Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

Preaching about what? This positing of god in the realm of the real seems like special pleading. Why should any god character from ancient literature be treated differently to any other fictional character? You could put god into a certain fictional character subset type, but claiming that ‘god does not exist’ is a hard claim about the nature of reality is putting the cart before the horse. First, you have to have some kind of starting point involving a discussion of what might be considered to fall within the category of real, e.g. a book about timeless children’s games might include the real-world example of Pooh sticks, whereas the stories the game comes from are fiction, full of fictional characters doing fictional things. Sentient stuffed toys are in the same category as gods, i.e. things people have not externally verifiable experience of.

Why do some atheists preach to this level? Why cant you logically or reasonably address the OP rather than create a caricature to attack instead? This is an aunt sally.

 

[wellwisher]

Of course. Educated atheists or anyone who has like you said basic familiarity knows this like ABC. Just that, as said it's a linguistic reading that some think IS the philosophical meaning and argue about it like there is no tomorrow.

There is no tangible proof that there will be a tomorrow, since it is not yet manifest in time or space-time to collect any hard data for hard proof. However, we all have faith in tomorrow, since day and night have physical explanations and there is no foreseen disasters that would suggest otherwise. Still science cannot prove tomorrow, today, using its own philosophical methods. At the same time, since tomorrow is very likely, any theory will work, since all theories will have the same tomorrow, as proof. The black box oracles of statistics are often used to predict tomorrow in science. We can also use rational equations based on cause and effect.

We live in space-time. Conceptually if space-time was separated into space and time, where each can act as independent variable, instead of co-dependent as space-time, this would allow more options, many of which express the classic nature of God. If you could move in space unconstrained by time, you could omnipresent. This simple math assumption, taken to the limit, can predict classic godlike attributes. Science is not yet advance enough to use this new math assumption properly. It can do what black box oracles do, but in a more accurate rational way.

Proof of independent space and time can be seen via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle;

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

The simplest way to explain this is space and time; position and motion, respectively, are not connected exactly as suggested by space-time, but rather space and time are each showing some independence of each other. It is that simple. Advance physics can now be taught in kindergarten leading to a very bright future in the field.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is where much of science left the track and became less rational. The uncertainty principle is often used as a justification for statistical uncertainty within nature and the quantum state. That is one interpretation, but that can be debunked. The Heisenberg Uncertainty shows that the more accurately we measure position or momentum the less certain the other variable. That is a statement of determinism and not randomness; simple inverse relationship. Ignorance as to how this actually works, is not the same as random, and the whims of the Gods. How it works is based on separated space and time. It is that simple.

If the uncertainty principle was a true example of randomness, some experimental days the two variables would match and other days they would be way off and also in different amounts. But there is always a reverse relationship; closer and farther. The golden age of Physics was the 1920's before science derailed to use the math of politics, marketing and casinos. We are stuck at random derivatives.

This simple change to both space-time and separate space and time, allows one to rationally explain the quantum state, address the nature of God and even the framework of life and consciousness.

Imagination can exceed the material limitations of space-time. I can pretend to fly to the sun with wings of wax and not get burnt. This cannot happen in space-time, but it can happen if space and time were not connected; fiction and imagination. Innovation is often a blend of the two. However, innovations become the most useful, when what remains is consistent with the limits of space-time. The bugs are connected to separated space and time and are often used as scaffolding. The job is not done until the scaffolding is removed. The ancients would attribute this blue print and scaffolding process to the gods; separated space and time, influencing space-time; build the pyramids. This gave the blue print and the drive, until space-time reality was molded to the visions, and remained in space-time.

Opening the philosophy of science to deal with internal data allows for learning about separated space and time, since the brain evolved within space-time with it hooking up with separated space and time; consciousness. With humans, staying in reality; space-time is often the challenge since the other side has way more options; human spirit in separated space and time. Faith in visions of paradise.

 

[firedragon]

There is no tangible proof that there will be a tomorrow, since it is not yet manifest in time or space-time to collect any hard data for hard proof. However, we all have faith in tomorrow, since day and night have physical explanations and there is no foreseen disasters that would suggest otherwise. Still science cannot prove tomorrow, today, using its own philosophical methods. At the same time, since tomorrow is very likely, any theory will work, since all theories will have the same tomorrow, as proof. The black box oracles of statistics are often used to predict tomorrow in science. We can also use rational equations based on cause and effect.

We live in space-time. Conceptually if space-time was separated into space and time, where each can act as independent variable, instead of co-dependent as space-time, this would allow more options, many of which express the classic nature of God. If you could move in space unconstrained by time, you could omnipresent. This simple math assumption, taken to the limit, can predict classic godlike attributes. Science is not yet advance enough to use this new math assumption properly. It can do what black box oracles do, but in a more accurate rational way.

Proof of independent space and time can be seen via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle;



The simplest way to explain this is space and time; position and motion, respectively, are not connected exactly as suggested by space-time, but rather space and time are each showing some independence of each other. It is that simple. Advance physics can now be taught in kindergarten leading to a very bright future in the field.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is where much of science left the track and became less rational. The uncertainty principle is often used as a justification for statistical uncertainty within nature and the quantum state. That is one interpretation, but that can be debunked. The Heisenberg Uncertainty shows that the more accurately we measure position or momentum the less certain the other variable. That is a statement of determinism and not randomness; simple inverse relationship. Ignorance as to how this actually works, is not the same as random, and the whims of the Gods. How it works is based on separated space and time. It is that simple.

If the uncertainty principle was a true example of randomness, some experimental days the two variables would match and other days they would be way off and also in different amounts. But there is always a reverse relationship; closer and farther. The golden age of Physics was the 1920's before science derailed to use the math of politics, marketing and casinos. We are stuck at random derivatives.

This simple change to both space-time and separate space and time, allows one to rationally explain the quantum state, address the nature of God and even the framework of life and consciousness.

Imagination can exceed the material limitations of space-time. I can pretend to fly to the sun with wings of wax and not get burnt. This cannot happen in space-time, but it can happen if space and time were not connected; fiction and imagination. Innovation is often a blend of the two. However, innovations become the most useful, when what remains is consistent with the limits of space-time. The bugs are connected to separated space and time and are often used as scaffolding. The job is not done until the scaffolding is removed. The ancients would attribute this blue print and scaffolding process to the gods; separated space and time, influencing space-time; build the pyramids. This gave the blue print and the drive, until space-time reality was molded to the visions, and remained in space-time.

Opening the philosophy of science to deal with internal data allows for learning about separated space and time, since the brain evolved within space-time with it hooking up with separated space and time; consciousness. With humans, staying in reality; space-time is often the challenge since the other side has way more options; human spirit in separated space and time. Faith in visions of paradise.

Very informative. Thank you so much.

 

[Tomef]

Why do some atheists preach to this level? Why cant you logically or reasonably address the OP rather than create a caricature to attack instead? This is an aunt sally.

I don’t think so. What reason is there to put god into the same category as everyday things? I know the bible is real; people wrote it, it has been copied by hand and later published using a printing press. It’s a real thing, like any other book. People can have debates about what it means to say a book is real, or a table is real etc. Those are discussions about the nature of reality. Going straight to ‘does god exist’ jumps past too many other stages, it lacks any context. If the question is, does god exist as a tangible, visible part of our experience in the same way trees and cats do, then the answer is obviously no, it’s on the same level as the spaghetti monster, unicorns etc. If something else is meant, first of all you need to start with what exists beyond the physical world, what is meant by a ‘spiritual world’ or something of that sort. That should be the first question - is there some sort of spiritual realm, which would be a question about the nature of reality. The idea that, if such a realm exists, it contains one or other of the gods people made up and write about is so improbable it cannot be taken in the same way. It would be reasonable to say, though, that if there is some sort of non-physical realm then anything existing there would be of a different form of reality as it is generally understood, and from that point you could posit some sort of spiritual beings who live there, but you’d have no way of angling some particular god into that without relying on fiction.

 

[Tomef]

That the former is in my understanding supernatural and thus to my fictional and the other is natural and real. Now, not that I can show evidence for any of that. It is just my belief and faith.

By what criteria do you judge one to be fictional and the other natural and real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By what criteria do you judge one to be fictional and the other natural and real? in

Based on my axiomatic assumptions about the universe in the end.
As I understand your position to you real is real for realtiy, because reality is real. To me that is a belief and requries faith.

So we are in effect not talking about the same kind of real.

 

[firedragon]

I don’t think so. What reason is there to put god into the same category as everyday things? I know the bible is real; people wrote it, it has been copied by hand and later published using a printing press. It’s a real thing, like any other book. People can have debates about what it means to say a book is real, or a table is real etc. Those are discussions about the nature of reality. Going straight to ‘does god exist’ jumps past too many other stages, it lacks any context. If the question is, does god exist as a tangible, visible part of our experience in the same way trees and cats do, then the answer is obviously no, it’s on the same level as the spaghetti monster, unicorns etc. If something else is meant, first of all you need to start with what exists beyond the physical world, what is meant by a ‘spiritual world’ or something of that sort. That should be the first question - is there some sort of spiritual realm, which would be a question about the nature of reality. The idea that, if such a realm exists, it contains one or other of the gods people made up and write about is so improbable it cannot be taken in the same way. It would be reasonable to say, though, that if there is some sort of non-physical realm then anything existing there would be of a different form of reality as it is generally understood, and from that point you could posit some sort of spiritual beings who live there, but you’d have no way of angling some particular god into that without relying on fiction.

My word. Why do you preach so much? Also with completely irrelevant things. Honestly, I don't I have interacted with a Christian or a Muslim in this forum who preaches their respective theologies like you.

 

[Sargonski]

What is the difference between god and a cheese sandwich?

Surely you know that a Cheese Sandwhich has not the ability to summon fire from the sky ... or does it shine like the sun or the moon .. and what God in right mind would be that God Awful Orange color ?

 

[Tomef]

As I understand your position to you real is real for realtiy, because reality is real. To me that is a belief and requries faith.

So we are in effect not talking about the same kind of real.

What’s the point of making such random assumptions?

 

[Tomef]

Surely you know that a Cheese Sandwhich has not the ability to summon fire from the sky ... or does it shine like the sun or the moon .. and what God in right mind would be that God Awful Orange color ?

Nothing wrong with orange.

 

[Tomef]

Based on my axiomatic assumptions about the universe in the end.

That seems like a bit of a lazy answer, after all your attempts to insert ideas into a discussion about something else.

What’s the difference here, then?

Here is one thing, some words you wrote:

So we are doing real!

Here is another thing:

Parsnipparsnipparsnipparsnip

Those are two things; in what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different? What criteria do you use to determine what the similarities and differences are?

 

[firedragon]

What is the difference between god and a cheese sandwich?

A sandwich can be eaten.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What’s the point of making such random assumptions?

Well, that is a result of me being a global skeptic and accepting cogntive relativism:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That seems like a bit of a lazy answer, after all your attempts to insert ideas into a discussion about something else.

What’s the difference here, then?

Here is one thing, some words you wrote:

So we are doing real!

Here is another thing:

Parsnipparsnipparsnipparsnip

Those are two things; in what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different? What criteria do you use to determine what the similarities and differences are?

Well, just read the link I gave in the answer to the other posts of yours and if you have any question I will answer then.

 

[Tomef]

A sandwich can be eaten.

Well spotted.

 

[HonestJoe]

Good post. As a skeptic, I simply ask if any claim of existence is tied to what objective reality is. If that is the case, then so far in recorded history nobody have solved the "hard" version of knowledge in effect.

That's an issue for literally anything, not just the questions around the existence of gods. In practice we ignore it, with a general unspoken assumption that what we observe is reality. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to make any conclusive statements (including that one ) and would probably go insane.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's an issue for literally anything, not just the questions around the existence of gods. In practice we ignore it, with a general unspoken assumption that what we observe is reality. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to make any conclusive statements (including that one ) and would probably go insane.

Yeah, but the point is that it is unknown what objective reality is in itself so that limits the claims of what is really real.

 

[Tomef]

My word. Why do you preach so much? Also with completely irrelevant things. Honestly, I don't I have interacted with a Christian or a Muslim in this forum who preaches their respective theologies like you.

As far as theology goes it’s not difficult to track the development of humanity’s invention of gods over time. Writing came with civilisation, and with that the need to have some sort of ordered pantheon. Cities took the human imagination that saw gods in everything that moved or gave off heat (etc) to gods that watched over their homes and affairs, empires eventually led to the notion of there being one, overall, omnipresent god. All of the writings in turn borrow from earlier stories and traditions, and from each other. Until the basic reality that people made gods, not the other way around, is recognised, questions like ‘does god exist’ are pointless. Which god? When god? When gods were many? When they were narrowed down to fewer gods? Which of the few gods is real and which aren’t? These questions have no more sense than trying to determine if Ming the Merciless was really real.

 

[Tomef]

Well, just read the link I gave in the answer to the other posts of yours and if you have any question I will answer then.

Come on, man. You start these conversations as if you have something interesting to say, but it always just ends with you posting a link to one of your favourite topics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Come on, man. You start these conversations as if you have something interesting to say, but it always just ends with you posting a link to one of your favourite topics.

Okay, the short simple version.
3 humans.
One knows that the universe is natural and not supernatural
The second knows that the universe is from God and not natural.
The thrid and that is me, notes that there is no need to know what the universe is as such to apparently be in the universe.

In other words, we could use page after page on how I would explain how I do it and you would still be able to do it differently than me. That is the end of it.
Other humans than you can have different understandings of the universe as such and yet, apparently we are all in it.
That is it. So if you accept that, I will explain how my world view works. But not unless you can in effect accept some form of cognitive relativism.