Proof that God does not exist...

[Vladmirt]

castle
well. although slightly off topic i would like to bring in a quote and alter it a bit, that you so willingly proposed to ken carmen. i believe that there is and elephant sitting on your lap. you see, right now you are in the matrix, but in real life, you are being sat on by a rather large, and rather green elephant.

although this proposal is extremely unlikely, it does prove the point that there is no possible way you can prove something does not exist.
(thanks for the idea)

[Castle]

Quote by: Vladmirt well. although slightly off topic i would like to bring in a quote and alter it a bit, that you so willingly proposed to ken carmen. i believe that there is and elephant sitting on your lap. you see, right now you are in the matrix, but in real life, you are being sat on by a rather large, and rather green elephant. although this proposal is extremely unlikely, it does prove the point that there is no possible way you can prove something does not exist.

Hmph. Existentialism is annoying. Allow me to rephrase: Non-existence can be proved to the same level of certainty as existence.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Castle 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.

What a silly comparison. Of course you can prove any damn thing to yourself that you want. But if I insist that elephant is there, you cannot prove he isn't there... to me. The point is not about what you believe but disproving what others don't believe in. Of course that doesn't mean they're right.

And of course there is no green elephant on your lap, but your supposed use of "logic" just left some elephant sized poop on top of your rhetoric.

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?

Nonsense. Except to the absolutely insane you can take a cat, test it, disect it...or even stuff its entrails down a non-believer's mouth. Physical evidence, sensual evidence, something that can be tested...

By the way, "The Matrix" is a work of fiction.

:rolleyes: Did you know that?

If something does not exist there is none of this evidence one can use to "prove" anything, but lack of evidence alone proves little.

Ergo:you cannot prove something does not exist.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: agustine To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment: 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

Actually, not. If one uses the argument that the world is so finely designed, all the different components, proves there is a God, then it's an interesting suggestion... but proves nothing. We are looking upon something that happened a long time ago and deciding that all these developments mean "God." They could just as well mean something else.

The odds of it happening this way? Inconcievable? Perhaps. If it had happened some other way would you, or some other sentient entity, be making the same argument? Of this, I have no doubt, but they wouldn't be necessarily any more right than you.

The principle of causality holds that all things that begin to exist must have a cause.

So we know that God had no beginnning... how? Hmmm... because he told us so, according to someone who told someone that God told them so? That wouldn't even hold up in any decent court proceeding.

(Of course, if we keep going the way we're going now... that may change. Who knows, maybe we can both attend a witch dipping ceremony in a few years. )

Here's what we know for sure, something happened, unless someone does believe this is The Matrix as another poster sarcastically suggested.


I am a theist with agnotic tendencies. In other words, I do believe in "God," but am willing to admit I could be wrong. I have no doubt there are plenty of scientific minds who have, or did, believe. I'm sure there have also been scientists who have been atheists, agnostics... etc. Scientists are human, after all, and even the greatest minds have been wrong.

I have no interest in having some "expert off" with you. I am simply arguing the logic some base their beliefs on. I could just as well, as I have before here on Volconvo, argued with "logic" atheists have based their disbelief on.

[Castle]

Quote by: Ken Carman What a silly comparison. Of course you can prove any damnthing to yourself that you want. But if I insist that elephant is there, you cannot prove he isn't there... to me.

OK, fine. There is no universe-pervading green (dark green in a high concentration) gas in existence at this moment. My evidence: you don't see it.

Quote by: Ken Carman Nonsense.

Kinda like the moon conspiracy theorists, no?

Quote by: Ken Carman By the way, "The Matrix" is a work of fiction.

Prove it

Quote by: Ken Carman If somethingdoesnot exist there is none ofthat to prove...either way.

Square circles don't exist. This is proven. This is because their definition is logically contradictary.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Castle OK, fine. There is no universe-pervading green (dark green in a high concentration) gas in existence at this moment. My evidence: you don't see it.

That's not evidence. That's observation. Observation can contribute to any theory, but it is not "proof." However you don't see x-rays, gravity or many others things. There is plenty of other evidence we use to explain "the theory of gravity," for example. Seeing "God" is pretty damn objective an experience too. The same supposedly well-constructed planet/environment... etc we, as humans, live in can be explained in ways other than divine intervention... scientifically. Of course that doesn't negate the possibility of "God." One again, you cannot prove...

Kinda like the moon conspiracy theorists, no?

Yes, and no. Depends upon the belief, or lack thereof. As an side... I do find the current usage of "conspiracy theorist" to be annoying, however. Instead of discussing issues and concepts, some debaters use "conspiracy" in the same way people have used "stupid," "nigger..." not to further any discussion, but to shut people up by humiliating them. The moon people? They have every right to believe whatever the hell they want. I certainly don't agree, but find doubt that a single "conspiracy theorist" accusation is needed. There are some beliefs that become very much like dog chasing, and eating himself, tail first. Why hurry the buffet when it's so entertaining to watch?

Prove it

Exactly. Perhaps you understand my point now? I believe it is fiction, but can I prove it does not exist? No, as I said... well you know damn well what I said, right?

Square circles don't exist. This is proven. This is because their definition is logically contradictary.

First off, the sentence you copied from may have been from a Volconvo E-mail. I altered that one in an edit. The keyboard at home really stinks, and I knew it had to be rephrased anyway. It really doesn't make a lot of sense the way it was first typed. I tend to type Volconvo posts out of passion and correct when I can.

Such caveats aside, according to how most people understand "circle" and "square," that is a logical assumption. However, these terms, these definitions, don't really exist. They are constructs we have agreed to use to describe "circle" and "square" to other like minded people. Once again, to say we all agree on a definition, and then turn around and say that proves something contrary to the definition exists is impossible, is similar to you proving to yourself that something doesn't exist. It proves nothing except to all those who have agreed to use that strict of a definition.

BTW, I am arguing "logic" with here. Not what I believe, or don't believe, either theologically or geometrically... or any other "ly."

[Castle]

Quote by: Ken Carman Observation can contribute to any theory, but it is not "proof." However you don't see x-rays, gravity or many others things.

Our hypothetical gas is dark green. We know that humans can see dark green. We know that, if this gas existed, you would see it (because it is universe-pervading). You don't. Therefore the gas doesn't exist. This isn't that hard.

Quote by: Ken Carman Once again, to say we all agree on a definition, and then turn around and say that proves something contrary to the definition exists is impossible, is similar to you proving to yourself that something doesn't exist. It proves nothing except to all those who have agreed to use that strict of a definition.

You're gasping for straws. When we use words, we're not talking about the words themselves, we're talking about the concepts they represent. It doesn't matter what you call it; whether you want to call a circle a circle or a asjkfl, we're still talking about the same thing. And the concept that is defined as having both the characteristics of a circle (the concept, not the word) and those of a square (again, the concept) is logically impossible. It cannot exist. And it doesn't matter what we call it. We could call it a "square circle" or a "purple tree" and it still would be logically impossible.

[Vladmirt]

Castle:
i would like to say that yourstatement to ken carman's message that says that the matrix is a work of fiction is quite witty. i find that so because it completely tears up his arguments. he says that you can't prove something can't exist and then give a jab likethat, which uses his beliefs against him. brilliant. he can't agree with both, and so must abandon an argument.

Hmph. Existentialism is annoying. Allow me to rephrase: Non-existence can be proved to the same level of certainty as existence.

i wonder if this is supposed to be an argument, for i find no powerful or even weak contradiction in it. please point it out for me.

Ken Carmen:

Nonsense. Except to the absolutely insane you can take a cat, test it, disect it...or even stuff its entrails down a non-believer's mouth. Physical evidence, sensual evidence, something that can be tested.

except to the absolutely insane? well i believe that no matter whether it is physical evidence, sensual evidence or something that could be tested, their are still instances that can occur that makes those useless. at first i believed that you were supporting the notion that said you cannot prove something does not exist and find this statement quite contradictory. well dispite that, i have one of the instances i mentioned earlier.
your dreaming. that is why you think cats exist because your having people stick down cats entrials into your throat as a cause of your traumatizing childhood. cats don't exist though.

and dreams probably do exist.
and note this is just and example

[Castle]

Quote by: Vladmirt i wonder if this is supposed to be an argument, for i find no powerful or even weak contradiction in it. please point it out for me.

There's not supposed to be. It's a statement that is, IMO, true. The only way that we can make the statement that non-existence is unprovable is to have sufficient skepticism such that existence is also unprovable. Thus, to reject one of these positions is to reject both.

[agustine]

To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment

am simply arguing the logic some base their beliefs on.

I do not think you are appealing to logic here, insofar as the following argument is absolutely coherent. I think you are appealing to reason. a common mistake to confuse the two terms. However, if you accept the validity of a posteriori reasoning, then, based upon the empirical application of the senses and the evidence derived therefrom, positing God as an explanation of the facts is entirely rational.

Augustine

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Castle Our hypothetical gas is dark green. We know that humans can see dark green. We know that, if this gas existed, you would see it (because it is universe-pervading). You don't. Therefore the gas doesn't exist.

Once again, you're proving my point. This is growing tiresome, and redundant.

I don't see ghosts. Maybe you do. If you see ghosts, does that prove they exist? Some people hear voices. Does that prove they exist? What we see, or don't see, proves little. That doesn't mean we should disregard any of that, of course. But "proving" something is a scientific endeavor involving much more than what you see, hear, taste... and since something that does not exist can't be tested in that way, once again, you cannot prove it does not exist.

This isn't that hard.

Yawn. I could reply with some similar snot, but I won't.

You're gasping for straws. .

Yawn. I could reply with some similar snot, but I won't.

When we use words, we're not talking about the words themselves, we're talking about the concepts they represent.

Sort of. We are using a collection of sounds to represent something: concept, item... whatever, we hopefully both agree on... for the most part.

It doesn't matter what you call it; whether you want to call a circle a circle or a asjkfl, we're still talking about the same thing.

Uh, no. We're hopefully talking about something we have come to an agreement on as "circle," "square," the further we examine that "agreement" we would find variations in that agreement, however slight. The agreement is one of convenience: close enough to use that information as it stands as a standard and the expand on that. It's a grand thing we do, for the most of the time, otherwise we'd really live in Babel. Of course the same agreements help us construct ovens and rape chambers... but that has more to do with human nature than specific to this discussion.

And the concept that is defined as having both the characteristics of a circle (the concept, not the word) and those of a square (again, the concept) is logically impossible. It cannot exist. And it doesn't matter what we call it. We could call it a "square circle" or a "purple tree" and it still would be logically impossible.

Wrong. If we examine what we have agreed to call either a square or a circle, no matter how perfect, we'd find slight curves and slight corners... nothing is absolutely perfect. Computers have made them more perfect than we, as humans, can. But the closer you investigate practically anything, especially on the microscopic level, the less perfect it becomes. You have assessed that the square, as you see it, is nothing more than what you see. Faulty assumption, similar to those who decided they would fall off the edge if they sailed out to sea.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: agustine To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment I do not think you are appealing to logic here, insofar as the following argument is absolutely coherent. I think you are appealing to reason. a common mistake to confuse the two terms. However, if you accept the validity of a posteriori reasoning, then, based upon the empirical application of the senses and the evidence derived therefrom, positing God as an explanation of the facts is entirely rational. Augustine

Um, did I say that...

positing God

..is irrational? That's not my stand. I am saying that using certain forms of "logic," or "reason," if you wish, as a way to prove, or disprove, "God" is shaky methodology at best. Is it interesting to phrase it that way? Yes, but it proves little.


As I have said before, or at least was attempting to say, we are looking at the end results of what could have been divinely designed or the result of what happens when the initial event: big bang, whatever, occurs. Maybe it might have happened another way. Would we, or something else, be using that result to explain their beliefs? Yes, they probably would.

A huge rock drops from a cliff into the water. Many waves later water sloshes upon a shore. Maybe God caused the rock to drop. Maybe it was simple erosion. Maybe some deity used the erosion to further his wishes. But if we needed that wave to escape an island that does not necessitate divine intervention. If there is "God," one would hope so.

Do I believe in God? Yes. But I believe any possible divine intervention is limited... at best. The universe is designed to work in certain ways, not always benevolent. Kind of like a fine watch or clock... simplistic example, but it will have to do. To blame a deity, or give them credit, has more to do with our egos than anything God may or may not do.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Vladmirt Castle: i would like to say that yourstatement to ken carman's message that says that the matrix is a work of fiction is quite witty. i find that so because it completely tears up his arguments. he says that you can't prove something can't exist and then give a jab likethat, which uses his beliefs against him. brilliant. he can't agree with both, and so must abandon an argument.

:rolleyes: Notice I haven't abandoned squat. If you wish to believe that, that is your choice.

Ken Carmen: except to the absolutely insane? well i believe that no matter whether it is physical evidence, sensual evidence or something that could be tested, their are still instances that can occur that makes those useless. at first i believed that you were supporting the notion that said you cannot prove something does not exist and find this statement quite contradictory. well dispite that, i have one of the instances i mentioned earlier. your dreaming. that is why you think cats exist because your having people stick down cats entrials into your throat as a cause of your traumatizing childhood. cats don't exist though. and dreams probably do exist. and note this is just and example

Believe it or not, I agree with your first statement. That's why science, decent science... not science that has been turned into a belief system, uses the term "theory." We can test all we want, but theories should be tested and compared with what we know, see, sense and think now. Some of the best of humanity comes from "out of the box," using a cliche'.

The rest of what you posted? I respond... Huh?

By the way, I have never dissected cats or stuffed anything down anyone's throat. They were extreme examples, admittedly, of how to prove something does exist to someone else. Of course that person is free to accept such "proof," or not... for themselves. But they are not free to force it on others, any more than I would actually perform such horrific acts.

As an aside, this is one of the problems with some poeple's take on a forum such as this. They postulate from creative phrasing and examples, and then invent junk, like some imaginary traumatic childhood... for someone they really don't know. You know nothing about me. I know nothing about you. We two strangers who are having a conversation via the net.

But I can say that it seems that you may enjoy jumping to convenient conclusions, convenient to yourself and inconvenient to whomever you wish to dress up as either saint or saint.

Ah, but we are conversing about absolutes, aren't we?

I'm not much of a believer in such, although they are convenient, as you found when you decided you knew what my childhood was like... which it's pretty damn obvious that you don't.

[Castle]

Ken Carmen: Regarding our first point of discussion: would you agree with the statement "If there exist things that can be proven to exist, there are things that can be proven not to exist"?

Quote by: Ken Carman Yawn. I could reply with some similar snot, but I won't.

My frustration was getting the better of me, but that's no excuse, and I can't offer one. My sincere apologies.

Quote by: Ken Carman If we examine what we have agreed to call either a square or a circle, no matter how perfect, we'd find slight curves and slight corners... nothing is absolutely perfect. Computers have made them more perfect than we, as humans, can. But the closer you investigate practically anything, especially on the microscopic level, the less perfect it becomes.

Perhaps we are being unclear about definitions. I apologize. A circle is the locus of all points on a plane equadistant from a given point. A square is a polygon with four equal sides, four right angles, and parallel opposite sides. There is no (Euclidean) geometric shape that has all of the properties of both. That, I hope, is unambiguous enough?

[Kuldeep]

Not going through all the 12 pages, I would repeat my simple proof that God does not exist in just two lines, that too mathematially.

Science has shown our universe expands with positive acceleratrion thus, approaching + infinity. Anything (God for example of any dimension) if added to this infinity would still remain infinity only. Obviously, therefore no separate manfested omnipotent God is possible. We can re-name this infinite universe only as God.:eek: :)

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuldeep Science has shown our universe expands with positive acceleratrion thus, approaching + infinity. Anything (God for example of any dimension) if added to this infinity would still remain infinity only. Obviously, therefore no separate manfested omnipotent God is possible. We can re-name this infinite universe only as God.

I believe the general idea is that God created the universe. He would therefore exist outside of it, and whether or not the universe is infinite would be irrelevent.

[Jack]

would you agree with the statement "If there exist things that can be proven to exist, there are things that can be proven not to exist"?

I'm not Ken, but I don't agree. What means do you suggest we use to prove that something doesn't exist, especially when that something is supposed to be a god?

[agustine]

To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment

“Um, did I say that...”

Yes… With respect to your comment

“as a way to prove, or disprove, "God" is shaky methodology at best….”

Why? I do not understand why it is irrational. Particularly when the knowledge of God, according to Notre Dame Philosopher Alan Plantiga in his pioneering work Warrant and Proper Function, is a properly basic belief, and as such it is entirely rational to hold. By basic beliefs I mean those beliefs that do not depend upon other beliefs for their justification. Now, I know you are not arguing that belief in God is irrational, but that positing God as an explanation for the existence of the universe is irrational. First, you have not sufficiently explained why God as an explanation is irrational. Second, based upon the evidence, I think God is the only realistic option available to us. Allow me to develop my argument a bit further, yet with the interest of brevity in mind. In positing God as an explanation for the existence of the universe, I am arguing for an efficient cause. Now, in referring to the principle of causality, two specific modes are generally offered:

1. Event causation; and,
2. Agential causation

Now, the existence of the universe as an effect does not appear to be caused by an event for the following reasons, although not exhaustive: First, no events precede the singularity. In fact to use the term “precede” is absurd insofar as it implies a priority within time when time itself did not exist. According to Physicist Paul Davies, “An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space–time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space–time itself.” Second, a timelessly present cause would yield a timelessly present effect. Accordingly, this notion of a timelessly present effect is abrogated by the observational evidence. In other words, according to Philosopher William Lane Craig, “For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were timelessly present, then the effect would be timelessly present as well.” If, however, the cause were personal, or agential, it would not result in the timeless cause yielding a timeless effect, insofar as the prior determinative conditions would not need to be present. Causation, in the agential circumstance would be teleological in nature. Also, the agential cause solves the problem posed by the space-time boundary. Because of the boundary in question, the cause itself must be changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Ultimately, the agential cause must transcend space and time, be metaphysically necessary and therefore uncaused. The only entities that contain these properties are abstract objects like numbers, or a mind. However, numbers do not stand in causal relations to things, yet minds do. I think this is what we mean when we use the term “God”. It describes a transcendent, disembodied mind. I think, given the exceedingly brief sketch provided herein, it is entirely rational to posit God as an efficient cause of the universe.

Agustine

[agustine]

To Mr. Ken Carman. By the way, with respect to your comment

"The universe is designed to work in certain ways, not always benevolent. Kind of like a fine watch or clock... simplistic example, but it will have to do. To blame a deity, or give them credit, has more to do with our egos than anything God may or may not do."

I was under the impression that all designs require a designer... Also, how could natural laws cause a specified, complex object like a watch? I do not think the question of ego is raised by these explanations but the more appropriate question: what is more rational to believe?

Augustine

[Zhavric]

Every now and again, I peek in on this thread to watch the gymnastics act of the resident apologists. It's amazing how you guys can bend over backwards.

I do not understand why it is irrational. Particularly when the knowledge of God, according to Notre Dame Philosopher Alan Plantiga in his pioneering work Warrant and Proper Function, is a properly basic belief, and as such it is entirely rational to hold. By basic beliefs I mean those beliefs that do not depend upon other beliefs for their justification. Now, I know you are not arguing that belief in God is irrational, but that positing God as an explanation for the existence of the universe is irrational. First, you have not sufficiently explained why God as an explanation is irrational. Second, based upon the evidence, I think God is the only realistic option available to us.

The bolded part has all the makings of an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if it's not, I see no reason to assume god exists. All you've done is presented god of the gaps reasoning, especially in the latter half of the quote. It's this line of "reasoning" that posits Zues creates lightning, Apollo is the sun and so on. "We don't know what it is, so it must be god". This reasoning has NEVER been proven to be true and has been disproven so many times it's a wonder theists still bother with it.

Inventing a supernatural creature to account for the unexplained is the hallmark of folklore, not reason.