| Advertise Here » Browse ad-free by donating | |
|
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools |
Jun 18, 2007, 10:20 am
| #1 (permalink) (top) |
 SUSPENDED (1 Week)  Posts: 3,571 | How we know there is no god I. Burden of proof. This thread is a reply to the claims "god exists" and / or "god is possible". Those are the initial truth claims wherein the burden of proof lays. This is not to say I'm not responsible for supporting my side of the argument. I am stating this here so it's understood, as an atheist making the counter argument, my burden is to simply poke holes in the positive claim. If you claim X is real and I prove you're wrong then X isn't real. See? Simple. II. Evidence, science and logic. In spite of my efforts, there are many on volconvo who hold some variation of "nothing can be proven". This could be an irrational distrust of science or belief that logic doesn't always work. This misunderstanding of science and logic is called the "know-nothing" stance or know-nothingism because it's used to attempt to prove proven things aren't proven. The know-nothing stance is critically flawed. With nothing proven and anything possible, the word "impossible" becomes comically meaningless. Zhav: "Would you tell your kids closet monsters exist?"As we can see from that last statement, the know-nothingist is often ignorant of science and scientific law. We can know things. We do know things. We know them through science which uses logic and evidence. That being clarified... III. Definitions of god: all flawed Some on volconvo have tried to assert since it's not known exactly what god is, we're for some reason unable to discuss god. This extension of the know-nothing stance is useless to us. We certainly can discuss the characteristics of beings which do not exist or have somewhat amorphous attributes. Could Spiderman beat up Superman? Movie Superman or comic book pre-crisis Superman? God claims run a spectrum from the ill-defined deist version of god to the specific religious versions such as the tri-omni Christian god. The deist god is little more than a mechanism for getting the universe started; a not so defined Big Bang with a different name. The Christian version of god is interested in human beings, listens & answers their prayers, knows everything knowable, is supremely good and can do anything logically possible (i.e. anything that doesn't pose a paradox like a "married batchelor"). All versions of god, as Kame, pointed out have one common attribute: they all "created the universe". IV. Conservation of energy While there are a plethora of scientific laws any version of god contradicts, we know Conservation of Energy (CoE) is the one all versions contradict. It's proven by science energy cannot be created. It can only be introduced from an extrenal source. Thus, a creator has to violate this law or he's not the creator. God has to make energy out of nothing which contradicts what we know to be true. Theists, agnostics and know-nothingists will try to get around this problem in some creatively bankrupt ways:
V. Intelligence Intelligence is an attribute of god in all but the most strictly deist definitions. We know through science intelligence does not appear naturally. Know-nothingists like to think of intelligence as an abstract, but what intelligence actually is has everything to do with neurons firing in specific orders. No neurons = no intelligence. So, claiming "god is intelligent" carries with it the implied claim "intelligence can exist outside a neurological structure". Without evidence, we must adhere to what's been proven by science. Science tells us intelligence only results from a lengthy process (evolution). Could there be intelligence in another form that simply popped into existence? The proper answer to that question is "No. Not until there evidence for it." VI. Conclusion There will be some know-nothings who assert "god is beyond / above / not subject to science". This, itself, is a claim which contradicts proven claims. It takes evidence to establish something is an exception to a rule. Inventing a thing and fabricating attributes for it in no way negates what's already been proven. Example: "A Fupe is a thing that's intelligent without having neurons, can make energy out of nothing, and isn't subject to scientific laws. Neener!"Think Fupe's exist? Think there's any benefit from a worldview which makes the word "impossible" meaningless? I don't. Conservation of Energy and the fact surrounding biology have no exceptions. We don't toss out proven scientific facts because they may be disproven later. We revise our stance when evidence is introduced. I've end with a quote from Dawkins: "Even before Darwin's time, the illogicality was glaring: how could it ever have been a good idea to postulate, in explanation for the existence of improbable things, a designer who would have to be even more improbable?" |
|  |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 11:10 am
| #2 (permalink) (top) | |||||||||
| Hot Lava  Location: Houston, TX Posts: 927 | I like to inclusiveness of this thread. All the major stuff in one place. Quote:
Theist makes claim A: X exists. Atheist pokes holes in claim A. Claim A remains unproven. Given that situation, the X hypothesis still remains unproven, both ways. Until Atheist proves Claim B: X does not exist, it is not proven that X isn't real. X is unproven, yes, but it isn't proven to not exist. Quote:
Simply because nothing can be proven (unless a premise is assumed true) doesn't mean that anything can happen. I'd also like to point out that I'm not a "pure" nothingist. My position is that nothing can be proven unless we assume a premise to be true, and there's nothing wrong with that (that nothing can be proven, not that it is my position). We can't ignore it; we just have to live with it. Quote:
I'm guessing that the definition of God we're using is "a being that created the universe," yes? How do we define created? Created could indicate a use of existing materials to make something new, a la a carpenter crafting a chair out of pre-existing wood. The carpenter did not create the wood out of thin air. What definition of create are we using? Quote:
Quote:
The theist argument here is that God was still following CoE when he created the universe. Thus, your statement that CoE applies everywhere is logically pointless; it doesn't clash. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are using absense of evidence as an argument, and thus commit the fallacy of ignorance. Claim A: "Intelligence only exists in a neurological structure." Claim B: "Intelligence can exist in other structure X." Neither claim A nor claim B is proven. As the Neg, you are attempting to clash with the claim that God exists, but you cannot do so with unsubstantiated argumentation and then pin the burden of proof to prove your unproven claim wrong. Your claim is unproven, and thus has no logical impact. Further, for you claim to have impact and clash it must conflict with the definition of God, but the proposed definition of God in this thread does not include any mention of intelligence. Either revise the definition of God or drop the argument. Quote:
| |||||||||
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 11:24 am
| #3 (permalink) (top) |
| SUSPENDED (1 Week) Posts: 3,571 | You've shot yourself in the foot with your know-nothing stance. By your own logic, everything you've asserted as true is just an assumption on your part because nothing can be proven unless we make a lot of assumptions. So, what's the point? You can't prove god is possible without making assumptions. You're going to have to accept your own logic or contradict yourself. Which will it be? |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 11:32 am
| #4 (permalink) (top) |
| Hot Lava Location: Houston, TX Posts: 927 | Zhavric, if you want to go that route instead of actually debating, then very well. Your entire thread is invalidated because it makes assumptions. The God Hypothesis remains unproven, both ways. Well done. --- Now, maybe we can actually be "big boys" and use reading comprehension. Let's see what I wrote, eh? "I'd also like to point out that I'm not a "pure" nothingist. My position is that nothing can be proven unless we assume a premise to be true, and there's nothing wrong with that (that nothing can be proven, not that it is my position). We can't ignore it; we just have to live with it." I've said again and again that my position doesn't invalidate all debate and logic altogether. It's just that all such conversation carries a disclamer: I'm making an assumption. And that's fine, as long as both parties agree that the assumption is justified. How about you debate instead of copping out? I actually spent a deal of time on that post, nearly as much as you did for the OP, I expect. |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:02 pm
| #5 (permalink) (top) | ||
| SUSPENDED (1 Week) Posts: 3,571 | Quote:
Ridiculous. "God exists" contradicts too much of what we already know to be true to be the other side of the coin as you've alleged. Assumptions are premises we take without evidence. The points in my post are evidenced or self-evidencing. Quote:
We know god doesn't exist for the reasons I've stated. If you're interested in un-disarming yourself and participating in the debate you're going to need to accept A) Nothing can be proven is a paradoxical statement and thus false and B) Premises which are self-evident or supported with evidence aren't "assumed". | ||
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:14 pm
| #6 (permalink) (top) | |
| The dingos!  Posts: 4,333 | Quote:
He was saying that poking holes in the actual claim would render it false. This is a correct assessment - as poking holes in a claim involved how it can not be consistent with reality. However, you were probably thinking that by "claim", he meant "argument". Indeed, if he were to poke holes in an argument for a claim, that does not invalidate the claim in and of itself. Allow me to demonstrate the difference between the former and the latter. Claim A, in this scenario, is "there is a ball under the box". If Zhavric were to say "the box is made of lead, and is not hollow. This is inconsistent with it containing a ball", then to disprove that claim, I said "but the box is not hollow, and I saw the ball placed there" - then I'd have disproven his claim. However, if he were to say "I did not see the ball put under the box; this is inconsistent with it containing a ball" - then he would be incorrect, provided that the ball's placement under the box is not necessitated by Zhavric's observation of it. That doesn't mean that his claim can't be correct, it means that his proof doesn't prove it is. Last edited by Kamehameha34; Jun 18, 2007 at 03:48 pm. | |
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:20 pm
| #7 (permalink) (top) | ||
| Hot Lava Location: Houston, TX Posts: 927 | Quote:
Quote:
In discourse, a premise (also "premiss" in British usage) is a claim which is part of a reason or objection. It is a statement presumed true within the context of the discourse for the purposes of arguing to a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse. The accuracy or truth of the conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.Nothing can be proven unless a premise is assumed true. But that is a debate for a different thread, namely, Basic Logic V, which you dropped. If you want to recopy these later posts over there and continue, that's fine, but you created this thread to show that there is no god. You have failed. | ||
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:21 pm
| #8 (permalink) (top) | |
| Hot Lava Location: Houston, TX Posts: 927 | Quote:
Poking holes in a claim does not render that claim false. It only prevents it from being proven. To prove it false, one must prove it's counter-claim. EDIT: I do understand that in clashing a claim, the negative might find it useful to use evidence for the claim's opposite, assuming that the two are mutually exclusive. But that is proving the counter-claim. In a "pure" negative discourse, poking holes in the affirmative's claim does not render it false. | |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:24 pm
| #9 (permalink) (top) | |
| The dingos! Posts: 4,333 | Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:29 pm
| #10 (permalink) (top) | |
| Hot Lava Location: Houston, TX Posts: 927 | Quote:
Claim A: God exists. Claim B: God does not exist. If Theist is unable to prove Claim A because Atheist shows all of this proofs are illogical and invalid, then Claim A is not false. It is simply unproven. If Atheist is not content with the God Hypothesis's unproven status, he needs to prove Claim B. For a second example, let's do a variation on the ball. Claim A: The ball is red. Claim B: The ball is not red. RedGuy reveals pictures that show that the ball is red. He has no other evidence. NotRedGuy points out that those pictures were edited with a computer program. The ball in the picture could have been made red via Photoshop. EDIT: Alternatively, NotRedGuy might demonstrate that the pictures are all fakes. RedGuy is then unable to prove that the ball is red. Claim A remains unproven. This does not mean that the ball isn't red, however. It could still be red even though RedGuy couldn't prove it. If NotRedGuy wants to prove that the ball isn't red, he'll need to provide evidence of his own and prove Claim B. Last edited by Fangrim; Jun 18, 2007 at 01:33 pm. Reason: comprehension and better neg argument | |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:39 pm
| #11 (permalink) (top) | |
| The dingos! Posts: 4,333 | Quote:
There's a difference. Poking holes in a claim entails proving it is inconsistent with reality. Whether or not Zhavric accomplishes this is what's up for debate, but he is outlining his post with correct logic, just in lamens terms. | |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:50 pm
| #12 (permalink) (top) | |
| Hot Lava Location: Houston, TX Posts: 927 | Quote:
The rest of the debate was clearly an attempt to prove that God does not exist. | |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 01:51 pm
| #13 (permalink) (top) | |
| The dingos! Posts: 4,333 | Quote:
Poking holes in a claim renders it false, poking holes in an argument for a claim renders it unknown. | |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 02:02 pm
| #14 (permalink) (top) |
| Volcanic Erupter  Posts: 4,375 | Kam The problem is that this is about existence. It's either yes or no. There either is or isn't. The other problem is that this is about a thing for which there is no single definition. Any thread about the existence of any god(s) needs to first define them. That definition, of course, is the premise of only that single claim. Next, a person needs to cite their reasons why the existence of that defined god(s) is or is not possible. Finally, the resulting syllogism isn't proof of anything. It's an inference. An inference is "a conclusion on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation." inference - Definitions from Dictionary.com Definition of inference - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary WordNet Search - 3.0 There are many ways to look at the result of such a syllogism. You can believe it because you accept the premise definitions as true. You can reject it because you either reject the premise definitions. Or you can reject it because you have not directly observed the conclusion. There is a word for accepting an ideal or belief which is not demonstrable through experimentation. That word is faith. Terms and Definitions used in Atheism faith - Definitions from Dictionary.com Definition of faith - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary The problem with the word "faith" is that it is associated with religion but it's not limited to religion. You can have faith in a person. You can have faith in an ideal. The topic of this thread is critically flawed. "How we know there is no god." What is the only true way to know something? IT'S A BOY!!  |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 02:10 pm
| #15 (permalink) (top) |
| No prisoners!  Location: Southern Ontario, Canada Posts: 973 | Might I interject a touch of practicality. The terms "prove" and "proof" as used mathematically and in formal logic, which seems to be how they are being used in this thread, are not particularly useful or relevant outside of math and logic, and some philosophies. For most human experiences, a preponderance of evidence is what decides daily life decisions. Even most sciences work on this premise because math and logic class proofs are often not possible. Why? Because it's difficult, often impossible, to have good data on all the variables--or even know what all the variables might be. As for gods, we know that not one of the attributes claimed by any religion or adherent of any god (at least to my knowledge) can be shown to have any validity whatsoever--all assertions default eventually to faith or the revealed word of scriptural citations . That being the case, a good working assumption (which has never let anyone down) is that gods don't exist. Can this be proven by the rules of formal logic or mathematics? No. But does this matter, when gods--regardless of the religion--have never been demonstrated to have any influence on anyone's life? Of course not. So, in my view, for practical purposes--as opposed to logical or mathematical academic rigor--gods do not exist, and, for the same reasons, neither do unicorns, Santa Claus, or the bogeyman. Do people still believe in gods? Of course. They also readily believe in a vast range of falsities, and can even be made to believe in them if they serve their self-interest or their insecurities such as fear of dying or of the unknown or of the "others." Bottom line: if you rely on gods to help you, you will be disappointed. If you rely on your own knowledge and skills and that of others, you will have a better chance--every time--of succeeding. Don't pray for success, work for it. Regards S. |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 02:13 pm
| #16 (permalink) (top) | |
| The dingos! Posts: 4,333 | Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 02:17 pm
| #17 (permalink) (top) |
| Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375 | Kam I forgot to add... "Poking holes" in a claim is a nonsensical statement. If a premise and method are used to arrive at a conclusion, you either show the premises are false or you show that the method was followed incorrectly. Someone can accept premises as true even though observation has shown otherwise. Some people believe we never landed on the moon. Get a powerful enough telescope and you can see the site of the moon landing. So showing the premises as false doesn't necessarily render the claim unproven. The method of arriving at the conclusion needs to follow a specific process of reasoning. There are only a few methods of doing so. As long as the method is followed correctly, the claim isn't unproven either. Remember a Logic conclusion is an inference which means it isn't directly observed. That means that accepting a claim as true is based almost entirely on a choice; whether or not you need to see something to believe it. IT'S A BOY!! |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 02:21 pm
| #18 (permalink) (top) | |
| The dingos! Posts: 4,333 | Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Jun 18, 2007, 02:24 pm
| #19 (permalink) (top) | |
| Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375 | Quote:
As far as the logic being outlined correctly, it might be, but it's unclear due to excessive preaching. A simple: 1. I define God as: <definition> 2. I apply to God: <stuff stuff stuff> 3. (2) shows that (1) does not exist. To challenge the claim, in this case, you have to challenge the <stuff stuff stuff> in (2). This, unfortunately, is a no-win situation. It is no-win because of (1). The definition is created on his terms. That means that he can put anything he wants in there that can be non-existent according to something else. It is, in a sense, putting the cart before the horse. Instead of having (1) and then finding the stuff for (2) that can show it doesn't exist, Zhavirc has stuff in (2) and then creates a (1) that doesn't agree with (2). Fangrim lost before he started. IT'S A BOY!! | |
|
| |
