Is there proof God can not exist?

[Frank Merton]

No.

I think the closest you can get to a scientific argument against God's existence is that, according to the laws of physics the universe appears exactly as it should if there was no creator/God.
If no God is needed there would be no reason to believe God exists.

That is not a proof saying the existence of God is impossible, it is simply an argument saying that the existance of God is is improbable.

What makes the existence of God improbable is the fact that there is no equivalent to a stellar constellation spelling out a message ("God exists," or something like that). This would be good evidence (though not proof) of God. The seeming total lack of anything along those lines does make God seem improbable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there anything that suggests that God is an impossibility?

Sure. The fact that existence as we know it happens pretty much as one would expect it to be if there was no God.

Even more telling is that while a great many people believe in God and even see it as some sort of important factor of union, it turns out that such belief doesn't make people much in harmony with each other. Fans of Daikaiju (giant fictional monsters) have more common ground and better mutual understanding than firm believers generally do. That is very telling IMO.

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?

Not really. It will never be possible to prove that God does not exist. Then again, it will never be possible to prove that I am not capable of flying by force of will, either.

What will likely happen is that the God of the Gaps will keep growing smaller.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "God Of The Gaps" Argument

However, I must say that it is a mistake to think of God as an answer for "that what science can't know". That is not legitimate religious practice and God believers are better off not carrying such a belief. The point of God is to provide religious inspiration, not stubborn belief and aversion to true knowledge.

 

[Breathe]

I was only trying to respond to your questions. That seems a bit of a shoulder chip.

Your words seemed more like a challenge, one that I rejected outright.
"yet I would suggest that every concept of "God" that you produce will fall into one of my two categories -- either an illogical infinite God or a finite but powerful superman." Generally looks less like discussion, and more like one of the "I can prove you're wrong" kind of things. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize for coming across as rude, but your wording is similar to what I've seen on here frequently enough to expect such challenges to occur.

[quoteYou seem to be oblivious to the point I make,[/quote]
I'm not exactly the best at reading in between the line. That includes 'points', so just say what it is so I can respond, please. If you're going to "hint" or be subtle, I'm not gonna get what you mean.

so I begin to think maybe you are operating with blinders on, provided by your ideological perspective,

:biglaugh: Yeah, sure thing. You're thinking of wrong. I wasn't born into these religions, you know. Nor have I been brainwashed. You probably don't even know what religions I am.

and are not aware of the general nature of this debate through history. Who knows what the backgrounds of the participants may be.

See, once again, I don't get what you are trying to say. Can you please just say what you mean if you want to further discussion?

 

[lunakilo]

... I would suggest that every concept of "God" that you produce will fall into one of my two categories -- either an illogical infinite God or a finite but powerful superman.

The infinities you often get in scientific theory are things like "the force on the particle is infinite," or "the particle moves with infinite velocity." Such a result is a sure sign of a calculation error or of a flaw in the theory.

I fully expect that the universe (defined as "all that exists" rather than just what we can observe came out of the Big Bang) is infinite in some sense, but the space-time we inhabit is almost certainly not. This is a physics rather than a religion discussion, so I won't go further, and it may well be that in the end this particular question cannot be answered.

Remember this -- "infinity" is not a number. The number line goes on endlessly. There is no "infinity" on it. You cannot reach "infinity" by counting. So many errors occur when people start talking about infinity because they forget this one obvious thing.

You don't get of that easily.

If you want to talk about the "illogical infinite God" you have to explain why an infinite god is illogical.

Yes infinity is not a number, but that does not mean that infinity is illogical and cannot be used in calculations.
One example is a wave packet where you superimpose infinitly many waves with infinitly small amplitudes, and get a mathematically well defined result.
Wave packet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is an infinite God illogical?

 

[Frank Merton]

If you want to talk about the "illogical infinite God" you have to explain why an infinite god is illogical.

First, I never said there is anything illogical about infinity, as a mathematical construct. It and infinitesimals are the basis of the calculus. In these cases we are talking about abstractions, not real things, and I think it is an open question whether physical things can be infinite, but that is not the issue here.

What makes an infinite God impossible? This is an old, old theological argument. I tend to express it in modern terms, but maybe you have heard of it as the question of whether God can build a rock so big He cannot move it. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent; if He can, then He can't move the rock, and, again, He is not omnipotent.

The Roman Catholic answer, usually adopted by others as well, is that God is omnipotent except that He cannot do something illogical. Well, then He is not omnipotent. Of course God cannot do something illogical -- I would say that nothing can do so (illogical in a mathematical sense), but that is not the issue. If God is so limited, then he is only Superman.

Take another issue -- God's reported omniscience. Such a Being, of course, knows the entire future, including everything He will do. I suggest that such a Being is therefore but a machine: He has to carry out His program -- He has no possibility of any freedom.

Another problem with omniscience is how does He know? How can He be sure He knows everything there is to know? He may know an infinite number of things, which might be compared to knowing everything that is in an infinitely tall stack of books, but there might be another stack somewhere that is completely out of His ken. There is no way for an omniscient Being to know it is omniscient, and hence the contradiction.

 

[Frank Merton]

Your words seemed more like a challenge, one that I rejected outright.
"yet I would suggest that every concept of "God" that you produce will fall into one of my two categories -- either an illogical infinite God or a finite but powerful superman." Generally looks less like discussion, and more like one of the "I can prove you're wrong" kind of things. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize for coming across as rude, but your wording is similar to what I've seen on here frequently enough to expect such challenges to occur.

Frankly, I don't see where I was being more than just succinct. I don't start out my messages, as so many do, with milk-souring statements like, "You are wrong," or whatever. The strongest I might use is, "I disagree." A phrase like "I would suggest" is meant to soften an assertion, not the opposite. I guess "I think" is best, but it can get tiresome.

You seem to be oblivious to the point I make,

I will admit that was a challenge, but it was also an honest statement of how I felt. Yes, sometimes we must walk on eggs to avoid giving offense. This is unfortunate, but I will admit I am often enough offended by my misreading of the others' tone, so I have to expect others to have the same experience.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

First, you would need to start with a clear, coherent, consistent defintion of what god is. Something I've yet to hear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Depends on the God in question.

For instance, I think that there's a good case to be made that the characteristics of an omnimax deity are mutually contradictory, which would imply that such a deity is an impossibility.

Also, there's another question in this whole thing: we don't just have to look at what the god-claim asserts; we can look at the god-claim itself. Evidence that a particular religious belief came from some source other than God is evidence that the belief did not come from God. I suppose that this doesn't necessarily suggest that God does not absolutely exist, but it can suggest that it would be reasonable to dismiss that God-claim.

Of course not, that is why the atheist position is absurd. The only logical position for a non believer is, {I don't know} agnostic.

The agnostic position isn't "I don't know"; it's "it's unknowable". If the agnostic position is the most reasonable one, then this implies that your position is unreasonable as well.

BTW - consider another claim: last night, your local supermarket has been destroyed by a meteor.

You can't say for sure that it didn't happen - meteors do hit the Earth sometimes. Occasionally, they do major damage. It's definitely possible (albeit very unlikely) that your favourite grocery store is now a smouldering crater.

Should you live your life as an "agnostic" to this meteor? Will you do anything differently? Will you even bother to call the store to make sure it still exists before you go out to buy your groceries?

Or will you simply dismiss this claim and live your life as if you know that the meteor strike didn't actually happen... despite having no evidence to refute the claim?

 

[Copernicus]

The Roman Catholic answer, usually adopted by others as well, is that God is omnipotent except that He cannot do something illogical. Well, then He is not omnipotent. Of course God cannot do something illogical -- I would say that nothing can do so (illogical in a mathematical sense), but that is not the issue. If God is so limited, then he is only Superman.

I agree with just about everything you said in the post I'm replying to, but I do not think that God's inability to violate logic means that he lacks omnipotence. Rather it is the fact that the logical inconsistencies with some of God's other "omnimax" qualities arise when you think through the implications of omnipotence. It is ironic, but omnipotence and omniscience make God a much more limited being than his less powerful and knowledgeable creations. Because we do not know the future, we can make choices freely, but God cannot view his creations as having free choice because of his perfect knowledge of how they will choose. Similarly, human beings can suffer and find their will thwarted by circumstances, whereas no omnipotent being can be made to experience weakness or frustration. So the impossibility of an omnimax God arises from the logical inconsistencies between opposing "perfect" qualities more than the inability of such a being to do logically impossible things like creating a weight too heavy to lift.

 

[Frank Merton]

I do not think that God's inability to violate logic means that he lacks omnipotence. Rather it is the fact that the logical inconsistencies with some of God's other "omnimax" qualities arise when you think through the implications of omnipotence.

I don't see how one is allowed to attach "buts" to a statement about omnipotence. If God can do anything, it means anything, not "anything but." So the real question is not whether God is omnipotent -- we rule that out -- but whether God is still "God" with a capital G if He cannot do something contrary to logic. This is more subtle, but I think the answer is still negative.

The rule-of-thumb I apply here is to ask whether or not it is theoretically possible that humans could evolve to the state where they could do it. In theory, humans could evolve to the state where they could do anything except violate logic. In other words, this ability to violate logic is the crux of this issue, and anything less is not God. (I realize that this argument has a certain circularity to it, but then this is the nature of these self-referential questions when dealing with infinite sets).

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Well its not proof, but I would say the responding silence indicating the lack of any deified presence speaks much louder and clearer over the words put forth in supporting the existence of deity(s).

One cannot cannot really argue against silence when the only ones making the sounds and gestures happen to be human beings alone.

 

[Frank Merton]

Well its not proof, but I would say the responding silence indicating the lack of any deified presence speaks much louder and clearer over the words put forth in supporting the existence of deity(s).

One cannot cannot really argue against silence when the only ones making the sounds and gestures happen to be human beings alone.

As has been said a million times over, the existence of God is not a scientific matter. We cannot observe or conduct experiments on God. What was going on before was a discussion of whether or not God is a logical possibility.

As to your God's reported silence, while I agree with you that there is no scientific evidence that clearly points to God, or even to a "creator" (which might not be God), I would suggest that it seems perverse of a God who wants us to believe in Him to make Himself so hard to find. Of course this is rationalized by believers with the assertion that God decides who to give faith to and if He hasn't picked you, too bad.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't see how one is allowed to attach "buts" to a statement about omnipotence. If God can do anything, it means anything, not "anything but." So the real question is not whether God is omnipotent -- we rule that out -- but whether God is still "God" with a capital G if He cannot do something contrary to logic. This is more subtle, but I think the answer is still negative.

The issue is not about attaching "but", but about arriving at a satisfactory definition of "omnipotence". Most people take it to be the one that you attribute to Catholics: "having the ability to do anything that is logically possible". You apparently think that the most reasonable definition is "having the ability to do anything, including the logically impossible". Some theists will take that stand, but it is not a very popular one.

The rule-of-thumb I apply here is to ask whether or not it is theoretically possible that humans could evolve to the state where they could do it. In theory, humans could evolve to the state where they could do anything except violate logic. In other words, this ability to violate logic is the crux of this issue, and anything less is not God. (I realize that this argument has a certain circularity to it, but then this is the nature of these self-referential questions when dealing with infinite sets).

Well, that is a unique way of defining omnipotence, but I do not really see its relevance here. "Omnipotence" means what it does independently of humans, evolution, and the Christian God. Most people, not just Catholics, view omnipotence as bounded by logical possibility.

As has been said a million times over, the existence of God is not a scientific matter. We cannot observe or conduct experiments on God. What was going on before was a discussion of whether or not God is a logical possibility.

The number of times something is said does not necessarily make it more truthful. Sometimes people repeat such statements because they do not want to hear an opposing point of view. Just because we cannot observe a quark or conduct experiments on it, that does not mean that it is not subject to scientific investigation. In the case of God, people quite often refer to miracles--physical events that seem to transcend physical laws--as evidence of God. That is, most people plainly do believe that there is and should be evidence for the existence of God. Whole industries have been built up around that belief. Lack of evidence for God can be seen as evidence of lack from an empirical perspective, especially if there are competing explanations for which we have good evidence. A case in point would be the argument from intelligent design vs. the argument from evolution by natural selection. Lack of evidence for the former and presence of evidence for the latter have combined to convince many believers that evolution is a threat to their argument for God's existence.

As to your God's reported silence, while I agree with you that there is no scientific evidence that clearly points to God, or even to a "creator" (which might not be God), I would suggest that it seems perverse of a God who wants us to believe in Him to make Himself so hard to find. Of course this is rationalized by believers with the assertion that God decides who to give faith to and if He hasn't picked you, too bad.

The more popular argument is the so-called Free Will Defense (FWD). The argument you cite is more popular with certain Protestant and Muslim groups.

 

[meogi]

So the real question is not whether God is omnipotent -- we rule that out -- but whether God is still "God" with a capital G if He cannot do something contrary to logic. This is more subtle, but I think the answer is still negative.

We rule nothing out. We have no understanding of omnipotence. Unless someone can enlighten us as to how an apple that is not an apple might appear to us.

That's the thing about omnipotence; it would be able to do the logically impossible. But we would have no understanding of what that would actually be.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's the thing about omnipotence; it would be able to do the logically impossible. But we would have no understanding of what that would actually be.

But it couldn't, and then make a apple-not-apple anyway. Once you say, "God can do the logically impossible," you say "God does not exist." You also say, "the sky is green," and "the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe," because all statements, no matter how stupid or illogical, follow from a contradiction.

 

[meogi]

But it couldn't, and then make a apple-not-apple anyway. Once you say, "God can do the logically impossible," you say "God does not exist." You also say, "the sky is green," and "the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe," because all statements, no matter how stupid or illogical, follow from a contradiction.

You're not reconciling the idea that contradictions are allowed to follow.

[edit] To clarify: I don't see any problem with an omnipotent being existing and not existing, at the same time.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, yes, because it follows from a contradiction that contradictions aren't allowed. p)

 

[cmsweet]

Anyone her familiar with Pascal's Wager?

 

[PolyHedral]

Falls apart when you consider that God might reward people who don't believe in Him.

 

[meogi]

Or that you're wagering against the wrong God.