You can’t proof God does not exist

[N'Playaz]

God is the "GOOD" part of any person!

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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

Ok, I don't want to sound insulting, but it seems like you are trying to draw the meaning off into tangents. If you are not doing this on purpose, then I am forced to conclude that you are unwittingly being drawn into a direction that is not correct as per the definitions of the words I am using.

For starters: Infinity and Void are Not the same thing. What we do not know; what exists beyond our ability to see or deduce is Uncertain NOT a Void. It is not Nothingness. Uncertainty is a byproduct of awareness of one's ignorance. Void is a lack of substance. These are not connected in anyway.

So if I might appropriate your terms: Ignorance is NOT evidence of Void. That is the core idea. Ignorance is a sign that we should avoid trying to make claims about what is actually out there.


To illustrate the Math: Divide A billion by 2 and you get 500 million. Divide a billion by 1/2 and you get 2 billion. Essentially the smaller the divisor and the larger the ultimate number is, and the larger the initial number of numerator and the larger the ultimate number is. In this case what we do not know is VAST; like beyond description, and what we do know is so small that it is perhaps negligible in the grand scheme of things.


Confusion to me meant that you were not understanding the terms. But perhaps it was not the terms that was misleading you, but rather the idea I was attempting to convey.

MTF

 

[`mud]

And...have a nice day.
~
`mud

 

[Looncall]

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

Two observations:

The universe exhibits regularities. We know more then you give us credit for.

If there is no evidence for some entity, while we may not be justified in stating that it does not exist, we are also not justified in stating that it does exist. Theists do not get a "get out of jail free card" from the "absence of evidence" discussion. What it does do is show that theists should shut up about their gods until they can demonstrate unambiguously that those gods exist. Until they do so, their beliefs have only the status of delusions.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Two observations:

The universe exhibits regularities. We know more then you give us credit for.

If there is no evidence for some entity, while we may not be justified in stating that it does not exist, we are also not justified in stating that it does exist. Theists do not get a "get out of jail free card" from the "absence of evidence" discussion. What it does do is show that theists should shut up about their gods until they can demonstrate unambiguously that those gods exist. Until they do so, their beliefs have only the status of delusions.

Two observations:

We know profoundly less than you seem to realize, unless you seem to think that Edward Teller was incredibly mistaken in his assessment of the total knowledge of physics or that astrphysicists are mistaken in how vast space truly is, or neurophysiologists are mistaken in how much more there is to learn about the brain and consciousness (Charlie Rose brain series is quite enlightening).

The universe exhibits regularities... within our little pocket of space that we have good data for (a billion years of change is a long time for stuff to happen, and a billion light years is a big distance)... most of which are not properly understood.

If we really did understand as much as you think, then why don't our best theories in physics match up? Why are there a baker's dozen of interpretations for quantum physics (notice the word interpretations; its important because what that is telling you is we don't actually understand what is going on; we know what happens, but don't have the first clue why it happens)? Why do astrophysicists propose the existence of materials that cannot be observed in any fashion except via gravitation and have never been found by any experiments (note dark matter pretty much can't be anything found on the Periodic Table and yet 90% of the matter in the universe is Dark Matter... That's a pretty giant loophole especially when you consider just how vast galaxies are and how large the universe is)?

The more you probe the sciences the more you realize just how profoundly ignorant we actually are. I'm sure if I knew more about biology I could point just how profoundly ignorant of biology we are. Ask Painted Wolf some time about some of the "mysteries" in her discipline. And this doesn't even begin to speculate on what life might look like (or if none exists elsewhere, which I highly doubt) or be able to accomplish in some of the more extreme environments of the cosmos.



Second: At what point did you think I was proposing a "get out of jail free card" for strong theists. I have said countless times that I find strong claims about the existence OR lack of existence of "God" to be ridiculous. I find the strong claim of "God's" existence to be only slightly more ridiculous than the strong claim that it does not exist.

And delusions is exactly why you will not be a strong rationalist any time soon. Certainty is the enemy of reason. It might not be a comfortable position to be uncertain, but it is actually important to remain so when you do not have strong evidence to back up your claim. The null hypothesis is not shown to be extant fact by virtue of a lack of evidence. Black swans exist. And making sweeping judgments about billions of people of a profoundly hurtful or degrading nature more often than not betrays one's own biases and insecurities. Biblical Creation might be profoundly unlikely, but that does not make it alright to insult them.

If you happen to have a successful and attractive substitute for religion in your back pocket, but for some reason have not introduced it to society, then you have done humanity a profound injustice. And if you don't happen to have some substitute for religion, then what reason do you have for trying to destroy it?


Long story short: a "lack of evidence" is not helpful to EITHER side. It means you should be uncertain. I can't show you how Reality might or might not have been created. So it is important to remain uncertain on the issue. This means you do not come to any strong conclusions one way or the other.

MTF

 

[Looncall]

Two observations:

We know profoundly less than you seem to realize, unless you seem to think that Edward Teller was incredibly mistaken in his assessment of the total knowledge of physics or that astrphysicists are mistaken in how vast space truly is, or neurophysiologists are mistaken in how much more there is to learn about the brain and consciousness (Charlie Rose brain series is quite enlightening).

The universe exhibits regularities... within our little pocket of space that we have good data for (a billion years of change is a long time for stuff to happen, and a billion light years is a big distance)... most of which are not properly understood.

If we really did understand as much as you think, then why don't our best theories in physics match up? Why are there a baker's dozen of interpretations for quantum physics (notice the word interpretations; its important because what that is telling you is we don't actually understand what is going on; we know what happens, but don't have the first clue why it happens)? Why do astrophysicists propose the existence of materials that cannot be observed in any fashion except via gravitation and have never been found by any experiments (note dark matter pretty much can't be anything found on the Periodic Table and yet 90% of the matter in the universe is Dark Matter... That's a pretty giant loophole especially when you consider just how vast galaxies are and how large the universe is)?

The more you probe the sciences the more you realize just how profoundly ignorant we actually are. I'm sure if I knew more about biology I could point just how profoundly ignorant of biology we are. Ask Painted Wolf some time about some of the "mysteries" in her discipline. And this doesn't even begin to speculate on what life might look like (or if none exists elsewhere, which I highly doubt) or be able to accomplish in some of the more extreme environments of the cosmos.



Second: At what point did you think I was proposing a "get out of jail free card" for strong theists. I have said countless times that I find strong claims about the existence OR lack of existence of "God" to be ridiculous. I find the strong claim of "God's" existence to be only slightly more ridiculous than the strong claim that it does not exist.

And delusions is exactly why you will not be a strong rationalist any time soon. Certainty is the enemy of reason. It might not be a comfortable position to be uncertain, but it is actually important to remain so when you do not have strong evidence to back up your claim. The null hypothesis is not shown to be extant fact by virtue of a lack of evidence. Black swans exist. And making sweeping judgments about billions of people of a profoundly hurtful or degrading nature more often than not betrays one's own biases and insecurities. Biblical Creation might be profoundly unlikely, but that does not make it alright to insult them.

If you happen to have a successful and attractive substitute for religion in your back pocket, but for some reason have not introduced it to society, then you have done humanity a profound injustice. And if you don't happen to have some substitute for religion, then what reason do you have for trying to destroy it?


Long story short: a "lack of evidence" is not helpful to EITHER side. It means you should be uncertain. I can't show you how Reality might or might not have been created. So it is important to remain uncertain on the issue. This means you do not come to any strong conclusions one way or the other.

MTF

Thank you for your response. It is evident that we agree to a large extent. Except for respecting religion, of course. Given the uncertainty that we both approve, religious customs such as proselytizing and various oppressions cannot be approved.

Since Biblical Creationism is a pack of lies, insulting its purveyors is a civic duty.

I know of nothing that religion provides that could not be obtained in some other way. Even if there were some such, that would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the religious outlook.

 

[DreadFish]

If no one can prove that a supreme being exists and no one can prove that a supreme being doesn't exist, then what is there to debate?

I notice that often when people debate the existence of "God" and they are mostly talking about the biblical god because they haven't been exposed to other ideas of "God" and seem to be unaware that other concepts of "God" even exist ( many of which have been around a lot longer than the concept they are aware of).

I think its important to make a distinction of what "god" people are debating the existence of when engaged in such debates.

 

[outhouse]

If no one can prove that a supreme being exists and no one can prove that a supreme being doesn't exist, then what is there to debate?

because it is a fact that men create deities.


there is evidence that all deities are created by man.

 

[DreadFish]

because it is a fact that men create deities.


there is evidence that all deities are created by man.

But a supreme being is not necessarily a "deity". Like I said, there are many concepts of a supreme being, and plenty would not fit into the standard definition of a deity.

My point is, there is no concrete proof either way, so debating it is nothing more than throwing pieces of paper back and forth; nothing is accomplished but it can be entertaining


Also, why is it important to convince others of your idea? Whether theist or atheist...

 

[outhouse]

But a supreme being is not necessarily a "deity". Like I said, there are many concepts of a supreme being, and plenty would not fit into the standard definition of a deity.

yes but even that is a concept or creation of man

homo sapiens have always defined their deities or supernatural entities like a supreme being differently.


It doesnt change the fact your talking about something that man has historically done and no one questions. well unless its their deity of choice

 

[DreadFish]

yes but even that is a concept or creation of man

homo sapiens have always defined their deities or supernatural entities like a supreme being differently.


It doesnt change the fact your talking about something that man has historically done and no one questions. well unless its their deity of choice

Of course I can agree with anything being a concept of the mind, it can be proven logically after all that all phenomena are merely imputed with a meaning and concept, having no nature from their own side. This of course means that there could be no concept of a supreme being without the concept of mundane beings.


Other than discussing for the sake of understanding the concept, debating to prove one's view doesn't do any good when there has yet to be empirical evidence either way.

 

[outhouse]

Of course I can agree with anything being a concept of the mind, it can be proven logically after all that all phenomena are merely imputed with a meaning and concept, having no nature from their own side. This of course means that there could be no concept of a supreme being without the concept of mundane beings.


Other than discussing for the sake of understanding the concept, debating to prove one's view doesn't do any good when there has yet to be empirical evidence either way.

I agrre with your post except for one point.

not everything is decided with empirical evidence.


In a court of law I would win the case that man has created all deities

 

[DreadFish]

I agrre with your post except for one point.

not everything is decided with empirical evidence.


In a court of law I would win the case that man has created all deities

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

 

[Photonic]

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

Oh, so a majority of cases are ruled incorrectly?

 

[DreadFish]

Oh, so a majority of cases are ruled incorrectly?

If you want to take that from what i said then you're absolutely free to do so, though I did not imply that by any means.

For the sake of clarification, I meant that the verdict arrived at in a court of law is by no means conclusive and has many times been wrong. So, bad example to reach an absolute conclusion from.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Thank you for your response. It is evident that we agree to a large extent. Except for respecting religion, of course. Given the uncertainty that we both approve, religious customs such as proselytizing and various oppressions cannot be approved.

Since Biblical Creationism is a pack of lies, insulting its purveyors is a civic duty.

I know of nothing that religion provides that could not be obtained in some other way. Even if there were some such, that would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the religious outlook.

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

 

[DreadFish]

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 think you have successfully stated what I attempted to

 

[Photonic]

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

Sorry but if this being interacts with physical reality then that being should be subject to the same scrutiny we apply to our understanding of reality.

 

[DreadFish]

Sorry but if this being interacts with physical reality then that being should be subject to the same scrutiny we apply to our understanding of reality.

O RLY? What is your basis for such an argument?

EDIT: I mean, given that we are talking about something on a beyond cosmic scale, then of course what you think should be the case is likely true

 

[Photonic]

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

Sounds like a God of the Gaps argument to me. It is reasonable to not accept religion in lieu of working knowledge of our reality. Why? Because it forces people to remain content with the unknown. Mystery should be a driving force, not a force of contentment.

(I of course do not mean all religions, as not all do this)