Poll: what if proof of no God?

[PureX]

I think the abundance of so many conflicting religions tells against this though - given such often controls their lives via intermediaries. I prefer to be free of such.

Most people do not prefer to be free. They prefer to be safe. They want to believe that they've found the answers to the great mystery and so now they know what to do about it. And that is one of the many possibilities that the great mystery offers us.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Most people do not prefer to be free. They prefer to be safe. They want to believe that they've found the answers to the great mystery and so now they know what to do about it. And that is one of the many possibilities that the great mystery offers us.

I suspect this is true for most - and if they are satisfied with conflicting answers. Although my parents didn't inflict religion on me as a child, my mother certainly was a more than good enough example to follow, such that I probably didn't feel any need for the things that religions offered. Hence it seemed rather natural to look elsewhere than towards religions for any needs or questions. Never really looked back.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The real world, as we know it physically, is the only basis as a starting point, otherwise we are doomed to speculation and fantasies - as many will do anyway. There is only one thing that I do know - that I exist - and if someone was not replying to my comments then I might think otherwise - but they do. Do what you like with words but that is the basis for our existence. We happen to inhabit an existence in human form that is made up of much smaller particles yet we know of the immensity of the universe too. Where else would we inhabit - other than in our imaginations?

We don't know it physically as such. That is also philosophy. You are a product of a certain culture, where you have only doubted some ideas and not other ones.

Just as some people don't understand when they are simply stating a certain cultural worldview and are not objective with it comes to religion, you do the same with the real world and that we know it physically.
What you do, is not different than that my understanding of God is the basis for the real world.
I am just honest that and know that I am not objective.
But you are clearly special, because you have solved problems in philosophy nobody else have solved.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We don't know it physically as such. That is also philosophy. You are a product of a certain culture, where you have only doubted some ideas and not other ones.

Just as some people don't understand when they are simply stating a certain cultural worldview and are not objective with it comes to religion, you do the same with the real world and that we know it physically.
What you do, is not different than that my understanding of God is the basis for the real world.
I am just honest that and know that I am not objective.
But you are clearly special, because you have solved problems in philosophy nobody else have solved.

I might have solved some things but nothing like that - and I would never claim such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I might have solved some things but nothing like that - and I would never claim such.

Good, then you don't know that the world is real and physical. You believe it is so in effect.

 

[exchemist]

I have a thought experiment:

Imagine you are somehow secretly in control of the whole world

Then imagine that it comes to your attention that some highly intelligent person has come up with conclusive proof that God does not exist

Any Theist who reads it will be compelled to become an Atheist and stop believing in God, it is that compelling

You have four options:

1. Surpress it - nobody will ever know
2. Allow it to spread on its own - it will eventually become known to all people (do nothing)
3. Loudly publicise it - everyone will know by the following day's evening
4. Initiate a controlled campaign of soft disclosure - it will be released very gradually

Which do you do and why?

I will post my response in a following post

What if the sky were made of concrete?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Good, then you don't know that the world is real and physical. You believe it is so in effect.

No, in the human realm, I know so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, in the human realm, I know so.

Then make the formal description of how that works and you will the Nobel prize at least. I mean it.
But I doubt that you can, thus as I doubt someone can prove God.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then make the formal description of how that works and you will the Nobel prize at least. I mean it.
But I doubt that you can, thus as I doubt someone can prove God.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. As an admittedly not very good engineer, I would have been an even worse one if I didn't expect the laws of physics and all that science has discovered not to act uniformly towards other materials and humans - and regardless of anything that humans might believe. The base reality that I was talking about elsewhere.

 

[F1fan]

From falsehood, everything! It's logic, it's logical. Because it's not known to exist, it MUST be true. Not only does it not exist, it definitely MUST exist. Ask anyone! I'm being sarcastic. This is what I'm arguing about in the philosophy forum. Anyway, this is the bovine excrement that is being promoted as "logic" by some very smart atheists. They are claiming that anything is true about an "empty-set".

The dilemma is that no believer can explain why they believe in any version of God. The prevalence of belief has led to an assumption that there MUST be a God and any question to the contrary is like peeing in the pool.

 

[F1fan]

That God exists is self-evident. (God being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.) What is missing is the content.

It’s an assumption that there’s a source and sustainer. These ideas are rooted in old religious lore, not facts. That means it isn’t self-evident.

There is no disproving the mystery until you provide and prove the content. And once you've done that, you can't then disprove it.

The mysterious among the religious tends to be what they create in their own minds. It’s easy to spot how some believers try to bluff how there are gaps where they can squeeze in God. No facts, just tricky language.

 

[F1fan]

Then make the formal description of how that works and you will the Nobel prize at least. I mean it.
But I doubt that you can, thus as I doubt someone can prove God.

Is you existing equally difficult to prove as it is any of the many versions of gods?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is you existing equally difficult to prove as it is any of the many versions of gods?

Well, it was about the real world to start with.
But yes, even - I think, therefore I am - has its problem, as there it is no proof, that it is an "I" in any meaningful sense. In a formal sense, all it states is that something is going on, therefor something is going on, as the problem is this in all those versions:
If I can't trust any of my experience, all I know, is that I can't trust anything, except that I can doubt. But what does say about I, other than I doubt.
So if effect I doubt and that is all, I am.
And that is how we in effect get the assumptions that you are in the universe, that is real, orderly and knowable. Thus you are an "I" with experiences of the past, a life and other humans around you. And the same is the case for me.

Most people think that "I" with the experience of doubting mean they are real otherwise. But that is the exact opposite of what is real. The only thing real is, I doubt and that is all I am as real.
No one has solved that one in all its versions and that is how we get methodological naturalism.

F1fan, you have to remember I learned to be a skeptic by listening to your tribe. Don't take anything for granted and check with skepticism and critical thinking. I just didn't stop at religion.

 

[dybmh]

The dilemma is that no believer can explain why they believe in any version of God. The prevalence of belief has led to an assumption that there MUST be a God and any question to the contrary is like peeing in the pool.

I hear you. I actually disagree about "no believer". I think it's rare, at least online. Many religious people want to perceive themself as rational, and it's this desired self-perception that rejects any questions.

Personally, I accept and embrace the lack of rationality when it is in a religious context. Being able to adapt to different situations, is a good thing. Understanding when the rational is necessary, and when it can be abandoned, is also a good thing.

 

[Valjean]

That God exists is self-evident. (God being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.) What is missing is the content.

HOW is it self-evident? What is this undeniable evidence? It can't be order, or complexity, or diverse living things, because we have well-evidenced explanations for these. Like storms, earthquakes, disease, or sunrise; once evidence for divine will and power, now understood as natural, unintentional phenomena. How long will it take us to disabuse ourselves of these current "proofs?"
If God were self evident, wouldn't he be universally accepted, like gravity or relativity? Even God believers can't agree about God. For a self-evident entity, God appears awfully nebulous.

There is no disproving the mystery until you provide and prove the content. And once you've done that, you can't then disprove it.

The burden is on you to prove it, not on us to disprove it. If the best you can do is "It's self-evident," you haven't met your burden.

 

[Valjean]

It is a thought experiment.

A thought experiment can't presume logical impossibilities.

 

[Valjean]

Nevertheless, we seek an answer from outside ourselves that we cannot get. We call that resolution "God", but the label doesn't fill in the content for us. It just labels it.

The quest is real, and is self-evident. This can't be "disproved".

An answer to what? I'm sorry if scientific explanations are complicated, or require some basic background knowledge you don't possess, but that's how things stand. Your reasoning is flawed, and your understanding of the issues you opine about is scanty.

 

[Valjean]

I hear you. I actually disagree about "no believer". I think it's rare, at least online. Many religious people want to perceive themself as rational, and it's this desired self-perception that rejects any questions.

Personally, I accept and embrace the lack of rationality when it is in a religious context. Being able to adapt to different situations, is a good thing. Understanding when the rational is necessary, and when it can be abandoned, is also a good thing.

But here we're discussing reality, not psychology. Heuristics is useful, but not in discussions of reality.

 

[dybmh]

But here we're discussing reality, not psychology. Heuristics is useful, but not in discussions of reality.

What do you mean? Is the objection that circumstances exist when adandoning the rational is useful?

 

[Valjean]

What do you mean? Is the objection that circumstances exist when adandoning the rational is useful?

Perception of reality is usually a useless thing, and certainly was during 99% of our evolution. We evolved to employ interpretive short-cuts: heuristics, not critical analysis. This methodology persists. We're not wired to think. It's a learned skill.

EG: A rustle in the grass: Wind? Rat? Smilodon? Which choice would statistically yield more reproductive success?