Proof that God does not exist...

[Kuroko]

Or simply that science is the study of 'supernaturalisms' work.
To say that the slow evolution of our brains is evidence against supernaturalism I am assuming and please tell me this isn't the case as supernatural (ism) can be used to discribe any thing from a magicians act to god, however I guess you are refering to the time spans explained in the bible.

If this is so the exanses of time and the measurements within need to be taken into context with one another not taken literally like it would appear you yourself have done.

Science is a study of nature, nature not simply meaning wild life but also the nature of the universe (as a whole, including every thing within it), there is no reason that science must unequate god from the surroundings when all science really does is give us more understanding of our surroundings.

Naturalism provides better explanations of phenomena with fewer ad hoc assumptions.

Naturalism privedes nothing of the sort with regards to phenomena.

the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

Naturalism is simply the belief that phenomena are explained through science. Dictionary.com

Absence of reliable evidence for the supernatural and abundant evidence of the natural.

You have really managed to tie yourself on this one, through supernatural acts.. like, I don't know, creating the universe, through science it is explained that god didn't do it, or does science simply explain the process that happened, I suggest you tread carefully on your answer with this one, I intend it to come back at you should you tread to hastily.

Weighing up the evidence in a critical (not faith based) manner one concludes that supernaturalism is an implausible alternative to naturalism.

I am the most objective and logically inclined person you may ever meet, I don't just say that please have faith (pun was intended on that one) in me on that one. I say when you weigh up the number of evidence pointing towards the universe and it's creation, or in your case, simply how it came to be, when weighing up this evidence I want you to also weigh up precisely what chance the universe had to produce life.. now hear me out, I'm taking a chance on this, I want you to erm.. well.. "scientifically" I say it with quotations because the beliefe in science as an explination for actions or events does not make one a scientist, I want you to scientifically weigh up the odds, then weigh up the odds taking into consideration precisely how finely tuned the universe is to have reached this precise outcome, look up fine tuning on wiki or some thing, your asking us to weigh up evidence without providing any to weigh up, atleast let me point YOU in the right direction on where to get MY evidence.

A scientific precedent which weighs up evidence sounds more like a jury where the requirement is a PHD and a lack of morals.

[Vladmirt]

Most of you are stating that there is a god, but in the ignorance of repeated mistakes. Allow me to clarify. The ancient civilizations of our time, such as the romans, obliously had a polytheistical belief system. We now observe their religions and toss them aside lightly as fools play. Their beliefs have been proven to be symbols of what was most required in their societies. for instance, the goddess Demeter, the god of harvest was created as a hope and symbol of their needs. It was a way they could feel they had some say over the natural events that occured, that if they sacrificed things, good things would happen. we are no different except for in the matter of what our needs are. we don't need harvest, we need a savior and protector. we need the assurance that our good deeds will render us immortal and that one day we will be judged by the son of god and so on and so forth. the main point is we have repeated the cycle, and 10,000 years from now another religious path will be forged, and ours will be the one the future people will look back on and laugh at.

[Kuroko]

I believe one of the chief practices of a Deist or even Theist is that of accepting the existance of god (even "a" god) so I don't see where the ignorance comes from. Perhaps it came from us already having personally studied other religions, indeed even the romans and even STILL coming to the conclusion that there is indeed a god. This is not true ignorance, ignorance would be better portrayed by the person who believed for no reason that none of the above happened for simple reasons of bettering his or her arguement.

I ask you nothing about ignorance as your display was a good example.
The ignorant side of me does wonder, however, why those needs are the only needs which can produce the need for god.

I am under the impression (note: impression not assumption, I am unlike you on this matter) that your beliefe is that religion in general is the product of a fear of the unknown or even the hopes for some thing more, be it personal or be it spiritual. I believe you gave enough evidence in your first post on this forum to illustrate that impression I recieved.

However, ignorance does strike again in that fear even in accord to the bible only leads the blind, my need for a god is not to explain that which we are afraid of, or indeed are afraid because we simply will not know until the very thing we are afraid of happens, but instead my need is to explain that which only a god can explain.

Let me refraise that, that which only god can explain.
You see, it extends for me beyond simple fine tuning, that the universe is the way it is and that were any thing different the universe simply would not be possible (it really is on such a large scale) but, through the course of science, every answer we have found, every time we get that little bit closer to an explination OTHER then god, funnily enough the answer points to be so precise that nothing BUT god (through view of perfection) could have done such a task. I offer you to a referance known as the precision point.

A value so indescribably precise yet so fundamentally important to the universe physicists could hardly believe.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuroko I hate to have to argue against you

Hey, that's why we're here, right? Search for the truth and all that, no?

Quote by: Kuroko Every thing which God does is good.

Let's make sure we're on the same page here: Could God lie? Murder? Inflict needless suffering? If so, in what way is God omnibenevolent? Don't such acts interfere with God's perfection (a more perfect being would be perfect morally as well)?

Quote by: Kuroko How does this encompase perfection?

Because a being that does not exist can have no properties at all, including perfection. If God were to cease to exist, God's perfection would cease as well. And such a thing is impossible.

Quote by: Kuroko If there were a peanut on a table, and I ate the peanut, would the peanut cease to exist?

Not immediately. It would once it was digested.

Quote by: Kuroko Expand, table now means universe, peanut equals yourself and the eater of the peanut equats to god while the action of eating now equates to the will of god, the choice of god to allow the existance of a peanut to exist on the table or not exist on the table has no say over weather the peanut exists, and yet, in accordance the peanut does NOT exist on the table yet still exists.

Existence means existence. Period. It doesn't mean 'existence in the universe'.

Quote by: Kuroko Apparantly you agree with me, therefore, removing the laws of this universe which was created by god, it is possible to exist AND not exist.

No, because the law of non-contradiction is a logical law, not a natural law. Something cannot possess both property X and not-X at the same time. The very possession of X prohibits not possessing it. It doesn't matter what universe you're in, or even whether you're in a universe at all; logic is binding.

Quote by: luke virtual kh Arguments for naturalism

None of that is a proof, for the record.

Quote by: luke virtual kh 1.Scientific precedent. Science succesfully fills gaps in knowledge, often replacing supernaturalist views but never vice versa, and it's explanations and methodology are completely naturalistic. 2.Naturalism provides better explanations of phenomena with fewer ad hoc assumptions.

Alright, science is good at explaining stuff. That's what it does. How does this support "no supernatural stuff exists"?

Quote by: luke virtual kh Absence of reliable evidence for the supernatural and abundant evidence of the natural.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance. Just because a claim is unsupported does not mean that it's refuted.

Quote by: luke virtual kh 4. Our observationally confirmed slowly evolved brains and lives support naturalism as slow evolution is required in an naturalistic universe, but things would probably be otherwise if supernaturalism were true.

Why?

Quote by: luke virtual kh Weighing up the evidence in a critical (not faith based) manner one concludes that supernaturalism is an implausible alternative to naturalism.

That's a conclusion, not support.

Vladmirt:
Yes, religions have been wrong in the past. That says nothing about today's religions. Science has been wrong in the past as well. Do we therefore reject all of science?

[Vladmirt]

On your topic of your personal beliefs, you say

my need for a god is not to explain that which we are afraid of, or indeed are afraid because we simply will not know until the very thing we are afraid of happens, but instead my need is to explain that which only a god can explain.

just on that i would like to point out that in no point of my argument did i ever say that they based their religeons on fear. Also on another point, i wonder whether you were born into cristianity or catholicism, for if you did i must admitt, that explains alot. that is not to say it is wrong for one to be born into a religeon, but it does explain your somewhat one sided approach. that is not to be rude in any way, however to me that is how it is coming off.

you bring up alot on my reference to ignorance, and i would like to clarify that that was not my main point and don't consider believers to necessarily be ignorant. i stated that the ignorance comes from not learning from previous societies mistakes.

i also would like you to think not only of the earth we live in, but of the entire universe. i would like you to answer whether you can truly believe that the entirity of the universe was created by a god, and if so, if that means that every life form on those planets are indebted to him as well. other scholars and such have agreed,(that is not to say you feel the same way) that animals do not make it to heaven because they have not the will or brain power to do so, or even to contemplate the matter. if this is true, then does that also mean that all of the other things out there, if there are, also don't have that possiblility? can we really be so filled with pride to think that god made trillions of stars, and many trillions more planets, just for us? did he make it that way so only we can go to heaven? from what i have read that isn't exactly what god is out there to do. i deny the existence of god also because his supposed actions don't match up with what he is supposedly for. i don't think there could be a god, solely for us, because i don't find it possible that the billions of years in time before our existance were pointless to him, and that he just needed us for the few thousand years we have been here, and the few thousand more we will stay. i fear what i haven't written is not accurate to what i wish to say but can offer no more clarification.

[Kuroko]

Castle;
Your arguements I noted were still forcing this particullar universes set of rules onto it. Some thing cannot be another, if it is one state it cannot be the other, my arguement with the peanut was to show how the meaning of existance can be interpreted under different ideals.

If I suddenly dissapeared, indeed from this universe/plane of existance does that mean that I have dissapeared from ALL planes of existance, now ask the same question in relation to what God could do about both.

From your short (and brief ) description of the point your were making (in the orriginal post it was made) I was unable to gather that god was making the command himself. I would dissagree with that as a test for perfection.
For perfection I would actually have to go with the "Alpha AND Omega" point of view.

Vladmirt;

we need the assurance that our good deeds will render us immortal and that one day we will be judged by the son of god and so on and so forth.

just on that i would like to point out that in no point of my argument did i ever say that they based their religeons on fear.

I am just currious, I do not mean to point you out to be contradictory, but I am currious as to what you say the above reference was SUPPOSED to highlight over our wanton need for religion.

I made points to the ignorance just as a way of showing you where assumptions can end up, consider it a hazing of sorts, a welcoming to the forums, it is a hard task to find a friend or two here, eventually you'll dissagree with them on atleast one topic and have to face them

In any case, I was brought up christian, some thing no child should need endure, for a childs heart is pure, purer still then some bibles, and purer again over the people reading from them.

A childs heart is to explore, mine was to wonder.. and religion gave way to science arround the age of ten, at eight or nine I realised religion could just be peoples way of reasuring against death.. I spent many nights afraid of death...

I find my comfort in science Vladmirt, and funnily enough it was through science I was lead back to a religious mind of sorts, much like Einstien I envission.. calling himself a Deist as I do.

I am unlike many believers in god you may have encountered before (my understandings of god are, respectfull and loving in a way but very far from the christian sense of both word and beliefes).

I do believe in life out there, other life forms that is.
numerically it does not stand to reason that this planet be the only one with life out of the possibly endless amount out there (remember, new stars and planets are formed every day).

This would atleast be one testimony to the fact that my beliefes differ to a Theists

[Agur]

Quote by: iahag ... I can further this and say that God MUST have experienced some form of time during his existence to be there.

You're assuming the existence of time. It is difficult to comprehend how anything can exist without a temporal dimension. But that doesn't mean it can't!

Quote by: iahag Why? Because infinite does not exist in any world ever. You cannot maintain that god's presence has been everywhere forever. ... key assumption(well I consider this absolute fact, a logical inevitability): Everything anywhere that is in the real universe is universally balanced. Infinite implies irrational imbalance.

What do you know about everything anywhere in the "real" universe? What do you mean with "universally balanced"? If infinite implies irrational imbalance, how come we use the concept of infinity in science (e.g. mathematics)?

.

[iahag]

What do you know about everything anywhere in the "real" universe? What do you mean with "universally balanced"? If infinite implies irrational imbalance, how come we use the concept of infinity in science (e.g. mathematics)?

Infinity doesnt actually exist in maths. We cant define it, it can take any value and then go one higher and one higher and so on... It doesnt has a value, and we cant define it. However, we still use it conceptually in maths, we even have a symbol for it, and we use it to evaluate limits. However, it doesnt actually exist. Kind of like imaginary numbers, it doesnt actually have a numerical value. However, like imaginary numbers, if you apply an operation involving infinite you may very well come to a finite answer. ie. infinity/infinity = 1, by definition. i^2 = -1 by definition.

Ive always found it an odd concept that we use imaginary numbers to explain reality. Perhaps they will come about reality in other dimensions :eek: - the ones we dont exist in. Just a thought.

When I say universally balanced I mean precisely that. Why dont certain particles exist for more than a nano second? Theyre not in balance with the factors that permit theyre continued existence. I consider the existence of the universe and everything within it proof that we, it, that is in balance in one way or another. In most cases it is a temporary balance - like a house made of cards. Its going to fall down sometime. Its waiting to happen. When I say universal balance, I mean that something, somewhere, somehow is in permanent balance with the factors that permit its continued existence. Some would call that fallacious, perhaps they are right, but its the closest Im probably ever going to come to justifying the universe and its very existence.
Perhaps the universe is just a tiny blip of imbalance - like a muon with a lifetime of 2.2μs.

edit: actually infinity/infinity=1 is a fallacious argument because infinity doesnt have a value. Its the equivalent of saying elephant/elephant=1
however: A/Infinity -> 0 is true. The -> represents 'tends to', which I dont think Is formally defined as a function either. Not sure on that one.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuroko Some thing cannot be another, if it is one state it cannot be the other, my arguement with the peanut was to show how the meaning of existance can be interpreted under different ideals.

Yes, but if what existence means stays constant, the law of non-contradiction cannot be violated. If it doesn't, the law of non-contradiction can't be violated either, because you're not talking about the same property.

Quote by: iahag Ive always found it an odd concept that we use imaginary numbers to explain reality. Perhaps they will come about reality in other dimensions

For the record, imaginary numbers are very important in electronics. They exist in reality in this dimension.
Imaginary number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[iahag]

For the record, imaginary numbers are very important in electronics. They exist in reality in this dimension.

I was aware of that. I wouldnt say they 'exist' in electronics. They're merely used for convenience. e.g. You couldnt say that the voltage is ni. You would say the voltage is the magnitude of the imaginary part of that complex number. Which is effectively a function.

[Vladmirt]

kuroko
you appeared to have used my quotes as to prove contradictory statement, whether it was intentional or not. i understand that one would be under the impression that it would deal with fear however, other emotions come to mind as well. these may include hope and reassurance. hope in the sense that they have something to wonder and, well, hope for. reassurance for the point that they believe their life meant something and would be viewed by someone who could bestow honor for their deeds in permanance.

thank you for the forum advise though, for that is what i interpret it to be. i will keep it in mind when forming allies on topics, maybe even this one, later on

i fail to see the point in your insprational childhood story, as i cannot see evidence that supports or destroys either of our issues and would like some form of clarification.

as for my topic of other life forms, you adressed the issue but failed to prove a point or even begin to answer my question. this question still remains,
If you believe there are other life forms out there, then how can you believe that they aren't indebted to god, or that god sees them just as equally. what makes us the special ones to go to heaven? you can't find that in your bible.(references to the aliens or beings in heaventhat is)
as you have clearly pointed out, there are other beings, but then why are we the only ones with a god, when god created them just the same? why are they not mentioned in the bible?

[Vladmirt]

I would like to start off by apologizing to castle for not acknowledging him sooner, for i agree with him on all the topics posed to Kuroko.

i would now like to answer his question.
You said,

Yes, religions have been wrong in the past. That says nothing about today's religions. Science has been wrong in the past as well. Do we therefore reject all of science?

well yes of course science has also been wrong in the past, but alot of it has not. alot of it is not only the same, but now has an even stronger case. this is not the case in religion, as all the ancient religeons that are not still practiced, have been tossed aside. so although science has been wrong, it has also been right, and religeon, has not yet had that fortune.

[Castle]

Quote by: Vladmirt this is not the case in religion, as all the ancient religeons that are not still practiced, have been tossed aside.

Just as many ancient scientific theories (e.x. the humorism approach to medicine or Newtonian physics) are no longer accepted and have been tossed aside.

Quote by: Vladmirt so although science has been wrong, it has also been right

Science can never claim to be right. Because science relies on induction, all remains but a theory (all prediction, that is). Example: Newtonian physics. It was accepted as an absolutely correct model for physics. Then it was proven wrong. All science has is claims, just like religion.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: underbear1 The thread author is asking others to prove a negative..........sorry no kewpie doll for you.

Bingo.

You cannot prove something doesn't exist.

Most of these arguments remind me of "the moon is made of green cheese."

Answer: We've been there.

Response: It was faked.

Answer: We have pictures.

Response: They were faked too.

Then the response is some variation on "you're a conspiracy nut," which in itself is not an argument, simply a personal insult from someone who would rather humiliate for the purpose of shutting someone up than discuss.

I willingly give you kudos though. If the planet/ecosystem/the universe is enough of a reason to argue, because of complexity, that God exists, then the complexity of such a deity at leasts hints that the creator must have had his own creator. But, in the end, it's a dog chase tail discussion. We are looking upon the end result of an initial event. Often it's hard to assess the reason; the cause, for such events when they were fairly recent. All we know is something happened. Science can give us some really good theories, but that's probably the best we can do. The rest is left to either just faith, no faith... and all the ground in between where most of us are.

[Castle]

Quote by: Ken Carman You cannot prove something doesn't exist.

Of course you can. There is no green elephant sitting on my lap right now. I am 100% certain of this. No such elephant exists.

Quote by: Ken Carman Most of these arguments remind me of "the moon is made of green cheese." Answer: We've been there. Response: It was faked. Answer: We have pictures. Response: They were faked too.

If we're going to allow that sort of absurdity, you can't prove anything exists either.
"Cats exist"
"How do you know?"
"I saw one"
"You're just plugged into The Matrix. In the real world, cats don't exist"

What say you to that?

[Vladmirt]

Castle:
i would like you to name me one religion that has not been tossed aside that is no longer worshipped. Kinda harddont you think?

anyway that is not what i want to discuss right now. you say science can't claim to be right, well niether can god. don't bring in the factor of proof in a topic like this, because everyone knows how easily it can backfire.

for the time being, i would also like to present another factor to the list.
I personally don't believe in the devil either, however i do believe in temptation. Not only do i believe that but i also believe that the devil is just the living embodiment of temptation. there is no actual thing, but his power is still there. for clarification, the devil is the embodiment of evil put into one being, and god is his natural opposite, as he embodies good. ying yang. they aren't rivaling beings, they are rivaling ideas.

[Castle]

Quote by: Vladmirt i would like you to name me one religion that has not been tossed aside that is no longer worshipped. Kinda harddont you think?

I'm not entirely sure I understand. If it is no longer worshipped, by definition it has been tossed aside, no?

Quote by: Vladmirt you say science can't claim to be right, well niether can god.

Naturally.

Quote by: Vladmirt I personally don't believe in the devil either, however i do believe in temptation. Not only do i believe that but i also believe that the devil is just the living embodiment of temptation. there is no actual thing, but his power is still there. for clarification, the devil is the embodiment of evil put into one being, and god is his natural opposite, as he embodies good.

Certainly, in that sense, God and the devil exist. But that's not what most people mean when they refer to either of those two beings.

[Vladmirt]

Castle:
on your topic with ken Carmen, you say.

Of course you can. There is no green elephant sitting on my lap right now. I am 100% certain of this. No such elephant exists.

you are not making that statement true.
it is probably true that there is no elephant on your lap, but that does not mean that such a green elephant does not exist. you can prove it does not exist in a certain place, but you cannot prove that it does not exist entirely, therefore, the green elephant that is currently(hopefully) not sitting on you lap, may be existing on the lap of the man next door. you see it can still exist, just not right there, at that time.

[Castle]

Quote by: Vladmirt it is probably true that there is no elephant on your lap

lol...Somewhat overzealous in skepticism, perhaps?

Quote by: Vladmirt it is probably true that there is no elephant on your lap, but that does not mean that such a green elephant does not exist. you can prove it does not exist in a certain place, but you cannot prove that it does not exist entirely, therefore, the green elephant that is currently(hopefully) not sitting on you lap, may be existing on the lap of the man next door. you see it can still exist, just not right there, at that time.

If a define a creature as "A green elephant sitting on my lap", I can be certain that such a creature does not exist.

But very well, we'll acommadate your objection:
I am equally certain that there is not a universe-pervading green gas in existence. Note that I am not specifying a location, merely that it has the property of being universe-pervading.

[agustine]

To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment:

If the planet/ecosystem/the universe is enough of a reason to argue, because of complexity, that God exists, then the complexity of such a deity at leasts hints that the creator must have had his own creator.

I think that you have confused the principle of causality by extending its precepts to all things that exist. The principle of causality holds that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. Even Philosopher David Hume, the most inveterate of skeptics affirmed this metaphysical prinicple, in 1754, in writing to John Stewart the following "But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause..." Sir Fredrick Hoyle, who initially proposed the Steady State Model of the universe recognized that something must be uncaused. The Steady State model has since been abandoned chiefly because it has been abrogated by the evidence. According to Stephen Hawking, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20. Cosmologist Donald Page has calculated the odds of our universe existing as on the order of one chance out of 1010(123), a number absolutely inconceivable! See L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell, "God and Modern Science: New Life for the Teleological Argument," International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1987) Robert Jastrow, chief astronomer at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has called this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science. Robert Jastrow, "The Astronomer and God," in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, (1984), p. 22. Interestingly, Sir fred Hoyle had thereafter taken the position, based upon the evidence, that "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science (November, 1981), p. 12.

Augustine