Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

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.

Agnosticism, as an epistemological paradigm, asserts that certain things are unknowable, and not simply unknown at the present time. If you are not sure, then you are merely that -- not sure. There simply is no sense proclaiming one's ignorance to the world and peddling it for something more than what it truly is.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

Then life has to take advantage of that conducive situation.

Which is the most parsimonious explanation? God or chance?

XXX false question. Chance would have infinite time and God is unproven.

XXX false answer. The age of the universe is finite and unproven does not mean unreal.

Right answer: A miracle of some sort by some definition.

I concede on the other bits.

 

[dahermit]

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.

I do not know the answers to the above. You do not know the answers to the above either.

And, there you go again, making assumptions. You are assuming that I believe that there is no creator. It is not that I believe that; it is that I do not care. I do not know if there is a creator, or even a race of creators. What I do believe is that if there is a creator(s), there is not a shred of evidence that the creator(s), is/are a benevolent entity that influences human existence, or is even aware of human existence.

Other than that, I know that you, as a good believer, would never post anything that would hurt my feelings.

 

[Dr.Who]

I do not know the answers to the above. You do not know the answers to the above either.

And, there you go again, making assumptions. You are assuming that I believe that there is no creator. It is not that I believe that; it is that I do not care. I do not know if there is a creator, or even a race of creators. What I do believe is that if there is a creator(s), there is not a shred of evidence that the creator(s), is/are a benevolent entity that influences human existence, or is even aware of human existence.

Other than that, I know that you, as a good believer, would never post anything that would hurt my feelings.

I am looking out my window right now and I see a black pick-up truck driving by. My statement that it is so is evidence. It might not convince you but it is evidence

In the same way when a person tells you that they have talked to God and he is benevolent creator who influences human existence that is evidence. It might no convince you but it is incorrect to state that there is no evidence.

 

[dahermit]

I am looking out my window right now and I see a black pick-up truck driving by. My statement that it is so is evidence. It might not convince you but it is evidence

In the same way when a person tells you that they have talked to God and he is benevolent creator who influences human existence that is evidence. It might no convince you but it is incorrect to state that there is no evidence.

I stand corrected. There is evidence. But that evidence is as strong as when a schizophrenic I was charged with tending told me that the water tower we could see out the window was really a space ship that had landed during the night. Or, when that nationally know preacher stated that he had prayed and a hurricane was diverted from the East coast. Or, the one who says that the reason Calcutta India has such poverty is because the city is named after the Indian Goddess of the Thuggees.

 

[Dr.Who]

I stand corrected. There is evidence. But that evidence is as strong as when a schizophrenic I was charged with tending told me that the water tower we could see out the window was really a space ship that had landed during the night. Or, when that nationally know preacher stated that he had prayed and a hurricane was diverted from the East coast. Or, the one who says that the reason Calcutta India has such poverty is because the city is named after the Indian Goddess of the Thuggees.

Do you really think that there are zero people making claims to knowing God in some way that are more credible than the testimony of a schizophrenics?

I am not saying that when normal everyday people make claims to have had an experience with God that you must accept it as convincing, just that it is more credible than the testimony that comes from people like you mentioned above. Agreed?

 

[dogtowner]

If you haven't the openness to accept then its easier to dismiss. It's OK. My expereince was intended for me and me alone. I witness only to try and spark a little curiosity on your part. The Holy Sprist will handle the heavy lifting here.

 

[numinus]

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

Then life has to take advantage of that conducive situation.

Which is the most parsimonious explanation? God or chance?

XXX false question. Chance would have infinite time and God is unproven.

XXX false answer. The age of the universe is finite and unproven does not mean unreal.

Right answer: A miracle of some sort by some definition.

I concede on the other bits.

Actually, if you view it from physical cosmology, the chances become geometrically more remote. There is a value called the critical density (designated as omega) -- the ratio of the amount of gravitational energy density and its opposite (tensile) energy density attributed to lambda or the cosmological constant.

The idea is that to derive a space-time geometry that we are observing today, this ratio ought to be very close to one plus or minus 10^-31. Beyond this value, the geometry quickly reduces to either a spherical or psuedo-spherical geometry and the universe couldn't possibly exist for 13 billion years and counting -- the amount of time necessary for matter and energy to synthesize everything you can see today.

That is, to put it in layman's terms, a lottery jackpot of cosmic proportions -- a statistical aberration equivalent to winning the lottery jackpot for one straight week. It is like the initial conditions of the big bang were somehow pre-determined.

Tell me, if you encounter a person who won the jackpot of the lottery for a week straight, what are you inclined to believe -- he is extremely lucky or he somehow cheated?

 

[numinus]

I do not know the answers to the above. You do not know the answers to the above either.

And, there you go again, making assumptions. You are assuming that I believe that there is no creator. It is not that I believe that; it is that I do not care. I do not know if there is a creator, or even a race of creators. What I do believe is that if there is a creator(s), there is not a shred of evidence that the creator(s), is/are a benevolent entity that influences human existence, or is even aware of human existence.

Other than that, I know that you, as a good believer, would never post anything that would hurt my feelings.

Evidence, in its simplest dictionary definition, is logical proof supporting the truth value of a proposition, is it not?

It is, BY NO MEANS, confined to the legal or scientific evidentiary procedure you ignorantly believe is the basis of all epistemic propositions. I have already provided numerous ONTOLOGICAL PROOFS supporting the existence of a creator.

Now, you might, after everything has been said and done, reject logic. It is your prerogative. Just don't go about insulting other people more intelligent than you in the public domain.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is, to put it in layman's terms, a lottery jackpot of cosmic proportions -- a statistical aberration equivalent to winning the lottery jackpot for one straight week. It is like the initial conditions of the big bang were somehow pre-determined.

Tell me, if you encounter a person who won the jackpot of the lottery for a week straight, what are you inclined to believe -- he is extremely lucky or he somehow cheated?

I suppose that is whey these scientists said:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

 

[Dr.Who]

Evidence, in its simplest dictionary definition, is logical proof supporting the truth value of a proposition, is it not?

It is, BY NO MEANS, confined to the legal or scientific evidentiary procedure you ignorantly believe is the basis of all epistemic propositions. I have already provided numerous ONTOLOGICAL PROOFS supporting the existence of a creator.

Now, you might, after everything has been said and done, reject logic. It is your prerogative. Just don't go about insulting other people more intelligent than you in the public domain.

In any branch of thinking (i.e. science, theology, philosophy, etc) would think that any proof would be evidence but I fail to see how any evidence would need to be proof. But I am open to seeing the simplest dictionary definition or to be informed of a situation in which whatever evidence of some sort is provided it is then proof (bad sentence. sorry). As far as I am concerned, in the sciences as elsewhere, evidence supports a notion but is not proof unless it is strong enough to abolish all doubt.

I also fail to see any ontological argument that is sound enough to be proof.

 

[numinus]

I suppose that is whey these scientists said:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

'...to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word'.

Love it!

 

[numinus]

In any branch of thinking (i.e. science, theology, philosophy, etc) would think that any proof would be evidence but I fail to see how any evidence would need to be proof. But I am open to seeing the simplest dictionary definition or to be informed of a situation in which whatever evidence of some sort is provided it is then proof (bad sentence. sorry). As far as I am concerned, in the sciences as elsewhere, evidence supports a notion but is not proof unless it is strong enough to abolish all doubt.

I also fail to see any ontological argument that is sound enough to be proof.

Go back to basics.

On what is epistemology based on?

Whether a priori or posteriori, the truth value of any given proposition depends on the operation of logic -- first order predicate logic to be exact.

And as far as logical forms are concerned, what are their basic operations?

Set theory -- the rules governing the operation of sets and set membership.

 

[PLC1]

Go back to basics.

On what is epistemology based on?

Epistemology is philosophy that concerns itself with the nature of knowledge, what is knowledge, and how it is acquired. It's based on the idea that there are several ways of acquiring knowledge. (that's a short summary, of course)

Whether a priori or posteriori, the truth value of any given proposition depends on the operation of logic -- first order predicate logic to be exact.

If a proposition isn't logical, then it probably is not true. OK, that makes sense. However, if the knowledge is a priori, and later experience casts doubt on its truth, is it really knowledge?

And as far as logical forms are concerned, what are their basic operations?

Set theory -- the rules governing the operation of sets and set membership.

Not sure how set theory applies to a discussion of the existence of god. Please enlighten us.

 

[Dr.Who]

Go back to basics.

On what is epistemology based on?

Whether a priori or posteriori, the truth value of any given proposition depends on the operation of logic -- first order predicate logic to be exact.

And as far as logical forms are concerned, what are their basic operations?

Set theory -- the rules governing the operation of sets and set membership.

\

I am all for pure thinking. But it doesn't go very far at all before one either hits a wall or must start making assumptions.

Show me a philosophy, science, or argument that does not make any assumptions and I will show you an idea that does not say very much.