You can’t proof God does not exist

[outhouse]

No offense but, I feel like that's a terrible example. People have won many ludicrous cases in a court of law, and judges are often free to rule however they wish. Likewise a jury can and has been wrong in many cases.

So, yeah, bad point

I know what and where your going with this and yes some court cases are a tragedy

That doesnt change the fact that man makes deities and claims supernatural powers and unseen forces.

man has a bad habit of repeating this mistake of filling the supernatural in gaps of ones knowledge.




There is zero case for the reality of a any deity existing beyond myth.

there is a huge case that man created all deities.

 

[DreadFish]

I know what and where your going with this and yes some court cases are a tragedy

That doesnt change the fact that man makes deities and claims supernatural powers and unseen forces.

man has a bad habit of repeating this mistake of filling the supernatural in gaps of ones knowledge.




There is zero case for the reality of a any deity existing beyond myth.

there is a huge case that man created all deities.

You present a good case, yet since the proof lies only in a persons mind either way, there is still no way of making a definite conclusion IMO

 

[outhouse]

You present a good case, yet since the proof lies only in a persons mind either way, there is still no way of making a definite conclusion IMO

I agree.

faith brainwashed since birth is hard to reverse my friend.

 

[DreadFish]

I agree.

faith brainwashed since birth is hard to reverse my friend.

Yep, it goes either way. A strong imprint on the mind, regardless of its nature, is hard to wash out.

 

[Looncall]

I agree that strong theism is an absurd position. I find it only slightly more absurd than strong atheism. So with that said I agree that proselytizing is largely unproductive behavior for a society.

Biblical creation is not the only form of "God" that needs to be debated. And neither does falsehood entitle the opposition to ad hominem. Insulting someone is NEVER a civic duty. Criticism is NOT the same thing as insult. Constructive criticism even suggests an alternative. Insults do nothing more than create animosity which is antithetical to an ideal society.

I know of nothing that religion provides which could not be obtained in some other way given a certain level of intelligence, empathy, and genetic predisposition. But since this thread is not about defending religion I will leave it at this: if you can't replace religion with something, then attacking it is not productive behavior. All humans have their security blankets; denying someone their security blanket because you don't like the form it takes is hypocritical at best and hostile at worst.


And considering that the existence or lack thereof of a being which exists outside of reality itself is beyond the scope of rational endeavor I would say that truth value doesn't really apply.

MTF

I would agree with you about insulting creationists except that they have proven to be remarkably resistant to reason. It is commonly seen that even when they are shown that an argument is erroneous they continue to use it. That leaves only insult, contempt and mockery as tools to discourage them from spreading their lies.

I would be glad to allow folk their security blankets if they did not act upon them to other people's detriment. As I have noted on these forums before, my father suffered from Parkinson's disease. Medical advances that might have brought him relief were impeded by religiously-based interference. That is the kind of thing I object to.

I very much agree with your last paragraph. It shows the so very positive statements of religionists to be all the more inane.

 

[Desert Snake]

One of the really puzzling things to me is why theists think that arguments they use like “you can’t proof that God exists” and “You can’t proof God does not exist” works in their favour.

Logically this argument works against theists. My logic around this argument is like this:
I can give you a few examples of things you can’t proof to either exist or not exist. These things are objects like fairies, Russell’s Tea Pot, Zeus, Thor, etc. There’s no scientific method to test for them, although some people claim they exist. These are things that a very large percentage of people can dismiss with confidence as not existing, due to the fact that there’s absolutely no objective evidence for their existence and the very low plausibility of them existing. They all have one thing in common; you can’t proof their existence or non-existence.

Things you can test to confirm their existence are things like Australia, the Golden Gate Bridge, Canary Warf, etc. You can test for these things. You can either proof them to exist, or at least you can find very good objective evidence for their existence. If you can test for something and get positive results, the chances are excellent that they do exist.

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.

Wow, this is really incorrect. Theists don't need the verification of non-theism, by atheists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One of the really puzzling things to me is why theists think that arguments they use like “you can’t proof that God exists” and “You can’t proof God does not exist” works in their favour.

Logically this argument works against theists. My logic around this argument is like this:
I can give you a few examples of things you can’t proof to either exist or not exist. These things are objects like fairies, Russell’s Tea Pot, Zeus, Thor, etc. There’s no scientific method to test for them, although some people claim they exist. These are things that a very large percentage of people can dismiss with confidence as not existing, due to the fact that there’s absolutely no objective evidence for their existence and the very low plausibility of them existing. They all have one thing in common; you can’t proof their existence or non-existence.

Things you can test to confirm their existence are things like Australia, the Golden Gate Bridge, Canary Warf, etc. You can test for these things. You can either proof them to exist, or at least you can find very good objective evidence for their existence. If you can test for something and get positive results, the chances are excellent that they do exist.

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.

There is no empirical evidence for either belief, that's why some of us acknowledge faith on one side of the debate at least.

But we do have other forms of objective evidence; predictive ability, logical deduction, and power of explanation, these are what the vast majority of humanity has always used to come to the same conclusion; that chance does not adequately account for the world we see around us.

 

[outhouse]

But we do have other forms of objective evidence

Not one bit of that is credible outside mythology

 

[Blastcat]

That's not logical. Your argument leaps from the possibility of predictions being incorrect to the actuality of it, but, in fact, as long as incorrect predictions are being actualized, the possibility of incorrect predictions still remains.

As long as INCORRECT predictions .. are being ACTUALIZED?... do you mean as long as people make bad predictions about their gods?...

Yes, the possibility of INCORRECT predictions remains.. we can always make INCORRECT predictions about anything. If we make INCORRECT predictions.. then whatever we wanted to PROVE by these predictions has been FALSIFIED.

Correct predictions wouldn't prove the hypothesis or theory correct, but would at least offer evidence that it MIGHT be correct. It would add weight to the theory or hypothesis.

But an incorrect prediction fails the hypothesis or theory. And that would include a theory or hypothesis about a god.

So, if you MAKE a prediction about a god.. put it to the test. If the prediction FAILS the test... Then whatever idea you predicted about the god should be trashed. Time to make a new hypothesis.

 

[psychoslice]

You can’t proof God does not exist, when I hear that I can't help but laugh, it sounds so childish, like, ha ha You can’t proof God does not exist, na na ana na.

 

[Looncall]

There is no empirical evidence for either belief, that's why some of us acknowledge faith on one side of the debate at least.

But we do have other forms of objective evidence; predictive ability, logical deduction, and power of explanation, these are what the vast majority of humanity has always used to come to the same conclusion; that chance does not adequately account for the world we see around us.

Please supply examples.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please supply examples.

The Bible, and the theory of an intelligently created universe in general, predicted that there was a specific creation event,

Atheists overwhelmingly predicted a static/eternal/steady state universe for the exact opposite explicit rationale- (no creation = no creator)

One of these prediction was scientifically validated beyond most reasonable doubt

Another prediction was that humanity, as primary beneficiaries of creation, are alone in the universe as intelligent beings. This is more difficult to verify of course, but the observation holds true with the 'great silence' of the galaxy

These are entirely falsifiable claims, and had the evidence falsified them, I'd accept the implications of that.

I'm also willing to accept the opposite implications, the ones of observed reality

 

[Blastcat]

The Bible, and the theory of an intelligently created universe in general, predicted that there was a specific creation event,

What you give as evidence is very poor indeed. The reason your evidence is so poor is due to logical inconsistencies on your part.

Allow me to illustrate.

1. The Bible isn't evidence for itself. So, that's just wrong thinking.
2. The theory of ID isn't scientific. It has been discredited as religious pseudo-science.
3. The reason you "see" design is because you believe in a designer and look for things what can confirm your presupposition, and deny what doesn't. . Confirmation bias and circular thinking aren't evidence of a creator, they are, however, evidence of poor thinking.
4.It would have been better if the Genesis story actually talked about physics instead of a god.
5. The Big Bang wasn't something the scientists got from any Bible prediction. It was based on observation of the universe, not the other way around.

Atheists overwhelmingly predicted a static/eternal/steady state universe for the exact opposite explicit rationale- (no creation = no creator)

This has been trotted out so many times, I almost believe that it's true. But it's not true. It wasn't the ATHEISTS who had scientific theories to disprove a god's existence. What it was, you see, were SCIENTISTS of all kinds of beliefs who were making a stab at a scientific theory. As soon as the "big bang theory" made more sense, the scientific community. RELIGIOUS OR NOT... endorsed it.

If the steady state theory ( NOT PROOF ) was an atheist conspiracy to discredit the genesis myth, it was a very poor conspiracy indeed. The conspirators could have hushed up the Big Bang a bit better than they have. Since they are all atheists.. as you seem to think.

Many astrophysicists are Christian, have been Christian. and more in the past when the big Bang theory was invented than in the present. Those who postulated a steady state were not doing so due to religious convictions, pro or con. Science isn't IN the business of disproving gods.

Unless, of course, you think there is this conspiracy out there.. ARE you promoting a conspiracy theory?

One of these prediction was scientifically validated beyond most reasonable doubt

It wasn't a prediction. It was a myth. Genesis is a creation story about a god. Not a science text book that made predictions.
The only "prediction" I can see in Genesis is that a god exists and created the universe. That prediction hasn't been verified yet.

Another prediction was that humanity, as primary beneficiaries of creation, are alone in the universe as intelligent beings. This is more difficult to verify of course, but the observation holds true with the 'great silence' of the galaxy

We don't know at all if we are alone as intelligent beings in the universe. Not one way or another. So, it's useless to bring that up as evidence for anything. But I don't know if Genesis actually talks about the impossibility of other intelligent beings. I'd be interested in a quote that demonstrates that.

These are entirely falsifiable claims, and had the evidence falsified them, I'd accept the implications of that.

It's good to be so open minded. However, just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean we have the means to do so. Do you think that science doesn't continue? Just because something hasn't been disproved YET doesn't mean it wont be in some future time. You should reserve your beliefs for things that HAVE been proved or disproved, and NOT to something that hasn't.You have no evidence for intelligent life anywhere else than on earth. That's accurate and true. No evidence means we should not believe in intelligent life on some other planet. HOWEVER... saying that because we have no evidence does not mean a god exists.

HOWEVER, we have ACCURATE and VERIFIABLE evidence that intelligent beings exist in the material world. So, at least intelligent ALIENS are POSSIBLE in that sense.

Life occurred on EARTH, so life might occur in some of the other BILLIONS of planets... it's possible. You MIGHT say that God is ALSO possible. BUT.. we have NO prior knowledge of any god being real, not accurate and verified knowledge. What we have are CLAIMS.

So, the possibility of aliens is HIGHER by far than for any supernatural being.

We know that all kinds of CREATION MYTHS exist.. and we don't take them as true. We take them as myths created by people who had no knowledge of astrophysics or any concept of modern biology and geology.

This is accurate and verifiable. You want us to BELIEVE that your creation myth is .. true and NOT just one of the stories ancient people told to one another....

You have a long way to go.

So, on one side, we have accurate, verifiable knowledge and on the other, your mere possibility with no evidence to back it up.

I'll go with what we DO know .. and leave the pretend to someone else.
I do know that science presents accurate and verifiable truths. I can't say the same for your bible stories.
So, what does it mean that we don't have evidence for intelligent life other than on this planet?

What it means is that we have no evidence for intelligent life on other planets, that's all.

EVEN IF somehow, we could gather all the data in the universe and PROVE that absolutely no other intelligent life has ever existed or EVER WILL, this still has nothing to do with a god existing. You make a correlation between your religious beliefs and some unknown. . GOD ... is something you want to smuggle in.. as if it was one or the other option.
This is called making a false dichotomy. It's not " intelligent life on other planets" OR "GOD".. the fact that there is no intelligent life on any planet might be to SOME OTHER CAUSE. You you have to first establish that there IS ONLY THIS ONE OTHER CAUSE. And you can't do that.

... by the way.. other animals are intelligent. So, you should explain what you MEAN by "intelligence. if you mean HUMAN intelligence .. then yes, only HUMAN intelligence exists in HUMANS.. never aliens. We could expect that aliens might have alien intelligence, not the human kind ...

Until you can demonstrate that there are ONLY TWO possible choices for the cause of intelligent beings, we don't have to assume that there ARE only TWO possible causes. There might BE A THIRD OPTION... an unknown option that you can't even know yet.

No evidence for intelligence, therefore god. You are making an argument from ignorance.
No thousand dollars in my front pocket, therefore.. a frog in it.

There MIGHT be other options.

Your thinking is fraught with logical inconsistencies.

I'm also willing to accept the opposite implications, the ones of observed reality

Well, we have that. We have reality, and our observations. None of which give an iota of credence to any creator god.
Your only "evidence" so far is based on logical fallacies. What you think is good evidence doesn't make sense.

Thanks for you attention.

 

[Skwim]

Might want to reformat your post.

 

[Blastcat]

We have to remember that being a theist doesn't mean "proving God" to ourselves or to anyone else. It is about faith. As to what faith is, there are a whole lot debates about that.

so being a theist is about not being able to prove oneself right.

Then it's wrong. It's about being wrong. WOW.


I always thought so.. since ive stopped the neck choke of my indoctrination. Happy you agree.

 

[Quagmire]

so being a theist is about not being able to prove oneself right.

Then it's wrong. It's about being wrong. WOW.


I always thought so.. since ive stopped the neck choke of my indoctrination. Happy you agree.

So basically you're saying you put everything in the world into one of two categories:

1.Things you know.

2. And things that are wrong.

Doesn't leave much room to learn anything new, does it?

 

[Blastcat]

So basically you're saying you put everything in the world into one of two categories:

1.Things you know.

2. And things that are wrong.

Doesn't leave much room to learn anything new, does it?

No. It doesn't.
It also doesn't leave room for what I think. I don't think that.
Why do you thin that I do?

 

[Quagmire]

No. It doesn't.
It also doesn't leave room for what I think. I don't think that.
Why do you thin that I do?

This . . .:

so being a theist is about not being able to prove oneself right.

Then it's wrong. It's about being wrong. WOW.

. . . I would say a fair interpretation of that would be: "If you can't prove to me that something is right, ie., if you can't make it known to me, it must be wrong".

Which is just another way of saying, "If I don't know something, it must be wrong".

 

[Blastcat]

This . . .:


. . . I would say a fair interpretation of that would be: "If you can't prove to me that something is right, ie., if you can't make it known to me, it must be wrong".

Which is just another way of saying, "If I don't know something, it must be wrong".

I would say your interpretation is wrong.

Just another way of saying you like to repeat yourself.


However, in the real world, I never meant that , i would never say that, thanks for getting me completely wrong.

 

[Quagmire]

I would say your interpretation is wrong.

Just another way of saying you like to repeat yourself.

You asked me to repeat myself. Doesn't mean I like it, just means that on some days when I have a little extra patience, I don't mind.

However, in the real world, I never meant that , i would never say that,

Maybe not intentionally.

thanks for getting me completely wrong.

If that were true, you would probably be trying to make some effort to clarify what you actually did mean.