You can’t proof God does not exist

[Willamena]

The fact still remains that the argument "you can't prove that god does not exist" works against theists and is an excellent argument in favour of atheism.:sorry1:

No, no it's not, because it's a given. A given isn't an argument, at all.

 

[PolyHedral]

If it's a given, why is there discussion at all?

 

[Nerthus]

You can't prove or disprove God, either argument is pointless. :angel2:

That's my view on this too.

If you don't have evidence to back up your faith, it is blind. What evidence do you have?

I agree with this in a sense. I guess it's a matter of how you interpret faith being blind, but I feel that if people read around religion for themselves and actually question their Holy book - not simply following what they have been told - then they aren't blind in one sense.

I always feel that it is those who are told as a child what to believe, and never look into it or question it for themselves are the blind ones.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Where was this estimasted? Do protons decay? Any objective evidence for this statement? Thats an assetion. Any evidence for it? Do protons decay? What about all those other things like quarks, etc.? Do they decay? Dark-matter? Again just a statement about god. How are you sure that your god doesn't decay or whether he hasn't completely decayed already to non-existence? Oh, I would love to have a sky-daddy. You'll just have to provide better arguments than "god is" or "you can't prove that god does not exist" for me to get convinced. I prefer realism and the truth above wishful thinking.:angel2:

Who wants a sky daddy? Sounds kinda... pornographic.

There is, at present, no evidence that protons decay. The issue arises, I believe, from the fact that a singular neutron will decay into a proton and electron (and probably a photon; don't have a reference work handy) in about 15 seconds.

My statement was that there is a three-letter word - god - that stands for what is eternal in this entropic universe. I alluded to the "I am" of Biblical fame, but I didn't really define anything beyond the first sentence of this paragraph.

I consider that I work for the god of Abraham, but I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Don't have to, as everyone will find out; and there ain't no burning. Beyond the threshold of eternity is beauty for all.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Grammar error: Missing subject.

Technically correct, as god is beyond mere subject; but yer messin' up my religion.

 

[ellenjanuary]

If it's a given, why is there discussion at all?

Because we like to argue. A lot of the time, I don't even need a point.

 

[Willamena]

The hypothesis "God exists and..." should involve a prediction about the world. If it doesn't, it's extraneous.

However, the statement "God exists and..." doesn't have any prerequisite for prediction.

"God is."

Grammar error: Missing subject.

No, it isn't.

 

[PolyHedral]

No, it isn't.

You're right; It's missing an object. :foot:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've never seen one bit of evidence for the creation and believe in a god concept whatsoever. The fact still remains that the argument "you can't prove that god does not exist" works against theists and is an excellent argument in favour of atheism.:sorry1:

Don't apologize - you'll figure it out eventually, if you do enough reading, and learn enough about life and people.

 

[PolyHedral]

For a god, or peoples' irrationality?

 

[ChristineES]

That's my view on this too.



I agree with this in a sense. I guess it's a matter of how you interpret faith being blind, but I feel that if people read around religion for themselves and actually question their Holy book - not simply following what they have been told - then they aren't blind in one sense.

I always feel that it is those who are told as a child what to believe, and never look into it or question it for themselves are the blind ones.

You have to keep in mind that what I see as evidence is more than likely something that you would dismiss as evidence. And just because one person sees it as blind faith does not mean that it is. And I do question my faith on occasion, we all do- it is a normal thing to do.

 

[Nerthus]

You have to keep in mind that what I see as evidence is more than likely something that you would dismiss as evidence.

Quite possibly. It depends on what evidence it would be.

And just because one person sees it as blind faith does not mean that it is. And I do question my faith on occasion, we all do- it is a normal thing to do.

It should be a normal thing, but isn't with many.

Out of interest, what do you consider blind faith to be?

 

[dogsgod]

We can't prove Mother Goose does not exist either, should we start another thread?

 

[e2ekiel]

That's true. That's also why it is so important for people to tell us which god they believe in, what variety of the religion and what you can expect the particular god to be doing or to be predicting. This can be tested. I also agree, if this is not done, the particular god is just extraneous and has no value at all. Might as well not exist.

I agree, you need to specify which god you want proof of, Jesus, Allah, or that of the Hindus etc.

However the standard of proof needs to be appropriate to what you are trying to prove true. eg you can't scientifically prove history, nor can you use testimony to prove a mathematical equation.

So if you ask to prove God (Jesus) exists, be intellectually honest about what evidence constitutes that something is true

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The hypothesis "God exists and..." should involve a prediction about the world. If it doesn't, it's extraneous.

Presumes that we have the power to test that prediction. If I told you "God created Reality itself" then you have no useful method of testing this prediction because it involves a level of understanding about the universe (or possibly that which is greater than the universe) which so far exceeds our grasp as to be essentially pointless.


Theists aren't the only ones making irrational fools of themselves on forums. Claiming that absence of evidence is proof of absence is also a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and it isn't even strong evidence if you are operating from a position of near absolute ignorance.


It is all well and good to point out that when operating from a position of near absolute ignorance that the probability of any specific thing's existence approaches zero, but this says more about the human condition of lacking knowledge than it does about the state of the 10th dimension or parallel universes or whatever other crazy thing turns out to be ultimately true when we finally get around to investigating what is beyond our little ball of rock in an out of the way corner of the milky way galaxy. It should be noted that while the specific probability approaches zero, that the global probability of something being out there approaches metaphysical certitude. Something is out there, we just don't know what it is. If we did, then we wouldn't have all sorts of empty explanations like "Dark Matter" (Something which has never been found having defied all tests to try and locate it and has no detectable properties that is found in normal matter) or "Dark Energy."


Would-be rationalists and "strong atheists" need to stop making strong claims about things when speaking from a position of near total ignorance, and they need to start having the courage of their convictions. Start exploring the possibility space. Why is it that the the vast majority of people proposing complete cosmologies are lay people, most of which don't even have any training in philosophy let alone astrophysics? Maybe if Scientists were all Possibilians and started having enough intellectual courage to strike out with an explanation of they way things are that was consistent with our current understanding of the universe while being possibly wrong in some greater sense, then you wouldn't have quite so many people convinced that we all sprang from nothingness or that the world was 6,000 years old.

MTF

 

[`mud]

?????.... Absence of evidence is evidence of absence,
and it isn't even strong evidence if you are operating from a position of near absolute ignorance....?????
~
I'm sure of what this means, or, I'm not sure of what this means ?
I've read this post twice, but I'm not sure of what that sentence means.
It's kinda like proving that a negative doesn't prove a negative !
~
To prove that an entity doesn't support any one other entity,
is the same as saying that all entities don't exist,
or saying that all entities do exist, one can't have both.
~
Believing in a god doesn't mean that all gods are non-existant.
But....given any certain god in particular exists, could be true or not true.
~
Maybe Pascal had the answer !
Just toss a coin, and keep it spinning.
It doesn't matter if one is of "absolute ignorance" or without.
The coin will keep spinning, until it comes to rest !
~
Remaining confused, as always,
`mud

 

[sandandfoam]

The logical conclusion is that the existence of things you can't test for, and have no evidence for it, is implausible. They logical deduction is that these things only exist in the minds of believers and nowhere else. Wasn’t he referring to the Christian apologetics?
Please discuss.

Logic and rationality are pants. I have yet to meet someone who is either illogical or irrational in their own eyes.
It seems daft to me that anyone believes they have access to objectivity.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

?????.... Absence of evidence is evidence of absence,
and it isn't even strong evidence if you are operating from a position of near absolute ignorance....?????
~
I'm sure of what this means, or, I'm not sure of what this means ?
I've read this post twice, but I'm not sure of what that sentence means.
It's kinda like proving that a negative doesn't prove a negative !
~
To prove that an entity doesn't support any one other entity,
is the same as saying that all entities don't exist,
or saying that all entities do exist, one can't have both.
~
Believing in a god doesn't mean that all gods are non-existant.
But....given any certain god in particular exists, could be true or not true.
~
Maybe Pascal had the answer !
Just toss a coin, and keep it spinning.
It doesn't matter if one is of "absolute ignorance" or without.
The coin will keep spinning, until it comes to rest !
~
Remaining confused, as always,
`mud

Ok whoa... Stop and take a deep breath.

Now lets examine this one step at a time.

1) Absence of evidence: You do not have any direct indications (no things which depend upon this thing for their existence), no hearsay (no one has ever told you they saw this or heard about this thing), and no circumstantial evidence (you are not aware of any circumstances or surrounding characteristics that make it likely to be true that there is such a thing).

2) Evidence of absence: Indicates that something is likely to not exist.


3) Position of near absolute ignorance. Take what we do not understand well and divide it by what we do understand well and you would have a VERY large number possibly infinity. The universe is VAST; as in I cannot properly convey to you how vast it is. A pencil point in the skies above allows Hubble to detect thousands upon thousands of galaxies. That is just mind boggling.



Related note: Some people take an absolute stance when they shouldn't. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Just because you can't find evidence of something doesn't mean that it is not there. Historically it has been far more likely that a failure of imagination or lack of proper tools or measurements were the proper explanations for why we could not figure out a problem than the notion that something was not actually there to find.

MTF

 

[`mud]

hey MTF,
Evidence of Absence....Absence of Evidence...Evidence of Evidence
What does the term "Position of near absolute ignorance" mean ?
Dividing what we know by what we haven't learned doesn't get nearly near "infinity".
Of what does a "void" consist ? Zero divided by zero = zero.
To our gnosis, zero doesn't exist, and knowledge is yet an endless staircase to infinty.
We know not what can be seen by even the nearsighted Hubble telescope,
and beyond that point, we know not what could be seen, but I doubt that it is a "void".
~
From where does the end of everything begin, from where does the "void" start ?
To my recconing, there is no "void", even "light" can't enter that unknown rhelm.
What portion of the "vast" bandwidth of energy is beyond the reality of measurement.
Even given the possibility of a "void", where would "infinity" lie ?
What entity in this Cosmos of ours would exceed imagination,
what property of unseen, and unsensed gnosis could inhabit those places.
By using the term "whoa", did you mean "stop" ?
What did the meaning of the term "confusion" mean to you, it means just that.
I find your post, and a couple of others, conflicted in your prognesis, and meaning.
~
But all that aside, I find your writing somewhat enjoyable, and somewhat informing.
I look forward to your further installments, although I am still confused, as always.
~
Remaining a Humanist, leaning toward Atheism,
`mud

 

[crocusj]

The logical conclusion is that the existence of things you can't test for, and have no evidence for it, is implausible. They logical deduction is that these things only exist in the minds of believers and nowhere else. Wasn’t he referring to the Christian apologetics?
Please discuss.

This is all fine and dandy for, well, dogs. We are humans and humans have imagination. How far would we have come if we stopped at implausible? Remove an appendix? You're having a laugh, surely. Inject what! into a body to cure what!!? I'm made of atoms? Get out of here....It is imagination that leads to discovery not logic. Not smart enought to test for god, then get smarter. Otherwise the argument holds water. I am confident that there is zero evidence that satisfies me that there is any god of any sort but evidence is in the eye of the beholder and as such if I were a believer then "you cannot prove that my particular idea of a god is wrong" would seem reasonable. People feel as well as think.