Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Could someone decode that?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why do you people insist on going back to this 'can't prove a negative' nonsense.

When one proves the existence of a NECESSARY BEING, its non-existence is automatically REFUTED.

My problem with your proof is that you have transmogrified a supposedly "necessary" SOMETHING into a "NECESSARY BEING". We have no idea what our ultimate origin is, to postulate an anthropomorphic "god" or "being" is not supportable. We "assume" that something happened because we think we are here, but we have no proof of what that "something" is/was.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Could someone decode that?

Nums has an excess of gaseous, digestive by-products which he is trying to vent upon you in such a way as to insult you but still not get banned.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Indeed but even by his standards that one was bizarre.

The causality argument only pushes back the question.

Where did the 'creator' come from?

Even if you could establish that there has to be a 'creator' you have no grounds to make any statements about the character of that 'creator'.

So christians invent stuff to fill the massive holes in their pseudo scientiffic sophistry.

Numinus has had to concede that God is not omnipotent and omniscient but when asked to give some scope of god's limited power he starts getting all hot under the collar cos he can't.

His tactic then is to plough on as though the problem will go away if you put your fingers in your ears and go la la la loud enough.

But that's religion for ya.

 

[numinus]

My problem with your proof is that you have transmogrified a supposedly "necessary" SOMETHING into a "NECESSARY BEING".

Is this what's riding up your a$$?

Something that exists -> an existence

To exist is to be -> a being

an existence -> a being

Understand?

We have no idea what our ultimate origin is,

Correction -- we have SOME idea of our ultimate origin. We have these ideas from the proof of cosmological argument.

The first cause is incontingent, infinite, and necessary.

Understand?

to postulate an anthropomorphic "god" or "being" is not supportable.

anthropomorphic

1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
2. resembling or made to resemble a human form

A 'nameless' and 'faceless' god couldn't possibly be of human FORM.

On the other hand, a god responsible for creating the rational laws of the universe through an act of will is himself rational and in possession of the principle of volition, wouldn't you say? And are not rationality and volition also aspects of the human condition?

Is that anthropomorphic enough for you?

We "assume" that something happened

Something INDEED happened. The universe can concieveably exist or not exist, no? The universe exists therefore something happened that caused it to exist.

This is something very similar to the principles of motion -- something that was known long before newton formalized his law of inertia.

A body at rest, or in constant linear motion would remain so UNLESS an external force acts upon it. So, if a chair suddenly moved in your living room, whether you understand what caused such motion or not, you can say with absolute certainty that a force acted on the chair.

because we think we are here,

Do you mean to tell me you are as skeptical as dawk about YOUR OWN existence? That somehow, you require some logical proof of it before you know it? Isn't your own existent self-evidently plain to you?

but we have no proof of what that "something" is/was.

Yes we do. We have already proven that the first cause is incontingent, infinite and necessary. The universe, science postulates, is contingent. It is the result of a chain of cause and its logical effect. It couldn't possibly begin to exist, or continue existing without this necessary being. What the full nature of this being, may not be known, but it is a being, nonetheless.

This really isn't something new. We do not know the full nature of, say, gravity. Is it an instantaneous action from a distance exhibiting an inverse-square relation, or a gaussian flux, or gravitons or space-time curvature?

Whatever its nature, we know it EXISTS simply because we can observe its effects.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

More pseudo science.

The argument from causality is self defeating.

You are left with the problem of explaining what caused god.

And you don't have an answer.

But you will probably make one up and then go into some arcane explanation that makes as little sense as what it seeks to explain.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Something that exists -> an existence

To exist is to be -> a being

an existence -> a being

Understand?

Everyting that exists is a "being"? If you are not positing an anthropomorphic "god" for which there is no proof, then we're good to go.

Correction -- we have SOME idea of our ultimate origin. We have these ideas from the proof of cosmological argument.

The first cause is incontingent, infinite, and necessary.

Understand?

The proof of cosmological argument is simply the furthest reach we can currently make, there is nothing inherently "ultimate" in our cosmologies.

anthropomorphic
1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
2. resembling or made to resemble a human form

A 'nameless' and 'faceless' god couldn't possibly be of human FORM.

So? You got a point with this?

On the other hand, a god responsible for creating the rational laws of the universe through an act of will is himself rational and in possession of the principle of volition, wouldn't you say? And are not rationality and volition also aspects of the human condition?

Is that anthropomorphic enough for you?

No particular evidence of a "god". Things are the way they are, we can't prove one way or another what made them that way and postulating an anthropomorphic "god" is unsupportable. That we may have some of the attributes that we assign to "god" doesn't mean that "god" exists or that even if "god" did that we would be correct in our assignment of human qualities to It.

Something INDEED happened. The universe can concieveably exist or not exist, no? The universe exists therefore something happened that caused it to exist.

This is something very similar to the principles of motion -- something that was known long before newton formalized his law of inertia.

A body at rest, or in constant linear motion would remain so UNLESS an external force acts upon it. So, if a chair suddenly moved in your living room, whether you understand what caused such motion or not, you can say with absolute certainty that a force acted on the chair.

Good as far as you go, but when you phone me up and announce that "god" moved the chair, then you are on shaky ground. "Something" doesn't necessarily equate to "god".

Do you mean to tell me you are as skeptical as dawk about YOUR OWN existence? That somehow, you require some logical proof of it before you know it? Isn't your own existent self-evidently plain to you?

Well, I try to keep an open mind on these things. Existentialism can be slippery.

Yes we do. We have already proven that the first cause is incontingent, infinite and necessary. The universe, science postulates, is contingent. It is the result of a chain of cause and its logical effect. It couldn't possibly begin to exist, or continue existing without this necessary being. What the full nature of this being, may not be known, but it is a being, nonetheless.

This really isn't something new. We do not know the full nature of, say, gravity. Is it an instantaneous action from a distance exhibiting an inverse-square relation, or a gaussian flux, or gravitons or space-time curvature?

Whatever its nature, we know it EXISTS simply because we can observe its effects.

Why then do you not attribute gravity to an anthropomorphic "god" source? I just don't think you've given anything but semantic froth to justify an anthropomorphic "god" as the ultimate source of our existence. Maybe a self-aware computer program made the being you call "god" and then "god" made us, that computer program would be the next step out towards our ultimate source, but something must have started the computer program... on and on we go with no requirement for a manlike "god".

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You're dead right.

All Numinus' arguments amount to is the somewhat desperate 'There has to be something'.

But we all know that inside he is just itching to add 'so therefore god of the bible'.

It is the desperration of christian 'logic'.

Merry xmas Mare, thanks for some great posts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You're dead right.

All Numinus' arguments amount to is the somewhat desperate 'There has to be something'.

But we all know that inside he is just itching to add 'so therefore god of the bible'.

It is the desperration of christian 'logic'.

Merry xmas Mare, thanks for some great posts.

I don't really celebrate Xmas, I'm not all that big on faux Christian holidays. But you should have a merry (whatever you celebrate) holiday too, Dawks.

You're pretty hard on the religious folk's hypocritical dogma--I admire that in a person.

 

[The Scotsman]

Please don't let this debate descend any further guys its getting a bit dodgy.

Spirit of Christmas and goodwill to all men...............

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Mare, I agree which is why I call it xmas.

Scots, the followers of religion have for centuries rammed their vile nonesensical views down peoples' necks. They have tortured and killed people for thinking differently.

It is more than reasoanble to debunk their presposterous hate filled superstition.

For example they call Christmas a time of peace on earth and goodwill to ALL men.

And then the pope and several of the christians on this board carry on expressing their bigoted hatred towards gay people.

It is my right to do everything I can within the law to redress the balance and expose these people fo the charlatans they are.

Merry xmas to you too BTW;-)

 

[top gun]

numinus;78995]You forgot to mention singularities, tacheon particles, dark energy, etc., etc.

Fine. So because those particular things are not 100% scientifically proven (even though a plethora of other scientific facts are) we should jump from that to ghosts & goblins????????? Come on my friend.

LMAO

Have you identified the fallacy in the cosmological argument yet?

Or did it suddenly become fashionable to have FAITH in the non-existence of something?

And yet I say again... there's a fundamental difference between not knowing something... and just making something up I don't know and worshiping it as a God.

If you define an 'alien force' as incontingent, infinite and necessary, then I have no problems with that.

WHATEVER YOU WISH TO CALL IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

Might be Klingons. That's not exactly your God though is it? I'm not going to worship Klingons just because it "might" be them that created everything either. Both aliens and your envisioning of a "God" hold the same weight.

Well maybe not "Klingons" because that's an alien made up by humans to sell a story. Wait!

No I take that back... it actually is the exact same thing.

Now you are waiting for proof of 'nothing'.

What hilarious ignorance! The 'agnostic' who purports the impossibility of proving a negative awaits the proof of nothing!!!

What else can one say in the face of such blatant ignorance?

Not at all. I'm simply awaiting prove of ANYTHING.

The self-proclaimed agnostic who do not even know what agnosticism is claims metaphysics is voodoo witchcraft!

Aren't you embarassed with yourself yet?

Not really... little embarrassed for you though. I mean you're the one pushing the one all powerful Fairy theory.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Numinus, I have a question for you.

Is it a requirement of becoming a christian that you become really angry and rude towards people who do not believe in God?

Is that how christianity works?

If so I am even happier that I am not one.

It has always struck me how ironic it is that christians are so fond of war, discrimination and general viciousness towards their fellow man.

I guess that is what comes from basing your lifestyle on a lie designed to keep people like you in their place being a good boy so that Santa will bring him presents.

 

[numinus]

Everyting that exists is a "being"? If you are not positing an anthropomorphic "god" for which there is no proof, then we're good to go.

Of course I'm positing an anthropomorphic god? If there is nothing similar to god and man, we couldn't even concieve such a thing, now, could we?

The proof of cosmological argument is simply the furthest reach we can currently make, there is nothing inherently "ultimate" in our cosmologies.

It does represent the end of the line for scientific inquiry though.

So? You got a point with this?

Isn't the point obvious to you yet? The hebrew patriarchs were envisioning a god that is not of any human form. That's part of the reason they were the odd kids in the 'fertile crescent civilizations' neighborhood.

God's anthropomorphism was something more fundamental than form.

No particular evidence of a "god". Things are the way they are, we can't prove one way or another what made them that way and postulating an anthropomorphic "god" is unsupportable. That we may have some of the attributes that we assign to "god" doesn't mean that "god" exists or that even if "god" did that we would be correct in our assignment of human qualities to It.

This is all nonsense. And I have roundly debunked this nonsense ages ago.

As I have stated in the gravity thread, we do not exactly know the true nature of gravity except that it exists in the natural world. And because we believe it exists, we also believe it can be defined absolutely in the language of science and mathematics (that is, it is wholly a rational phenomenon). There is nothing to support the idea that gravity is wholly rational (except by intuition) and the questions keep coming as if it were. And to a very large part, we are correct in this, although such an absolute definition still eludes us.

Understand?

Good as far as you go, but when you phone me up and announce that "god" moved the chair, then you are on shaky ground. "Something" doesn't necessarily equate to "god".

Please don't pretend to lecture me about the scientific method.

We also know that, when we eliminate all probable explanations from a field of possibility, whatever remains, though improbable, must be true. Its been done this way before, it is being done this way presently.

Well, I try to keep an open mind on these things. Existentialism can be slippery.

Your mind is ridiculously open if you can state with absolute conviction, god's non-existence and yet cannot state your own existence, equally. And while these sort of statements are sufficient for morons like dawk, it really sounds absurd for people using logical rigor.

Why then do you not attribute gravity to an anthropomorphic "god" source?

Isn't the statement -- the cause of EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING, attributing gravity to god enough for you?

I just don't think you've given anything but semantic froth to justify an anthropomorphic "god" as the ultimate source of our existence.

I think your pre-occupation with 'froth' completely clouds your rational faculties.

Maybe a self-aware computer program made the being you call "god" and then "god" made us, that computer program would be the next step out towards our ultimate source, but something must have started the computer program... on and on we go with no requirement for a manlike "god".

And what elements of this 'self-aware computer' is fundamentally different from god, eh?

And if they have the same elements, why go against the principle of okham's razor, postulating computers making gods making everything is an unnecessary waste of brain cells.

Fact -- there are rational principles and there is the principle of volition or will.

You eat to assuage your hunger and to sustain you physically. You eat a particular food at a particular time simply because you like to. So, we have attributed two very distinct reasons for a simple act of eating.

Right down to the behavior of elementary particles, you have aspects that behave quantum mechanically, and there is a degree of uncertainty to its motion.

Is it not reasonable then, that the first cause has rationality and will? Is there any other principle you could think of that does not involve these two? And lastly, in the question of cosmology, is it entirely logical to presume that whatever caused everything has only one of these two principles?

 

[numinus]

Fine. So because those particular things are not 100% scientifically proven (even though a plethora of other scientific facts are) we should jump from that to ghosts & goblins????????? Come on my friend.

If these conclusions have no logical infirmities -- then why the hell not? Take note that I am not a bit interested in your word play -- only what logically follows from a logical argument.

You, on the other hand, has taken the ridiculous position that existence is based on scientific evidence. So, when you declare I love you to your wife, children and friends, you weren't actually stating love but a twisted form of tit-for-tat ultimately ending in some form of materially quantifiable gain for you.

That is so endearing.

And yet I say again... there's a fundamental difference between not knowing something... and just making something up I don't know and worshiping it as a God.

I have proven the existence of god from ontology -- hence a logical truth. How I worship god is entirely my own business. Neither the proof of god's existence, nor my religion has anything to do with science or scientific evidence.

Just because you do not wish to pray has also nothing to do with ontology or your self-declared agnosticism.

Might be Klingons. That's not exactly your God though is it? I'm not going to worship Klingons just because it "might" be them that created everything either. Both aliens and your envisioning of a "God" hold the same weight.

Well maybe not "Klingons" because that's an alien made up by humans to sell a story. Wait!

No I take that back... it actually is the exact same thing.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You say klingons are incontingent, infinite and necessary?

You see, your semantic nonsense has nothing to do with logic.

Not at all. I'm simply awaiting prove of ANYTHING.

LMAO

So you lied?

As I recall, you believe that it could be anything or nothing.

Poor ignorant agnostic. You cannot even claim what you believe in without confessing the lie you know is underneath all your bravado.

Not really... little embarrassed for you though. I mean you're the one pushing the one all powerful Fairy theory.

How silly of me. Of course you can't be embarassed. What one is ignorant of, one cannot possibly feel shame of as well.

Although you might want to cut-down on the use of fairy. You might inadvertantly set mare off.