• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proofs that God does not exist

logician

logician

Well-Known Member
The question is not whether some god exists, but whether existence itself in general is eternal or temporal. To me that is the ultimate question.
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
First, some context ...

Now, a question: what would you suggest as a reasonable definition of science in the absence of regularity and testability?

Science deals with the natural world. If there was a before, that before is preternatural and lies fully outside the domain of science. To appeal to science as proof against a 'before' is the most naive of circular arguments. And to apply assertions about observed regularities to a domain absent and preceding such regularities is to [mis]use science as a talisman of divination.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. (And YES, I read through that article. Very interesting.)

Are you trying to help me speak less absolutely about scientific observations?
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Science deals with the natural world. If there was a before, that before is preternatural and lies fully outside the domain of science. To appeal to science as proof against a 'before' is the most naive of circular arguments. And to apply assertions about observed regularities to a domain absent and preceding such regularities is to [mis]use science as a talisman of divination.
Click to expand...

Science is knowledge and the scientificic process is the pursuit of knowledge, the only thing that lies outside the realm of knowledge is the nonexistent. If it exists it can be known.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
freethinker44 said:
Science is knowledge and the scientificic process is the pursuit of knowledge, the only thing that lies outside the realm of knowledge is the nonexistent. If it exists it can be known.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Please cite a single reputable scholar in the philosophy of science that would support such drivel.
 
Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
freethinker44 said:
If something is unknowable, then how do you know you know nothing about it? You must know something about it otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it.
Click to expand...

:biglaugh:I don't even know where to begin pointing out all that is wrong with that statement.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
TheKnight said:
Are you saying that we don't exist?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the universe is in no way "obviously" created. Anything that happened, or existed, prior to 10^-12 seconds into the big bang is purely speculative. We simply do not know whether the universe/other universes have simply always existed, in one state or another.
 
Last edited:
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
atotalstranger said:
No, I'm saying that the universe is in no way "obviously" created. Anything that happened, or existed, prior to 10^-12 seconds into the big bang is purely speculative. We simply do not know whether the universe/other universes have simply always existed, in one state or another.
Click to expand...
If the universe is created, isn't time also on the "created" side? Wouldn't then the argument that holds the creation to be dependent on time meaningless? Concepts of time, like "before" (prior) and "after" are also on the created side. Everything that exists is on the created side.

If we hold that the universe is not intelligently, wilfully and intentionally created, then yes, it is "obviously" created. (And if you hold that "others meant it that way" then again, looking at it from their perspective, what about it is not "obviously" created? It's so both ways.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top