Theists: what would be evidence for God's non-existence?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You cannot prove a negative, so you could never prove that God does not exist.

Why don't you think we can't prove a negative?

You also cannot obtain evidence for a non-existent entity.

We can't?

Are there any species you agree are extinct?

On another note, when atheists say that God does not exist because there is no evidence that is illogical, because God could exist and provide no evidence of His existence. Evidence is just what people want to know that God exists, evidence does not make God exist.

But you do agree that a God that provides no evidence at all is a God that no human is aware of, don't you?

Whatever any human being is referring to when they say "God," it's not any God completely unknown to humanity, since they don't know that it's there to be referred to... right?

 

[Link]

The ontological argument shows if God exists, we see him (not seeing other then him). Therefore, it also proves if we are not looking at the real being, he does not exist. It for sure shows God can't exist just in imagination, so either we see him or don't, the latter would mean he does not exist. If he does not exist, it would mean it's impossible for him to exist in any possible world by definition according to the ontological argument. And it would mean necessity can't be applied to existence. But I believe necessity can be applied to existence and that proves we see God.

 

[epronovost]

And for me it would be an indisputable fully materialist explanation for consciousness. No such thing currently exists and I would predict will probably never exist.

And, as predicted, your goalpost has moved, from a fully materialist explanation for consciousness, which exists and has existed for decades, to an indisputable fully materialist explanation which of course is completely impossible if only because science doesn't allow undisputable theories, even the most solid theories can be disputed and are, if only by a bunch of cranks.

The fact that there is an entire family of explanation of consciousness that doesn't rely on a body-mind dualism should, at the very least, give pause to any reasonable human being about the existence of unobserved phenomenon and largely useless characteristics (thanks to Occam's Razor) like spirits or souls.

 

[epronovost]

Scientists study what can be measured, of course. But you are trying to make an overly simplistic point.

But that's not the case. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214 discusses how far science is from a theory of consciousness with wildly different approaches from a strictly empirical viewpoint:.

Yes and no, there are many, many theories of consciousness, but all of them are materialist in the broad sense of the term since all of them are derived from a strictly empirical point. None of them suggest any form of actual dualism or of a consciousness divorced from the brain in a sense that could appeal to the religious. So yes, it's reductive to ignore the diversity of theories about consciousness within the field of neurosciences, but it would be accurate to state that those beliefs do not include a non-materialist explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

And, as predicted, your goalpost has moved, from a fully materialist explanation for consciousness, which exists and has existed for decades, to an indisputable fully materialist explanation which of course is completely impossible if only because science doesn't allow undisputable theories, even the most solid theories can be disputed and are, if only by a bunch of cranks.

I would hope you understand the difference between an hypothesized explanation and a confirmed explanation? Or are you just being stubborn with me?

The fact that there is an entire family of explanation of consciousness that doesn't rely on a body-mind dualism should, at the very least, give pause to any reasonable human being about the existence of unobserved phenomenon and largely useless characteristics (thanks to Occam's Razor) like spirits or souls.

I gave been a student of paranormal/psychic phenomena for decades and am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that things happen that do not fit into the materialist view of consciousness. I have looked and accepted other theories as the best fit for the data.

 

[epronovost]

I would hope you understand the difference between an hypothesized explanation and a confirmed explanation? Or are you just being stubborn with me?

Indeed and these are theory not simple hypothesis. Theories are never "confirmed" either. They are simply a model that explains and structure a body of facts. There are several theory of consciousness that are completely materialistic. There is nothing in consciousness that is so "out there" that a purely materialist theoretical frame cannot explain. The question isn't so much if consciousness is purely materialistic in so much of what kind of materialistic explanation is the best and there are still many.

I gave been a student of paranormal/psychic phenomena for decades and am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that things happen that do not fit into the materialist view of consciousness. I have looked and accepted other theories as the best fit for the data.

A yes, psychic phenomenon, those things that have failed the most basic amount of scientific scrutiny or the most mundane amount of skepticism. It doesn't take much to convince a person of the things they most want to believe. Conviction is nothing without a sound methodological framework.

 

[George-ananda]

A yes, psychic phenomenon, those things that have failed the most basic amount of scientific scrutiny or the most mundane amount of skepticism.

After decades I consider the amount of scientific and anecdotal data supporting the existence of the paranormal/psychic to be mountainous. I feel by now a fully materialist explanation for consciousness is doomed by the real world data.

 

[Suave]

Riffing a bit on this other thread.

Whenever I say an absence of evidence for God is evidence of God’s non-existence, theists say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(Edit: and I realize that not all theists believe in God-with-a-capital-G. I was a bit cutesy with the title and the OP as a riff on the previous thread. Please feel free to answer with your particular gods in mind, whatever they are, even if they aren't called "God")

The notion of there actually being an omnipotent, omniscient, most benevolent supreme being is inconsistent and contrary to observed reality. Children suffering and dying of cancer would not happen If there were really an actual all-knowing, highly benevolent, Almighty God. Me being molested as a child by a youth pastor was a violation of my free will causing me to seriously doubt my belief in an omnipresent omniscient benevolent Almighty God ,

 

[epronovost]

After decades I consider the amount of scientific and anecdotal data supporting the existence of the paranormal/psychic to be mountainous. I feel by now a fully materialist explanation for consciousness is doomed by the real world data.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the paranormal/psychic phenomenon. Nobody has ever even found credible scientific evidence for ghosts, telepathy, divination, telekinesis, reincarnation, passed life memories or auras. Furthermore, those things are so poorly defined that even finding evidence would be almost impossible without tightening their definition. If you believe there is a mountain of real world data on these, I am afraid you are delusional. There are solitary anecdotes often from sources that aren't all that credible, a few strange phenomenon with a plethora of materialistic explanation available and a lot of grasping at straw.

There is a reason why neurosciences exists and produce work all the while assuming a materialistic point of view. Nobody has found a mind that doesn't have a brain yet nor identify any mechanism by which a mind without a brain could even work (or how a non materialistic mind could even interact with a material brain for yes, the hard problem of consciousness, if accepted, can be asked in reverse).

 

[George-ananda]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the paranormal/psychic phenomenon. Nobody has ever even found credible scientific evidence for ghosts, telepathy, divination, telekinesis, reincarnation, passed life memories or auras. Furthermore, those things are so poorly defined that even finding evidence would be almost impossible without tightening their definition. If you believe there is a mountain of real world data on these, I am afraid you are delusional. There are solitary anecdotes often from sources that aren't all that credible, a few strange phenomenon with a plethora of materialistic explanation available and a lot of grasping at straw.

There is a reason why neurosciences exists and produce work all the while assuming a materialistic point of view. Nobody has found a mind that doesn't have a brain yet nor identify any mechanism by which a mind without a brain could even work (or how a non materialistic mind could even interact with a material brain for yes, the hard problem of consciousness, if accepted, can be asked in reverse).

Or difference now is about the existence of a mountain of experimental and anecdotal data supporting the reality of the paranormal/psychic.

We disagree about that and that's that, I guess.

 

[CG Didymus]

Riffing a bit on this other thread.

Whenever I say an absence of evidence for God is evidence of God’s non-existence, theists say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(Edit: and I realize that not all theists believe in God-with-a-capital-G. I was a bit cutesy with the title and the OP as a riff on the previous thread. Please feel free to answer with your particular gods in mind, whatever they are, even if they aren't called "God")

Even God-believing religions try and prove that other people's gods don't exist. Religion that believe God is one and is not trinity say things like God is spirit so cannot become a man. Which doesn't prove anything.

But in the Bible Elijah does do a test. He has the prophets of Baal try and have their God send fire and cook up an animal sacrifice. Nothing happens. But when Elijah calls to the God of Israel the whole thing gets burnt up. Proving that his God is real... Maybe? As if this really happened. Another one was Gideon and a fleece. God kept it from getting wet with due overnight or something. And kept do his experiment just to prove to himself it wasn't a fluk. But again, did it ever really happen. But we could challenge God-believing people to similar types of tests to see if God if really there.

They would have to move a mountain or bring a dead person back to life. Maybe just have him move a pile of dirt and spread it out. Or, a person with a brain tumor and have them call to God to heal them right then. I know Christians claim that God has done these things, but what about when they are put on the spot with TV news cameras on them and the world watching.

One thing I think it would show is if God-believing people really think that their God will respond. Or, will most find an excuse not to even try. Like saying that people shouldn't put God to the test. Or maybe, that they say that God could do it, but why would he do it just to prove himself to a bunch of people who don't believe in him. But do they really believe in him? Or, do they want it to remain a mystery?

Anyway, God supposedly "proved" himself to lots of people. He had a prophet tell people that he was going to destroy their city. And he caused a bunch of plagues to happen to get the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go. Then, he supposedly raised Jesus from the dead. If God isn't going to still do those things, then, maybe, those things never really happened. And, if those things never really happened, then was God ever real? Or, just like other Gods, nothing but a myth.

 

[Trailblazer]

If we didn't see God, it would mean he doesn't exist.

I don't think it means that because nobody has ever seen God, yet God still exists.

 

[Link]

I don't think it means that because nobody has ever seen God, yet God still exists.

I don't mean encompass him fully, I mean see him partially or from a distance (we never reach him).

 

[Trailblazer]

Why don't you think we can't prove a negative?

One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim. It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven.

The Burden of Proof
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu › phil_of_religio

As it says above, one can prove specific negatives but how can anyone prove God does not exist?

We can't?

Are there any species you agree are extinct?

You got me on that one.

But you do agree that a God that provides no evidence at all is a God that no human is aware of, don't you?

Yes, that would be the case IF God provided no evidence at all, but I did not say that God provided no evidence at all. I said that IF God had provided no evidence at all that would not mean God does not exist, because God could exist and choose to provide no evidence at all.

Whatever any human being is referring to when they say "God," it's not any God completely unknown to humanity, since they don't know that it's there to be referred to... right?

Right, some of us know that God exists because we have recognized the evidence that God provided, the Messengers of God.

 

[Segev Moran]

“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

That is correct.

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

You cannot prove absence of non measurable concepts or non specific statements.

If God did not exist, where would we get the evidence

Evidence for what?

How would we get it?

Measure, observe, study, derive, repeat.

 

[viole]

You cannot prove a negative, so you could never prove that God does not exist.

Of course you can. It is easy to prove that there are no married bachelors, for instance.

You also cannot obtain evidence for a non-existent entity.

That is a negative that, if true, would contradict your previous statement. Anyway, this is also not true in general, since we can easily, again, collect (logical) evidence for the non existence of married bachelors.

On another note, when atheists say that God does not exist because there is no evidence that is illogical, because God could exist and provide no evidence of His existence. Evidence is just what people want to know that God exists, evidence does not make God exist.

Atheists, in general, do not say that God does not exist because there is no evidence. What they say is that they do not believe in God, because there is no evidence. Not the same thing.

So, an atheist does not believe in God in the same she does not believe in the Blue Fairy. Or Superman. Or Big Foot, or Santa Klaus. All entities, together with God and the gods of today and the past that, in the eye of a skeptic, enjoy the same ontological status.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Estro Felino]

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s non-existence?

Hopelessness. Or the absence of hope would be evidence of God's non-existence.
Hope is the only thing that makes people wait for improvement. Or for a miracle.
And so....to me hope makes the notion of God meaningful/relevant. But it does not prove it.
And it not a Christian concept. It is a Greek, originally pagan concept (Pandora's myth).

PS. Very good thread

 

[Link]

Imam Ali (a) is reported to have said "Will I worship a God I don't see?", God is there - his signs point to him.

His signs for every human include:

Our souls existing and being sustained by sustenance originating from God
His light emanating to his Witness and eye on earth, which we seek and look at to know who we are and our measurement of deeds (to the degree we see the Imam's (a) light, is the degree we know ourselves).
Consciousness being a binary thing and hence must originate from God even if you ignore the soul's manifest existence
Pairs of things in life proves God (long explanation, will make it short, you need both and one would not come from the other)
The design is too much to explain it without a Designer (I don't mean too complex, but too well designed).
His vision is needed for us to exist and have a value
Our spark of life emanating from his life
We being spoken word idea type existence and not entity independent existence proves one speaking us to existence and a being thinking us into existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim. It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven.

For an omnipresent god, wouldn't any arbitrarily small search area be enough to disprove it?

I mean, if God is everywhere, then God is, say, in my refrigerator. Wouldn't searching my fridge and confirming God isn't in it be as trivial as searching it and confirming that there are no eggs in it?
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscie...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

The Burden of Proof
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu › phil_of_religio

As it says above, one can prove specific negatives but how can anyone prove God does not exist?

Did you actually read your article?

The logic of proving a negative or non-existence of some X.

Premise: If X exists, then you would observe O
Premise: We do not observe O
Conclusion: X does not exist.
This pattern is VALID and now what a person would need to check is whether or not the premises are true.

If the X is the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus then there are certain observations that should be made. Not ever making those observations despite numerous attempts would lead most humans to conclude that there is no Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus , only persons posing as such.

However, if the X is some supernatural being or spirit such as a deity or a ghost or even an event claimed to have a supernatural source those who wish to hold for the existence of such beings are not so willing to accept that the existence of the being in reality is disproven and that the being does not exist in reality. What happens?

Premise: If deity D exists, then observe the events O
Premise: No observation of O
Conclusion : There is no deity.

This would be a VALID argument pattern so if the premises are true the conclusion would be proven to be true. HOWEVER, those who want to hold to the existence of D will introduce auxiliary claims so that the failure to obverse O does not disprove the existence of D.

IOW,

- it's perfectly valid to conclude the non-existence of a deity based on the implications of the deity, but
- theists tend to move the goalposts, so don't expect them to accept this.

You got me on that one.

Well, think about it.

You presumably believe that species have gone extinct; I mean, you don't think we still have living dodos or dinosaurs, do you? Recognizing a species as extinct is a negative conclusion.

So is monotheism, BTW. "No gods exist except this specific one" is just as much of a negative as "no gods exist at all."

Yes, that would be the case IF God provided no evidence at all, but I did not say that God provided no evidence at all. I said that IF God had provided no evidence at all that would not mean God does not exist, because God could exist and choose to provide no evidence at all.

Right, some of us know that God exists because we have recognized the evidence that God provided, the Messengers of God.

I'm not taking your bait, thanks. I'm not going to help you derail this thread so it becomes all about you and your beliefs.

Regardless, I think we can take from what you said that you agree the term "god" refers to something. A god is either something known to humanity or that humans think they know about. An unkown entity off in some unknown corner of the universe, unavailable for any human to refer to, is not what anyone is referring to when they say "god."

This means that when we ask whether gods (e.g. God) exist, we don't need to worry about any "gods" that would be completely beyond the knowledge of humanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The design is too much to explain it without a Designer (I don't mean too complex, but too well designed).

There are certain insects that have no way to lay their eggs.

Instead of laying them outside her body, the mother holds them inside until they hatch.

When her babies do hatch, they - understandably - need to eat, so for the first stage of their life, they eat their mother. They consume her from the inside out.

As they eat, grow, and defecate, eventually the pressure on the now-dead mother's carapace gets too great. Her corpse bursts and her children spill forth so that this cycle will repeat for them.

So you consider this not only good design, but such good design that it requires God?