Prove that God doesn't exist.

[PLC1]

Ap prefers the # of angels on the head of a pin view to this discussion. Pretty much nobody sees value in creating needless facets of the same thing but to these navel gazing folk like Huxley, it makes a difference. Is, isn't or are not sure. That's all that matters. Is ?

It appears you are right.

You could not know there is a god and believe in god.

You could not know there is a god and not believe in god.

But who knows that there is a god? If you think you know that, then you're a theist. If you know that there is a god, you do believe in god. I know that the moon orbits the Earth, therefore, I believe that the moon orbits the Earth. I can't very well deny the existence of the moon.

 

[numinus]

It appears you are right.



But who knows that there is a god? If you think you know that, then you're a theist. If you know that there is a god, you do believe in god. I know that the moon orbits the Earth, therefore, I believe that the moon orbits the Earth. I can't very well deny the existence of the moon.

Whether god exist or not is a statement of the classical aristotlean (binary) logic -- the statement is either true or false. It cannot have a third option (exclluded middle). He cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Do you follow, so far?

To determine the truth value of any one proposition, one merely postulates the said proposition and see if it leads to some logical fallacy. The laws on gravity or inertia or thermodynamics were discerned using said form of fundamental reasoning.

The thing about the metaphysical paradigm of atheism is that it not only leads to a logical fallacy, it is also counter-intuitive when viewed in conjunction with the laws of physics.

A universe in motion couldn't possibly be without an outside force that acted on it.

A system that is governed by gravity couldn't possibly be expanding at an accelerating rate.

A closed thermodynamic system couldn't possibly be moving from a state of more to less entropy.

But we see it all the time, a universe in motion expanding at an accelerating rate and giving rise to complex thermodynamic systems we know as life.

 

[Dr.Who]

Whether god exist or not is a statement of the classical aristotlean (binary) logic -- the statement is either true or false. It cannot have a third option (exclluded middle). He cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Do you follow, so far?

To determine the truth value of any one proposition, one merely postulates the said proposition and see if it leads to some logical fallacy. The laws on gravity or inertia or thermodynamics were discerned using said form of fundamental reasoning.

The thing about the metaphysical paradigm of atheism is that it not only leads to a logical fallacy, it is also counter-intuitive when viewed in conjunction with the laws of physics.

A universe in motion couldn't possibly be without an outside force that acted on it.

A system that is governed by gravity couldn't possibly be expanding at an accelerating rate.

A closed thermodynamic system couldn't possibly be moving from a state of more to less entropy.

But we see it all the time, a universe in motion expanding at an accelerating rate and giving rise to complex thermodynamic systems we know as life.

I might disagree with the last part on entropy. While the whole system cannot increase in entropy parts of it could while the whole decreases.

I might also disagree that the laws of gravity, inertia, or thermodynamics are discerned logically. They were assumed based on observation.

 

[dahermit]

The thing about the metaphysical paradigm of atheism is that it not only leads to a logical fallacy, it is also counter-intuitive when viewed in conjunction with the laws of physics.

A universe in motion couldn't possibly be without an outside force that acted on it.

Unless there is something about that we have misunderstood.

A system that is governed by gravity couldn't possibly be expanding at an accelerating rate.

Unless there is something about the relationship of gravity and an expanding universe we have misunderstood.

A closed thermodynamic system couldn't possibly be moving from a state of more to less entropy.

Unless there is something about a closed thermodynamic system we have misunderstood.

But we see it all the time, a universe in motion expanding at an accelerating rate and giving rise to complex thermodynamic systems we know as life.

Gravity, etc., are not yet understood. But go ahead and explain if you will, the nature of gravity. I am sure the rest of the scientific community would finally like to know. And after you have done that, please explain how, if the existence of a creator were fact, it would have any bearing on the various dogmas of the established religions.

 

[Dr.Who]

Unless there is something about that we have misunderstood.

Unless there is something about the relationship of gravity and an expanding universe we have misunderstood.

Unless there is something about a closed thermodynamic system we have misunderstood.
Gravity, etc., are not yet understood. But go ahead and explain if you will, the nature of gravity. I am sure the rest of the scientific community would finally like to know. And after you have done that, please explain how, if the existence of a creator were fact, it would have any bearing on the various dogmas of the established religions.

If you think the things we misunderstand have bearing on whether or not God exist then the only alternatives left to you are to be agnostic or to base your beliefs on faith. Faithless atheism is not an option unless you know it all.

 

[PLC1]

If you think the things we misunderstand have bearing on whether or not God exist then the only alternatives left to you are to be agnostic or to base your beliefs on faith. Faithless atheism is not an option unless you know it all.

Since there is no way to prove the existence or non existence of god, then you're correct in saying that the only alternatives left are agnosticism or belief based on faith. Atheism is a belief as well, a negative belief to be sure, but a belief that has to be based on faith nevertheless.

 

[Dr.Who]

Since there is no way to prove the existence or non existence of god, then you're correct in saying that the only alternatives left are agnosticism or belief based on faith. Atheism is a belief as well, a negative belief to be sure, but a belief that has to be based on faith nevertheless.

Yep, except that I made a mistake in my original statement. A God believer who has had a real experience with God does not need faith - perhaps that is exactly why God is not commonly and objectively found.

 

[PLC1]

Yep, except that I made a mistake in my original statement. A God believer who has had a real experience with God does not need faith - perhaps that is exactly why God is not commonly and objectively found.

True enough. If you've had a personal experience, then faith is no longer required.

Not too many of us fall into that category, do we?

 

[Dr.Who]

True enough. If you've had a personal experience, then faith is no longer required.

Not too many of us fall into that category, do we?

That is an extremely interesting question. Having been on these forums for a while now I have been surprised at how many people say that they have had such an experience. I wonder what percent of Christians claim such and experience (then I wonder how many of them are genuine and how many are being reported by wackos). If I said that all of them were wrong I would be making a faith based statement with no evidence to support it. Saying all are genuine is also beyond by ability to know.

A quick internet search reveals that... the answer is not easily found.

 

[PLC1]

That is an extremely interesting question. Having been on these forums for a while now I have been surprised at how many people say that they have had such an experience. I wonder what percent of Christians claim such and experience (then I wonder how many of them are genuine and how many are being reported by wackos). If I said that all of them were wrong I would be making a faith based statement with no evidence to support it. Saying all are genuine is also beyond by ability to know.

A quick internet search reveals that... the answer is not easily found.

No, it is not easily found. I have had wackos tell me that they know unequivocally that Jesus lives, not just that there is a god, but that they know a particular one. I could dismiss that out of hand, but then perfectly reasonable and apparently sane people have told me the same thing. So, have they had some experience that I haven't, or have they spent a lot of time convincing themselves that they have? I really don't know.

 

[dogtowner]

That is an extremely interesting question. Having been on these forums for a while now I have been surprised at how many people say that they have had such an experience. I wonder what percent of Christians claim such and experience (then I wonder how many of them are genuine and how many are being reported by wackos). If I said that all of them were wrong I would be making a faith based statement with no evidence to support it. Saying all are genuine is also beyond by ability to know.

A quick internet search reveals that... the answer is not easily found.

No, it is not easily found. I have had wackos tell me that they know unequivocally that Jesus lives, not just that there is a god, but that they know a particular one. I could dismiss that out of hand, but then perfectly reasonable and apparently sane people have told me the same thing. So, have they had some experience that I haven't, or have they spent a lot of time convincing themselves that they have? I really don't know.

i have and it does involve a personal relationship with the Messiah. i guess y'all are right that its no longer faith but then again neither is it tangible or provable. of course God was very much trying to make personal to me, thats the nature of Christ's approach one soul at a time as He died for each and every one of us, taking our sins upon Himself..

 

[Dr.Who]

No, it is not easily found. I have had wackos tell me that they know unequivocally that Jesus lives, not just that there is a god, but that they know a particular one. I could dismiss that out of hand, but then perfectly reasonable and apparently sane people have told me the same thing. So, have they had some experience that I haven't, or have they spent a lot of time convincing themselves that they have? I really don't know.

Having spent a lot of time with churched people I would have to say that they are a diverse group of people - some are nuts and some are not. Almost none of them will steal your wallet if you leave it sitting around.

 

[dahermit]

...So, have they had some experience that I haven't, or have they spent a lot of time convincing themselves that they have? I really don't know.

Then there is also the influence of socializing with others of the same bent and hearing it reinforced in church every Sunday.
Sociological influences should not be under-estimated as with the 1930's-1945 Nazi phenomenon.

 

[numinus]

I might disagree with the last part on entropy. While the whole system cannot increase in entropy parts of it could while the whole decreases.

Perhaps in thermodynamics but using the statistical mechanics interpretation of entropy, it is highly improbable for living cells to develop, much less evolve into complex human beings for millions of years.

As far as science is concerned, not only should an explanation of a phenomena be possible, but the explanation should be the most probable given the same circumstances and with as few parameters as possible.

I might also disagree that the laws of gravity, inertia, or thermodynamics are discerned logically. They were assumed based on observation.

If you are talking about gravity as a curvature of space-time, the theory was completed long after experimental verification was observed. It was developed as a pure thought experiment.

As for inertia, it was self-evident -- that when you see a ball rolling, for instance, you would intuitively conclude that an outside force MUST have acted on it. The idea here is that a space-time singularity ought to have remained in its state and not go bang unless something made it go bang. And when you are talking about the universe itself, what 'outside force' is there to make it go bang?

 

[numinus]

Unless there is something about that we have misunderstood.

Unless there is something about the relationship of gravity and an expanding universe we have misunderstood.

Unless there is something about a closed thermodynamic system we have misunderstood.
Gravity, etc., are not yet understood. But go ahead and explain if you will, the nature of gravity. I am sure the rest of the scientific community would finally like to know. And after you have done that, please explain how, if the existence of a creator were fact, it would have any bearing on the various dogmas of the established religions.

LOL.

If you don't know the answers to the above, then you couldn't possibly make a logical opinion one way or the other, could you? But you are quite sure of yourself in the affirmative -- as far as the thread question is concerned. Which only proves that you are in the habit of forming opinions about matters you know nothing about.

And as far as established religions are concerned, they are merely subjective truths based on one fundamental truth -- that god exists. Whether you subscribe to a particular dogma over another competing dogma is up to you.