Poll: what if proof of no God?

[Alien826]

Want me to prove there is no rational number equal to the diagonal of a square with side length 1?

Yes. And I have a shoe box that definitely doesn't contain an elephant. I believe the assertion is different when stated correctly though. If the number of places to look is so big that the object can appear in the places you have already examined, then it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. There may be better ways of putting that.

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't seem to matter much whether the answers people choose conflict with the answers other people choose. What seems to matter is feeling that one has an answer. That one know what to do, more or less. And that they are safe in that knowledge.

Is that knowledge, or faith?

It's also an assumption that there is no source. One that most people find even more absurd. Which is why humans since the dawn of time have determined that there is a source within which their meaning and purpose resides.

People are not good judges of reality. Relativity seems absurd, quantum mechanics seems absurd. We're not wired to perceive reality. We're wired to survive.
We like to extrapolate our everyday experience of sources, intentional design, causes and purpose to metaphysical reality.

You obsess endlessly over religious particulars because you have no counter to theism in general.

We need no counter. The burden's on you, the claimant.

 

[Heyo]

Yes. And I have a shoe box that definitely doesn't contain an elephant. I believe the assertion is different when stated correctly though. If the number of places to look is so big that the object can appear in the places you have already examined, then it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. There may be better ways of putting that.

"You can't prove a negative" is definitively not the best way.
And, in the context of the thread, there are a number of gods proven to be non existent.
But I agree that there are some entities which are impossible to disprove, e.g. Russel's teapot.
Gods (in general) also fall into the category of things we can't disprove but that's not because they can move and hide in spaces already examined. It's because we lack a definition of "god".

 

[Valjean]

That humans everywhere and always have been aware of it as an existential necessity.

An unevidenced, unnecessary 'necessity'.

It has always been self-evident. Requiring no further corroboration.

It has never been self-evident. Believers of all stripes have claimed this for thousands of years.

We as yet have no explanations for the existence of these things. We only know a little bit about the physical mechanics that enabled them.

But we do. You're a science denier.

Labeling the forces that cause them does not explain whose forces exist.

The forces are there. They're there and measurable.

God is a universally accepted reality, We just argue over the different ways different people choose to envision the mystery.

God is not. He's an extrapolation of human, social experience.

We all agree that God exists. Even you. We only argue over the labels and images. Like, for you, God is mindless physicality. For me, God is a profound mystery. For others, God is however they choose to understand it. But the great mystery of source, sustenance, and purpose remains an awareness that all humans share.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I don't have to prove it. It's self-evident. Even YOU are proof of it.

You're ranting. You've gone off the deep end.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry that you think science can provide any existential answers. If so, you have clearly fallen under the spell of 'scientism'.

Existential answers are the only answers science can or claims to provide.
What answers does your religion supply?

 

[F1fan]

The problem is that truth is no different than God. You can't point to either

So if someone asks you to tell the truth you are flummoxed.

Further there are at least in practice 7 versions of truth

Let’s not confuse ideologies with truth. That’s just ideologies trying to defraud the word.

So we get this. I value truth and but I don't value the same version as you. Now what?

When I use the word truth it means statements that conform to facts and reality. You need to ask yourself why you value a different meaning.

 

[F1fan]

What does science have to do with anything?

It illustrates how useful NOT making religious assumptions is. Making religious asumptions ONLY serves those who want religious conclusions, not truth, not knowledge.

There are no "correct" existential answers. That kind of truth is not available to us.

Yet theists often claim there is. And based on what? Old books that don;t contain factual information. So yeah, scared of death? Get therapy because religion will only put a bandaid on it that will never help face reality.

What people believe has never been relevant to anyone but the believer.

Tell that to the religious right in the USA about reproductive rights, and the freedom of gays and trans kids who use religion to limit freedom and public safety.

Then or now. Nor does it effect the self-evident awareness of the great mystery of existence that most people refer to as "God" (in English, anyway).

Yeah, the self-created mystery of existence that is not really valid from a rational perspective. Why, you ask? Because religions feed all sorts of non-factual ideas that believers assume are true, and then this bad framework they struggle to make sense of their life experience. Look at all the Abrahamics who don't care about this life and look forward to heaven, as if that is a sane and rational approach. They were fed these ideas and through their gulibility their lives are consumed with illusions, and not living.

Your whole world view seems to be confined to whatever can fit into a science textbook.

False, I race bikes, I'm in a band, I have a business that keeps me way too busy, and I have no need to rely on religious concepts for meaning. I do rely on science to inform me about what is true about our universe. Why, you ask? Because it follows facts and has a reliable method to distill truth, unlike religions. If religions followed facts and used a rational basis for their conclusions then I would respect that method too. But it doesn't. Religions work to perpetuate old traditions of belief, and that's all.

While existence is so much greater than that. Not even all our science, all our religion, all our philosophy and all our art combined can even reveal it's edges to us. Let alone it's essence.

I think people get too wrapped up in defining what life is that they don't live it.

 

[F1fan]

I am interested in truth, not dogmatism

Truth is statements that are demonstrable and factual.

Truth lead me to Christianity

OK, what facts led you to Christianity?

In my OP I was imaging a scenario in which truth might lead me away from Christianity

You just said truth led you to Christianity, so which is it? If Christianity isn't factual then it isn't truth.

I am confident this will never happen, I think Christianity is true

True means consistent with facts. How is Christianity consistent with facts?

However, who knows what the future holds

The future has surprised me in the past!

You might distill what you understand about truth and realize religions don't offer it, they offer dogma.

 

[F1fan]

"You can't prove a negative" is definitively not the best way.
And, in the context of the thread, there are a number of gods proven to be non existent.
But I agree that there are some entities which are impossible to disprove, e.g. Russel's teapot.
Gods (in general) also fall into the category of things we can't disprove but that's not because they can move and hide in spaces already examined. It's because we lack a definition of "god".

I think believers of any single, or set of gods, under-estimate the impact of the fact there are other believers of different gods. It would be somewhat a better position as a believer if theists all over the world had only one they all shared. Some believers try to wrangle all the gods into being the "same one" but that is shallow and gets obliterated quickly. One unified concept of God would have the advantage of having less competition. Baha'i come to mind as having a God concept that is a bigot, and that certainly is a turnoff for converts. It's interesting to see believers of different ideas argue, and atheists are bystanders who think "You guys figure out what God is and get back to us."

 

[Valjean]

I am interested in truth, not dogmatism
Truth lead me to Christianity

What truth led you to Christianity?

In my OP I was imaging a scenario in which truth might lead me away from Christianity
I am confident this will never happen, I think Christianity is true

"Think" implies critical analysis of objective facts. As above, what analysis of objective facts led you to Christianity?

 

[Valjean]

Hi Eddi. Good evening. It won't happen. Yahweh exists and though he hides his face from sinful mankind, He is there watching, taking action and judging.

Ok, Assertion noted. Care to defend it?

Psalm 10:
"4 The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, says, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no Elohim. 11 He says in his heart, El has forgotten; He hides his face; he will never see it. 12 Arise, O Yahweh; O El, lift up your hand"

Why are you quoting things? Is this quotation supposed to be evidence of something?

Some people are going to have some shock at the Judgment Seat.

Yes, just wait till you meet Ahura Mazda.

 

[Valjean]

Hi mikkel the dane. It simply isn't logical that we're travelling on a huge rock with over 8 billion people on it, spinning through space madly at a s speed of 1000 miles per hour and hurling through space at a speed of 67,000 mph.

Do you understand what logic is?

I really can't for the life of me understand atheism. I can't possibly imagine for one moment that we are here by chance, or by accident.

Sorry about your personal incredulity.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This universe is beyond doubt designed. Yahweh is the True Elohim. And keeping the commandments of Yahweh will allow us entrance in to the Kingdom.

OK, an assertion. Defend it. This is a debate thread.
If it's beyond doubt, why do so many of us doubt it?

If you believe in the Bible, we can have a discussion as to why in my faith we have the correct doctrines.

Let's start with why you believe in the Bible, rather the Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, Quran, or Popol Vuh.

 

[Valjean]

It's also an assumption that there is no source. One that most people find even more absurd.

But is there any reason to believe in a magical, intentional source, rather than a natural one?
Those who find it absurd are not being rational. Lack of belief in the unevidenced is not absurd.

Which is why humans since the dawn of time have determined that there is a source within which their meaning and purpose resides.

An ad pop?
Please, you know it's not objective evidence or reason responsible for this belief.

You obsess endlessly over religious particulars because you have no counter to theism in general.

The counter to theism is the same counter we have for a-leprechaunism or a-Santa Clausism -- no evidence.
And it's not we who are obsessing. You theists have whole systems: ceremonies, songs, chants, symbols, buildings and intricate doctrines.

 

[Heyo]

I think believers of any single, or set of gods, under-estimate the impact of the fact there are other believers of different gods.

Or the "same" god with widely different attributes.

It would be somewhat a better position as a believer if theists all over the world had only one they all shared. Some believers try to wrangle all the gods into being the "same one" but that is shallow and gets obliterated quickly. One unified concept of God would have the advantage of having less competition. Baha'i come to mind as having a God concept that is a bigot, and that certainly is a turnoff for converts. It's interesting to see believers of different ideas argue, and atheists are bystanders who think "You guys figure out what God is and get back to us."

That is basically my position and explanation thereof why I am an Agnostic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if someone asks you to tell the truth you are flummoxed.

Let’s not confuse ideologies with truth. That’s just ideologies trying to defraud the word.

When I use the word truth it means statements that conform to facts and reality. You need to ask yourself why you value a different meaning.

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[PureX]

Is that knowledge, or faith?

It's faith become 'belief'. A distinction that few people seem to grasp.

People are not good judges of reality. Relativity seems absurd, quantum mechanics seems absurd. We're not wired to perceive reality. We're wired to survive.
We like to extrapolate our everyday experience of sources, intentional design, causes and purpose to metaphysical reality.

I agree.

We need no counter. The burden's on you, the claimant.

There is no "burden", as you just pointed out.

 

[PureX]

Existential answers are the only answers science can or claims to provide.
What answers does your religion supply?

Science can only uncover the how. It is useless in the face of the why.

 

[PureX]

It illustrates how useful NOT making religious assumptions is. Making religious asumptions ONLY serves those who want religious conclusions, not truth, not knowledge.

Yet theists often claim there is.

Just as you keep claiming science does.

That's how we humans are. We each think our own internal paradigm for determining truth and reality determines truth and reality for all.

Yeah, the self-created mystery of existence that is not really valid from a rational perspective.

WE are part of that existence. We are designed and sustained by it. So our "self-created mystery" is as valid as anything else that exists.

I think people get too wrapped up in defining what life is that they don't live it.

I think people are doing what they have been designed and programmed to do with their lives by the nature of existence, itself. How could it be otherwise?

 

[Valjean]

It's faith become 'belief'. A distinction that few people seem to grasp.

Becomes? Faith is belief. So is knowledge. Anything held to be true is belief.

There is no "burden", as you just pointed out.

Do you understand what a burden of proof is? You made an assertion that there is a god, therefore it's your job to support your assertion. It's not my job to disprove it.

Science can only uncover the how. It is useless in the face of the why.

If why includes a mechanism, or a step in a process, it's a question for science. What science doesn't do is assert "who."

 

[PureX]

Becomes? Faith is belief. So is knowledge. Anything held to be true is belief.

Like I said, few people seem to grasp the differences. Especially when not doing so fuels their bias.

Do you understand what a burden of proof is? You made an assertion that there is a god, therefore it's your job to support your assertion. It's not my job to disprove it.

As I defined it, God is self-evident. But you ignored the definition in a rush to defend your biased 'belief' that no gods exist. And as to "burden of proof", that doesn't mean what you think it means. As with many things, it's been poorly labeled to support a bias.

No one is required to prove anything to anyone else because that is clearly not possible when the someone else refuses to be convinced. Which is very often the case. All that is required of one making any assertion of truth is that they present their reasoning. That's it. What anyone else does with that reasoning is their own responsibility.