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

[Link]

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-deqd morher'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?

Thanks for asking for clarification. To me, when I look all the world, it has too many design for us humans to dismiss it being created for our sake. One thing alone sure you can argue, but if so many things are for our benefit, and perfectly designed in that way, I can't see as chance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is correct.

It's wrong, actually.

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

Why would God be non-measurable and non-specific?

Evidence for what?

For the non-existence of God.

Measure, observe, study, derive, repeat.

And what would you suggest we measure, observe or study? That's what this thread is asking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for asking for clarification. To me, when I look all the world, it has too many design for us humans to dismiss it being created for our sake.

Such as?

One thing alone sure you can argue, but if so many things are for our benefit, and perfectly designed in that way, I can't see as chance.

I gave one example; there are plenty of others.

However, it takes only one example to recognize that the "design" of the world - if it were designed - is imperfect at best and malevolent at worst.

If your claim is that the world is perfectly designed, a single imperfect thing refutes that claim.

 

[Link]

Such as?


I gave one example; there are plenty of others.

However, it takes only one example to recognize that the "design" of the world - if it were designed - is imperfect at best and malevolent at worst.

If your claim is that the world is perfectly designed, a single imperfect thing refutes that claim.

The imperfection without an explanation for a purpose, would mean what you said. But if I see a purpose for it, it's part of the design, and I see the signs in myself, that confirm this design is for this purpose, then the imperfection is purposely done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The imperfection without an explanation for a purpose, would mean what you said. But if I see a purpose for it, it's part of the design, and I see the signs in myself, that confirm this design is for this purpose, then the imperfection is purposely done.

Well, no. An imperfect with a purpose is still an imperfection.

Also, any explanation for an imperfection would incompatible with the idea that the designer is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[Segev Moran]

It's wrong, actually.

If I am, it will be great. I will learn something i didn't know
Can you please elaborate? Can you give an example please?

Why would God be non-measurable

Can you measure how many numbers there are?

and non-specific?

What are the odds of picking 7 out of the result you got from the previous question?

And what would you suggest we measure, observe or study?

Its impact, not itself.
We can only measure its impact on the universe as we know it.
I assume we will find out much more in the years to come.

That's what this thread is asking.

Thanks

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

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.

As the description above says we can prove non-existence in 'special situations' such as the nonexistence of married bachelors but we cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.

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.

The difference is that is the there is evidence for God's existence whereas there is no evidence for the existence of the Blue Fairy. Or Superman. Or Big Foot, or Santa Klaus. The fact that atheists do not 'believe' that the evidence for God's existence proves the God exists does not make it non-evidence. Evidence is evidence. A jury might look at the evidence and not believe that it proves that a man is guilty but the evidence is still the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

Omnipresent does not mean that God is visible everywhere.
What does it mean God is omnipresent?

In Western theism, omnipresence is roughly described as the ability to be "present everywhere at the same time", referring to an unbounded or universal presence. Omnipresence means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend. ... We do not want to say that because God is infinite.

Omnipresence - Wikipedia

Did you actually read your article?

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.

Well, think about it.

I did not have to think for more than two seconds because that is illogical right out the door. Wanna know why?
I will substitute God for X.

The logic of proving a negative or non-existence of God.

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

That is So Illogical I had to go and get more coffee just so I could continue.
Okay, I'm back....

How can anyone ever know what we would EXPECT to observe if God existed?

Well, if one is an atheist they might believe that God would do what they expect God to do which is completely Illogical since an Omnipotent God only does what it Chooses to do; it never does anything it does not want to do so if it does not want to do what atheists want it to do, guess what happens?

This part is true:
"This pattern is VALID and now what a person would need to check is whether or not the premises are true."

The Premise "If God exists, then you would observe O" can never be proven and as such the Conclusion "God does not exist." can never be proven true.

Case closed, and now I am going for more coffee.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Omnipresent does not mean that God is visible everywhere.
What does it mean God is omnipresent?

In Western theism, omnipresence is roughly described as the ability to be "present everywhere at the same time", referring to an unbounded or universal presence. Omnipresence means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend. ... We do not want to say that because God is infinite.

Omnipresence - Wikipedia

Present but irrelevant in every measurable way? Interesting god you have.

I did not have to think for more than two seconds because that is illogical right out the door. Wanna know why?
I will substitute God for X.

The logic of proving a negative or non-existence of God.

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

That is So Illogical I had to go and get more coffee just so I could continue.

If you think your own source is crap, why did you link to it?

Okay, I'm back....

How can anyone ever know what we would EXPECT to observe if God existed?

Any justification for belief in God would point to things we would expect to see if God existed.

Arguing that there is absolutely nothing that we would expect to observe if God existed is an admission that God is an irrational, arbitrary belief that you pulled out of your butt.

Do you think your belief in God is irrational and arbitrary?

Well, if one is an atheist they might believe that God would do what they expect God to do which is completely Illogical since an Omnipotent God only does what it Chooses to do; it never does anything it does not want to do so if it does not want to do what atheists want it to do, guess what happens?

Wait... you're the same person who argued - in another thread - that God would never come to Earth in human form, right?

This seems inconsistent with what you're arguing here.

This part is true:

"This pattern is VALID and now what a person would need to check is whether or not the premises are true."

The Premise "If God exists, then you would observe O" can never be proven and as such the Conclusion "God does not exist." can never be proven true.

Case closed, and now I am going for more coffee.

So the God you believe in is so small and irrelevant that it has no measurable impact on the universe?

If so, why believe in it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Present but irrelevant in every measurable way? Interesting god you have.

Not irrelevant, just not measurable.

If you think your own source is crap, why did you link to it?

I did not read everything on the website.

Any justification for belief in God would point to things we would expect to see if God existed.

How do you know what we would 'expect to see'?

Arguing that there is absolutely nothing that we would expect to observe if God existed is an admission that God is an irrational, arbitrary belief that you pulled out of your butt.

Arguing that there is absolutely nothing that we would expect to observe if God existed is an admission that we can never know what we would expect to see if God existed, which is rational, because nobody can ever know what we would expect to see. Whenever humans say "we would expect to see x if God existed" that is only a reflection of their own ego and what they want to see.

Do you think your belief in God is irrational and arbitrary?

No, but I think that some people are irrational.

Wait... you're the same person who argued - in another thread - that God would never come to Earth in human form, right?

This seems inconsistent with what you're arguing here.

Why? I never said that God came to Earth in human form.

So the God you believe in is so small and irrelevant that it has no measurable impact on the universe?

If so, why believe in it?

Just because humans cannot MEASURE the impact that does not mean there is no impact. Nothing that God does is measurable.