle we are left with "gods" (lower case "g"), and I do not believe there is any evidence that can be used to discriminate between an extra-terrestrial and a "god." And if you cannot (not merely are currently incapable, but it is impossible) distinguish between two things, then they are in fact the same thing.

So the more pressing question in this vein is: At what point does something become a "god."

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And I place a corollary to this: As technology advances it becomes increasingly indistinguishable from natural events. If someone is utilizing wormhole technology and you don't know how that that is accomplished, then it is extremely likely to appear to you as if it were a natural phenomena of some kind. Additionally, it seems to me that as technology progresses we are increasingly attempting to satisfy directives in the deep psychology of humans. Thus things which imitate natural beauty become increasingly common as our ability to fashion tools advances.

So if I can do something which is wholly inexplicable to humanity and it appears as if it were natural all the while, then how is this not "god-like" behavior? And if it is indeed "god-like" behavior, then surely the being that affects such a change should be called a "god?"

MTF

 

[Copernicus]

The only thing I recognize as "supernatural" possibly applying to is if the whole of reality is self-determining (any actions taken by the whole of the system would be of a different nature than the actions taken within the system) or if Consummate Perfection were needed to effect the creation of Reality should Reality ever be shown to have had a beginning (if Reality is created then you need something which exceeds reality, and as such need something above/transcending reality).

But it would also be true that if the something that created reality were itself created, then you would need something that exceeded that something. This is a silly "turtles all the way down" game. The simplest assumption is that physical reality itself is uncreated. There is no need to posit the existence of a god just to bring reality into existence, since that god would itself raise the same question that it was invented to answer. Almost all of these arguments in favor of the existence of God defeat themselves in this way.

So barring the "God" angle we are left with "gods" (lower case "g"), and I do not believe there is any evidence that can be used to discriminate between an extra-terrestrial and a "god." And if you cannot (not merely are currently incapable, but it is impossible) distinguish between two things, then they are in fact the same thing.

There is no reason to assume that extraterrestrial beings are any less mundane than terrestrial beings. Earthlike conditions would likely produce earthlike beings--creatures not unlike us in structure and intellectual ability--over lengthy periods of time in which the global environment changes as slowly as it does on our planet. The universe is so vast that it is likely that there are other beings like ourselves out there, and possibly even intelligent enough to avoid polluting themselves to death (like we are doing). However, that is not the same thing as saying that they are gods worthy of some kind of worship.

So the more pressing question in this vein is: At what point does something become a "god."

This is a linguistic question. It reduces to the question of what the word "god" means in conventional English usage, and that is fairly well understood. You seem intent on stretching the usage beyond convention.

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...

This cliche coined by Arthur C. Clarke may be true in a superficial sense, but it is not the same as saying that it is the same thing as magic. Magic circumvents the laws of physics, whereas advanced technology must remain confined to natural physical laws.

And I place a corollary to this: As technology advances it becomes increasingly indistinguishable from natural events. If someone is utilizing wormhole technology and you don't know how that that is accomplished, then it is extremely likely to appear to you as if it were a natural phenomena of some kind. Additionally, it seems to me that as technology progresses we are increasingly attempting to satisfy directives in the deep psychology of humans. Thus things which imitate natural beauty become increasingly common as our ability to fashion tools advances.

I find the remainder of your paragraph barely coherent. Since technology can only progress along lines that conform to natural physical forces, it will always remain indistinguishable from "natural events". That is the whole point. Technology exploits our growing knowledge of natural forces. It is trivially true that we always strive to satisfy our own "directives" as you put it. Why would you expect us not to?

So if I can do something which is wholly inexplicable to humanity and it appears as if it were natural all the while, then how is this not "god-like" behavior? And if it is indeed "god-like" behavior, then surely the being that affects such a change should be called a "god?"

You aren't making sense. What is it that you think you can do that is "wholly inexplicable to humanity"? If a charlatan can pull a rabbit out of a hat, it may be "wholly inexplicable" to the audience, but he is still a charlatan. The appearance of being godlike is not the same as being a god.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

But it would also be true that if the something that created reality were itself created, then you would need something that exceeded that something. This is a silly "turtles all the way down" game. The simplest assumption is that physical reality itself is uncreated. There is no need to posit the existence of a god just to bring reality into existence, since that god would itself raise the same question that it was invented to answer. Almost all of these arguments in favor of the existence of God defeat themselves in this way.


There is no reason to assume that extraterrestrial beings are any less mundane than terrestrial beings. Earthlike conditions would likely produce earthlike beings--creatures not unlike us in structure and intellectual ability--over lengthy periods of time in which the global environment changes as slowly as it does on our planet. The universe is so vast that it is likely that there are other beings like ourselves out there, and possibly even intelligent enough to avoid polluting themselves to death (like we are doing). However, that is not the same thing as saying that they are gods worthy of some kind of worship.


This is a linguistic question. It reduces to the question of what the word "god" means in conventional English usage, and that is fairly well understood. You seem intent on stretching the usage beyond convention.


This cliche coined by Arthur C. Clarke may be true in a superficial sense, but it is not the same as saying that it is the same thing as magic. Magic circumvents the laws of physics, whereas advanced technology must remain confined to natural physical laws.


I find the remainder of your paragraph barely coherent. Since technology can only progress along lines that conform to natural physical forces, it will always remain indistinguishable from "natural events". That is the whole point. Technology exploits our growing knowledge of natural forces. It is trivially true that we always strive to satisfy our own "directives" as you put it. Why would you expect us not to?


You aren't making sense. What is it that you think you can do that is "wholly inexplicable to humanity"? If a charlatan can pull a rabbit out of a hat, it may be "wholly inexplicable" to the audience, but he is still a charlatan. The appearance of being godlike is not the same as being a god.

Exactly how does something which is outside reality get created? Is that term even meaningfully applied to something which supersedes existence itself?

We know precisely Nothing about the nature of existence/reality as a whole. As such we cannot make strong claims about whether or not Reality was created or not. If Reality has a beginning, then you need something which exists outside of reality in order to jump start it. I am perfectly willing to grant that an uncreated eternal reality is a simpler cosmological model, but since I don't have the scope necessary to be able say whether or not reality is uncreated I don't take a strong stance on the matter.


Erm... If you take humanity and add 500,000 years of technological advancement, then I'm pretty sure not only would we be unable to recognize our "future" selves, and that we would have almost no clue how anything was being accomplished. Sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic and everything. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. I don't think big brother in the sky necessitates worship, but that isn't the same thing as saying it isn't a "god" either.


My point is that if we can't distinguish, then it is hardly relevant whether or not natural laws are being superseded or not. And with that in mind I think using the "supernatural" as a standard is complete BS. Either "supernatural" cannot exist (It either refers to something outside Reality or Nothing at all) or it refers to something which supersedes our local laws of reality in which case anything with sufficiently advanced technology qualifies.


Missing the point here: Aesthetically indistinguishable from "natural occurrences." If I come across the selective intervention of an alien race that is fomenting wormhole formation, and I barely possess the skills necessary to distinguish this from nature, then with a sufficiently advanced race I would contend that the likelihood is that you would not be able to distinguish their wormhole from nature. As technology advances it seems to me that we wish it to become less and less obtrusive, as in to stick out less (remain natural looking or seeming). And so to continue with the previous example: artificial wormhole formation would likely take on characteristics of "natural wormhole formation" (if there were such a thing) so as to not make space appear so "artificial."


Right now I cannot make a ham sandwich appear in front of me seemingly out of nowhere. A creature that can manipulate strings (assuming string theory is correct) could do so. It would be inexplicable to humans; no charlatan involved. And yet, I still couldn't distinguish in any meaningful way from magic.

MTF

 

[outhouse]

So barring the "God" angle we are left with "gods" (lower case "g"), and I do not believe there is any evidence that can be used to discriminate between an extra-terrestrial and a "god." And if you cannot (not merely are currently incapable, but it is impossible) distinguish between two things, then they are in fact the same thing.

That is not a logical way of looking at anything.

deities have a valid historical origin, one can follow many myths back to a deities origin.

the same cannot be said for ET in the same context.

Exactly how does something which is outside reality get created?

imagination based on fear, wants and needs.

Is that term even meaningfully applied to something which supersedes existence itself?

only in imagination land

We know precisely Nothing about the nature of existence/reality as a whole.

not true at all.

we know OUR reality very well, the reality of living is not a mystery. If you imagine everything is hocus pokus then you will not live reality.

If you understand life is short, you are born you live and then die, it takes the mystery out.


You are talking philosophically, wondering more then anything leaving everything open to imagination.