Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Smoke]

Man made doctrines from the bible have been disproven, not God.

I love it when people disparage "man-made doctrines" -- as if there were any other kind.

 

[AK4]

1. It has been shown repeatedly that the "eternal universe" concept is not necessary for there to be no God.

Wrong because that is the ONLY way to prove it. Everything we know of in creation has been created and if its been created then something had to proceed before it. And there still has been NOTHING that has been shown here or anywhere else to show that something always existed.

1. [*]It has been shown repeatedly that proving a negative is irrational. Such as the equally irrational, "prove there are no leprechauns". A more rational statement would be. "Provide empirical evidence for leprechauns", which I can no more do than you can provide empirical evidence in support of your God concept.

Okay let me try

Provide empirical evidence for either

1. Something eternal

2. the eternal universe concept is not necessary for there to be no God.

Oh let me add point 11 to the list because this is one of you guys favorites and this is what you are about to say here

11. it is not on us to prove that God doesnt exist, its on you guys to prove that He does. [this is after we tell you guys to prove the point that you guys are trying to make]

Crazy

 

[AK4]

I love it when people disparage "man-made doctrines" -- as if there were any other kind.

Right. So i guess a God dying for His creation is a man made doctrine? Gimme a break

 

[Smoke]

Right. So i guess a God dying for His creation is a man made doctrine?

Of course it is. It is astounding to me that anybody can convince himself otherwise.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It has been shown repeatedly that the "eternal universe" concept is not necessary for there to be no God.

Wrong because that is the ONLY way to prove it. Everything we know of in creation has been created and if its been created then something had to proceed before it. And there still has been NOTHING that has been shown here or anywhere else to show that something always existed.

As I said, you have been shown that you are incorrect in this assumption. Your denial of it notwithstanding.

It has been shown repeatedly that proving a negative is irrational. Such as the equally irrational, "prove there are no leprechauns". A more rational statement would be. "Provide empirical evidence for leprechauns", which I can no more do than you can provide empirical evidence in support of your God concept.

Okay let me try

Provide empirical evidence for either

1. Something eternal

Like your God concept?

2. the eternal universe concept is not necessary for there to be no God.

Provided previously in this thread. As I said, you chose to ignore it.

Oh let me add point 11 to the list because this is one of you guys favorites and this is what you are about to say here

11. it is not on us to prove that God doesnt exist, its on you guys to prove that He does. [this is after we tell you guys to prove the point that you guys are trying to make]

Crazy

Yes, the onus is to prove a positive, not disprove a negative.
This is known as rational and reasoned thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its about as idiotic as christians or any religion denying honest science and saying that one cant use it in trying to disprove God. If i said you cant use science to disprove God, how idiotic would that sound?

Here's the difference: in either case, it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse to accept claims until they've been demonstrated to be likely correct. In the case of the Christian who refuses to accept science, fine: if necessary, we can explain and demonstrate step-by-step why the conclusions of science are valid.

Nobody is asking you to accept what science says just based on the authority of science. By the same token, I'm not going to accept what the Bible says just based on the authority of the Bible.

Only once you demonstrate that the Bible is correct would it be reasonable for you to complain when people don't automatically accept the Bible as true. You haven't done that yet, and neither has anyone else.

 

[AK4]

As I said, you have been shown that you are incorrect in this assumption. Your denial of it notwithstanding.

How am i wrong in this assumption? Is there proof of anything not being created in this creation that you know of and havent shown to the public?

Like your God concept?

Ah point number 12----redirect questioning without answering the question asked of them.

Provided previously in this thread. As I said, you chose to ignore it.

Sorry but no, you just tried to present the eternal universe concept through smoke and mirrors but i seen right through it and disproved it. Please try again.

Yes, the onus is to prove a positive, not disprove a negative.
This is known as rational and reasoned thought.

Please explain how the God concept is a negative

 

[tumbleweed41]

How am i wrong in this assumption? Is there proof of anything not being created in this creation that you know of and havent shown to the public?

You have been shown how cause/effect does not apply to both quantum physics and beyond the singularity.
You have just chosen to ignore it at continue with your "eternal universe" argument.

Ah point number 12----redirect questioning without answering the question asked of them.

You posit nothing is eternal, while presenting your God as eternal. This is not redirection, just pointing to the flaw in your argument.

Sorry but no, you just tried to present the eternal universe concept through smoke and mirrors but i seen right through it and disproved it. Please try again.

Please present any post I have made at any time referring to the existence of an "eternal" universe.

Please explain how the God concept is a negative

That is not what I said.
I said it is irrational and unreasonable to attempt to prove a negative, such as "Prove there is no God"
A more reasoned question would be "Prove there is a God", or "Prove that your concept of God is correct".

 

[McBell]

Right yet none of yall have showed how this universe can be eternal to disprove the God concept. You guys are so pinned up against the wall with just that right there.

That is because YOU presented that strawman, not us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right yet none of yall have showed how this universe can be eternal to disprove the God concept. You guys are so pinned up against the wall with just that right there.

- if the universe did not exist at any point in time, then the eternal gopher could not exist at that point in time.
- if the eternal gopher did not exist at a point in time, he would not be eternal.
- the eternal gopher is, by definition, eternal, therefore the universe exists at all points in time.
- therefore, the universe is also eternal.
- since no reference was made to God to establish the eternal nature of the universe, the eternal nature of the universe is not dependent on God.
- therefore the universe does not need God to be eternal.
- QED.

 

[McBell]

How am i wrong in this assumption? Is there proof of anything not being created in this creation that you know of and havent shown to the public?

Because your assumption is your whole "creation" premise.
Until you can provide evidence of this creation premise, everything that stems from it is nothing more than more assumption.

Ah point number 12----redirect questioning without answering the question asked of them.

Seems to me that it is more like trying to keep you on track...

Sorry but no, you just tried to present the eternal universe concept through smoke and mirrors but i seen right through it and disproved it. Please try again.

You have not dis-proven anything in this thread.
Nor have you proven anything other than your merry-go-round.

Please explain how the God concept is a negative

Who said this?

 

[AxisMundi]

Man made doctrines from the bible have been disproven, not God.

How many times do I have to say it. I agree that science cannot disprove Deity, including yours, including mine.

There are many cultures that had a one supreme God. Even if they did have more "gods" they worshipped. Judaism is no different, actually they are just the same. They worshipped many gods along with trying to worship the one supreme God.

Um, do you live anywhere near reality? Other than the different sects and relgiions based on the god of Abraham, there are only a scant few monotheastic religions, not "many cultures".

In the realms of relgiion, monotheism is a small minority.

Are you sure you know enough about the old israelites to make such a claim because the opposite is written through many cultures of a supreme Being and salvation of "their" people. If anything christianity differs because it may be one of the few that actually included the whole world and not just a group of people.

Christianitty teaches that unless you except your Christ, you're going to hell.

Please, feel free to list a portion of this plethora of religions that preach salvation through worshipping a deity.

 

[godnotgod]

christianity.... may be one of the few [religions] that actually included the whole world and not just a group of people.

Christianity is not a universal teaching: only Christians will go to heaven; all others be dammed.

Buddhism, though not a religion, is a universal teaching. Mahayana Buddhism actually translates to "Big Boat Buddhism": Everyone gets saved.

 

[cottage]

I respectfully cannot totally agree on “science cannot go beyond experience”. We can follow principles or even just mathematics and “experience” the possibilities of things. Paleontologists do this with dinosaurs speculating what they look like and their behavior. They didn’t experience these things back then though.

Evidence of dinosaurs is evidence from the temporal world, ie the world we live in, the world of experience. Science examines and deals with facts, laws, and physical truths (the empirical or experiential world), while metaphysics proposes hypothetical explanations (which cannot be falsified). Science cannot and does not presume to inform us of what is outside the world of experience.

NB. I have left the questions concerning a personal God and free will, which I have answered next in a separate post.

 

[AxisMundi]

..... while metaphysics proposes hypothetical explanations (which cannot be falsified). Science cannot and does not presume to inform us of what is outside the world of experience.......

Cannot be falsified certainly, nor proven.

And I would argue about the "world of the experienced" as well. Is quantum physics, for example "experienced"?

 

[cottage]

The reason it would be personal is the same way we are made out of things from suns and suns are made of things inside the universe. These elements are working in and through you and it all started and came from “that cosmic egg”. We have involuntary muscles or organs that seem to function on their own, yet their just made up of elements and stuff that all came from that first “egg”. To believe that it or God is not personal is to believe in freewill and that everything actually works within itself and is not influenced by anything else. We both know that is not possible and illogical right?


I know what you’re saying here, but it is still begging the question: there are causes, therefore causality exists.

Yes causality exists for those things that are created. It also sorta applies to the thing that created everything only because or from the perspective of the things created. In otherwords from the created things perspective we “created” the creator because if we didn’t exist, in essence “it” cant exist. Another way to state it is we caused this being/thing to exist only because we exist---this is the thinking of a lot of people. This has a little truth to it but ultimately is false.

Yes, of course! I am not the universe, I am merely a part of the universe. If I may repeat my last sentence: We are prisoners of the universe, but that is not to say all of our thoughts and actions within it are complete determined.

But our thoughts and actions are determined. Hence no freewill. You decide or choose to do something based on circumstances whether known or unknown, hereditary or not etc etc. These circumstances, if one keeps going back and back will lead you to the beginning of it all and the beginning of it all is the one who brought all the circumstances that eventually led you to choose what you chose or do what you do. So you can take the verse in that says

“For it is God who works in you both to will and to do”.

Change it to “For it is the things in the universe that works in you both to will and to do”

Either way once the ball started rolling the circumstances will cause you to will and to do. i.e. choose. And really there is only one choice one can make. It may feel like you are willing and doing all on your own but that is just an illusion like depth perception.

The Causal (Cosmological) Argument refuted.

The argument wants to infer the existence of a supernatural being from the existence of the natural world. It says:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe was caused

But then it was realised that premise 2 isn’t justified. Science cannot provide an explanation for its own inception anymore than Genesis can be used to prove the truth of Genesis. Something must be at the beginning to observe what has begun, and it cannot be God without begging the question, and it cannot be the universe because the world cannot observe its own beginning. For in order for X to begin to exist there must be nothing of X preceding it. If an X type thing precedes X then X’s beginning hasn’t been established. A physical presence (Big Bang?) preceding another physical presence isn’t the beginning of physical things.

So physical matter (the universe) can be self-existent.

Faced with the possibility that the universe is self-existent, defenders of the argument explain that unlike the universe, which is in a constant state of flux, God is simple and immutable. But this approach fails, because if the essence of God is said to be necessarily existent and immutable, then the essence of the universe can also be those things, by which the contained effects are caused.

But in order to address this objection, modern defenders of the causal argument have added an amendment, which is that only a free and intelligent agent can bring about the beginning of things, and this can only be a personal being who is able to act freely and intelligently:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe was caused
4. Only a free and intelligent being can be the uncaused cause
5. This must be God, a personal, conscious, intelligent being.

So they claim the cause is intelligent and personal and makes free choices.

First of all let’s look at ‘intelligence’
At first it appears to make perfect sense when we say a personal God has intelligence. And in terms of an anthropomorphic God it would be illogical to say he wasn’t intelligent, but that is where we run into problems. All references to intelligence are founded in mind, that is to say a cognitive ability to reason, plan and form ideas. Our understanding of intelligence is, as Alan Turing said, ‘to respond like a human being’. So to say God shares this similarity with man is to say God has human traits. But clearly in the case of a Supreme Being there is no learning from experience, no problem solving, no gaining of knowledge and no coping with adverse situations. And nor can it mean the planning and forming of ideas, as there is no cognition involved, for by its very definition the Supreme Being doesn’t reason: it is reason.
To sum up, then, if we say God is ‘intelligent’, we are saying he is like humans in respect of those things.
Now an anthropomorphic God cannot be other than intelligent, since that is implied by the term in the same way that Pegasus cannot be a horse without wings, but if we want to accept that concept we must also accept that this God has human frailties and predilections, which contradicts the very notion of an omnipotent, all sufficient, necessary being.

God making ‘free choices’
It is said that God freely chose to create the universe and that the universe exists to do his will. And it cannot be said that we have free will for otherwise we would be challenging and disobeying God’s will, which is a contradiction. But if God chose to create the universe he must have a reason or a cause for his doing so. And the uncaused cause argument cannot be used to explain this need, since it makes no sense to say God had no reason to create the world. So if there is cause for his choosing to create the world there must be a cause of that cause and so on and so forth! This series of causes is supposed to stop at God but he still needs to give a first, uncaused reason – which is absurd if he is an intelligent, conscious being!

Conclusion. The problem is that every aspect of the argument (including its name!) is absolutely dependent upon reasoning backwards from something that is known to exist to something that is not known to exist by applying a phenomenon that is not demonstrable and need not exist in order to establish something that it is said cannot fail to exist!

 

[McBell]

Christianity is not a universal teaching: only Christians will go to heaven; all others be dammed.

And not even all the Christians.
Only like 144,000 of the billion plus Christians will make it.

 

[gnomon]

Well prove it.

I'm not God.

Therefore not God exists.

 

[gzusfrk]

And not even all the Christians.
Only like 144,000 of the billion plus Christians will make it.

According to Revelations, after the special 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, there was a multitude no one could count in heaven. Revelations 7:9-17

 

[cottage]

Depends. First im not debatting about a non-existent thing but what you said is correct though. Second, there are many things called "god" but even as Paul stated "there are many gods but for us there is One". And its very easy to prove the one God. Hence that is where i kept saying the ultimate starting point. The ultimate starting point is the One God, anything after that can be called a god but they still arent the one true God, just as Jesus stated. There cant be no more than one true God just the same as there cant be more than one ultimate starting point. This is really not hard to understand but the only possible way to refute this is to say the universe always existed or is eternal with no beginning.

Now the existence of lesser "gods" "can" exist ONLY because we can label anything as a god. Satan is called a god. Idols are called gods. Nature is called a god. WE are called gods. So in short there are other "gods" but there will always be only one true God.

But you are proposing a metaphysical hypothesis, which you can’t demonstrate as true, and then say it must be true if another metaphysical hypothesis can’t be refuted! I’m sorry but that is arrant nonsense.
If there is an Absolutely Necessary Being (God or an self-existent world) then by definition there can be no other necessary beings. But essence doesn’t entail existence. And nobody can prove (or disprove) something that is supposed to exist outside experience, whether that is God or a self-existent universe.