Reasons for the belief in no God

[Meow Mix]

No you don't assume the existence of something, to prove its non-existence. You assume the existence of something to prove its characteristics. For instance as an argument for an atheist, you could asnwer this question:"why is the non existence of God so obvious?" You can only answer it, by assuming nature does everything itself, but what created nature? You cannot say nature, because that is logically inconsistent and contradictory.

Please take no offense, but it appears you're ignorant to a very basic principle of debate and logic.

Please review this:

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will quote a relevant portion for you:

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

How do you suppose one can follow the implications of an assertion without assuming it briefly for the sake of argument?

Please, we're not trying to be difficult, but it is in fact a legitimate argument to briefly assume something in order to demonstrate why it can't be true.

 

[Meow Mix]

No you don't assume the existence of something, to prove its non-existence. You assume the existence of something to prove its characteristics. For instance as an argument for an atheist, you could asnwer this question:"why is the non existence of God so obvious?" You can only answer it, by assuming nature does everything itself, but what created nature? You cannot say nature, because that is logically inconsistent and contradictory.

Why do you assume nature was created?

You probably don't ask yourself "How was God created," do you?

The first question should be, "Was nature created?" before we start getting into how that might be the case.

 

[Subby]

How do you suppose one can follow the implications of an assertion without assuming it briefly for the sake of argument?

Please, we're not trying to be difficult, but it is in fact a legitimate argument to briefly assume something in order to demonstrate why it can't be true.

Why should I assume the non-existence?

 

[Subby]

Why do you assume nature was created?

You probably don't ask yourself "How was God created," do you?

The first question should be, "Was nature created?" before we start getting into how that might be the case.

Actually I have addressed all these questions already.

 

[McBell]

Yawn, please stay on topic. This is for you atheists to shine. Also I have already given numerous evidences of the necessary need for God to exist. Please read my posts.

One, I am not an atheist.
Two, your evidences are inconclusive at best and wishful thinking at worst.
Three, you are the one who repeatedly claims there is a creator.

 

[Subby]

One, I am not an atheist.
Two, your evidences are inconclusive at best and wishful thinking at worst.
Three, you are the one who repeatedly claims there is a creator.

Yawn... this does not specifically address ANY argument I have laid down.

But most IMPORTANTLY it does not give any positive evidence for the non-existence of God.

 

[Meow Mix]

Your language is begging for a transcendent being that is able to author such laws. In fact you are so very close to admitting such a thing, instead you choose to give the laws themselves some sort of eternal nature, which isn't necessary and begs the question, what created those laws?

The laws don't require creation. Why do you assume that they do?

What it means to be incorrigibly true is to be necessarily true, meaning it's impossible to be false (and therefore impossible to NOT exist).

They have eternally existed (since time is meaningless to them), and don't require a creator being to have created them because they are simply ontologically necessary.

After all, if a god exists it may have necessarily and always existed and you don't question this -- why do you question the necessary existence of non-god things by fiat?

 

[McBell]

Yawn... this does not specifically address ANY argument I have laid down.

But most IMPORTANTLY it does not give any positive evidence for the non-existence of God.

You have not laid down an argument.
You have merely made unsubstantiated claims.

There is no objective evidence for god.
Therefore there is no reason to prove god does not exist.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why should I assume the non-existence?

I think you're misunderstanding. No one is saying you should assume the non-existence of anything.

What's being said is that it's legitimate to briefly assume the existence of something in order to demonstrate why it can't in fact exist.

Suppose I told you that my roommate is a married bachelor. How would you respond to that?

Would you say, "They can't be married if they're a bachelor because that's contradictory?" If so, then you're employing the same tactic: you're assuming they're a bachelor (or that they're married) briefly for the sake of argument in order to see if the other attribute can be applied also; and you'll find that it can't and so reject the premise. Is that more clear?

 

[Subby]

The laws don't require creation. Why do you assume that they do?

Are you arguing for the eternal nature of natural laws, when all of modern science dictates nature/universe had a beginning?

After all, if a god exists it may have necessarily and always existed and you don't question this -- why do you question the necessary existence of non-god things by fiat?

Because non-god things are not God, and thus do not share characteristics such as eternity.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually I have addressed all these questions already.

I'm sorry if I missed them, would you mind repeating for me?

I'm not aware of any reason why it should be assumed that nature was created.

 

[Subby]

I think you're misunderstanding. No one is saying you should assume the non-existence of anything.

What's being said is that it's legitimate to briefly assume the existence of something in order to demonstrate why it can't in fact exist.

Suppose I told you that my roommate is a married bachelor. How would you respond to that?

Would you say, "They can't be married if they're a bachelor because that's contradictory?" If so, then you're employing the same tactic: you're assuming they're a bachelor (or that they're married) briefly for the sake of argument in order to see if the other attribute can be applied also; and you'll find that it can't and so reject the premise. Is that more clear?

If you are saying I don't need to assume the non-existence of God, then you are of no use in this dialogue. The topic is about reasoning for the non-existence of God.

 

[Subby]

I'm sorry if I missed them, would you mind repeating for me?

I'm not aware of any reason why it should be assumed that nature was created.

Than you don't know anything about modern cosmology and peer-reviewed science the past 40 years.

The universe had a beginning. That is why there is an age of the universe.

 

[McBell]

The topic is about reasoning for the non-existence of God.

Really?
Then why do you ignore the ones that have been presented?

 

[McBell]

Than you don't know anything about modern cosmology and peer-reviewed science the past 40 years.

The universe had a beginning. That is why there is an age of the universe.

 

[Subby]

Really?
Then why do you ignore the ones that have been presented?

Because they all either assume the existence of God, or actually take on characteristics of God, like eternity. They are nonsensical, that is why.

 

[Meow Mix]

Are you arguing for the eternal nature of natural laws, when all of modern science dictates nature/universe had a beginning?

Unfortunately I think you misunderstand modern physics. I'm a cosmology grad student; and I'm not saying that to argue from authority but to stress that I'm familiar with this topic.

There is no evidence that the universe had a beginning. I'm assuming that you're referring to the Big Bang. The fact of the matter is that the Big Bang event is only understood (moving backwards from now) up to the Planck era, where our current understanding of gravity and other forces breaks down because we don't have a working theory of quantum gravity.

The popular media often [incorrectly] states that the Big Bang event was the beginning of the universe, but that simply isn't true -- it's sort of a dumbed down version they can give to a populace mostly uneducated in deep cosmology and mathematics.

The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe's current state, yes, but there is no indication that it was the beginning of existence itself.

Because non-god things are not God, and thus do not share characteristics such as eternity.

However, identity does have exactly that attribute, and incorrigibly so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Than you don't know anything about modern cosmology and peer-reviewed science the past 40 years.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that she knows many times more about both of them than you do.

 

[Meow Mix]

If you are saying I don't need to assume the non-existence of God, then you are of no use in this dialogue. The topic is about reasoning for the non-existence of God.

Then you would sportingly agree that no assumptions are necessary since the point is to reason in that direction.

 

[Meow Mix]

Than you don't know anything about modern cosmology and peer-reviewed science the past 40 years.

The universe had a beginning. That is why there is an age of the universe.

As I've already mentioned, I'm a cosmology grad student. The age of the universe refers to the universe's current state, post BBE (big bang event). There are no indications that existence began at any point.