Talk:You can't prove God doesn't exist
Upon reading the line "If we were to apply that premise to all claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality," I found myself looking for examples. Most likely many could be made, but it may help to illustrate the point. --BunniRabbi 20:45, 10 January 2011 (CST)
I've added this article to the "Argument for the existence of God" category. I feel there is a deeper level category that it also belongs in, but I can't figure out which one it might be. Is there one that is sort of like "Semantic arguments"? "Burden of proof shifting"? --Kazim 04:09, 31 August 2006 (MST)
- Like Pascal's Wager, this doesn't seem to be an argument for God's existence as much as it's an argument for belief. I think the distinction is notable, but not enough to remove them from the 'for existence' category. The subcat you're suggesting is one I've tried to think of several times, I just haven't come up with a brief, descriptive label that I like. "Arguments for belief" is my current preference, so I added that subcat and included this article and the Pascal's wager article. -- Sans Deity 06:57, 31 August 2006 (MST)
- Good solution. -- Kazim 07:19, 31 August 2006 (MST)
Better than Vishnu?
Do you think the Hindu/Vishnu thing is a good example? It was the best I could come up with off the top of my head... - dcljr 23:13, 1 September 2006 (MST)
God is not the same as a teapot, leprechaun or a unicorn; because these three things take up space, consist out of matter and exist in time, so we might not be sure that there is a teapot in orbit around Mars, but it would be possible to travel to Mars and discover if there is a teapot. In other words. The teapot is described as existing in the same basic reality we exist in.
The Christian believe is that God is not part of this universe, but is separate from it and makes his presence known by creating a natural order (time, space and matter) for man to exist in, thus the existence of God is taken to be a priori and can not be verified a posteriori.
This is similar to the principles of contradiction which can not be explained a posteriori but only a priori.
This makes the idea of God a metaphysical notion which can only be disproven by another set of metaphysical doctrines that isolates and captures the notion of God, very similar to the way that the Christian God captures the Hindu God Vishnu; because Vishnu has a form, he takes part in the natural order of the universe, if he manifests directly to the human consciousness then he would exist in time, space and through matter; while the notion of God precedes the natural order and the notion of God does not directly manifest in the human consciousness but only through dialectics or intuition, he is a cause before a cause. -- Thomas
Moved the following section from the main page: [Rival]
- "God is not the same as a teapot, leprechaun or a unicorn; because these three things take up space, consist out of matter and exist in time, so we might not be sure that there is a teapot in orbit around Mars, but it would be possible to travel to Mars and discover if there is a teapot. In other words. The teapot is described as existing in the same basic reality we exist in."
- Neither leprechauns nor unicorns exist in space/time - only in the imagination. We have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting the existence of leprechauns, and unicorns as we do for god. The stated flaw does exist in the teapot analogy, however. [Rival]
- But you exist in time, you exist as a material substance and you have a form and therefor gnomes, leprechauns and unicorns when expressed in there familiar forms, and when said to be dependant of human consiousness and limited to a preconceived notion fall directly under the natural reality. In fact they only stand in direct relation to other imaginairy forms and not to a-priori metaphysical constructs; like the existence of consciousness itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- Let me rephrase what you just said: "Leprechauns, et al, are imaginary" the implication being that god is not imaginary. Yawn. Rival 22:47, 30 November 2008 (CST)
- I know a better one. If even for the sake of theory, God can not be thought of as real then other constructs like consiousness, reality and knowledge can also be thought of as not real and therefor no real debate is possible with someone who holds that position or the other three positions on there own matter. The only proper debat would be to include every possibility and negate it with a select choice of a-priori constructs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- One cannot allow for the concepts of consciousness, reality, and knowledge unless one also allows for the concept of god? Perhaps you should better define your own understanding of "god" so we can discuss the same thing. In my mind, for instance, I can reconcile consciousness, reality, and knowledge without requiring an omnipotent, omniscient entity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rivalarrival (talk • contribs).
- No i never said that. Please reread what i wrote and create another response. For example. Do you believe that consciousness exists outside of time, or inside of time. If it exists outside of time then i will deal with the explanation how this leads to God in a next respons. If consciousness is just a product of time then you can't explain constructs outside of time because there is no way to envision non-time, and thus this makes science flawed because it basis its strenght on the ability to explain reality based on many different past and present concepts brought together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- But since God is build out of timeless constructs like no-time, no-space and no-matter he automatically carries some validity and since order does not exist on it's own but is dependant on time, space and matter; there could be in fact order dependant on no-space, no-time and no-matter which makes the possibility of God very strong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- There is a difference between knowledge and assumption. Your statements regarding the nature of god are the latter. The characteristics you assign to "God" have no more effect on reality than the characteristics I assign to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rivalarrival (talk • contribs).
- You assume that contraditions are not possible, that knowledge of a subject is possible and that what you think in your imagination does not exist outside your head, even though there is not way to be sure of that because you inhabit only a tiny fragment of reality. Why are these a-priori concepts different from the concept of God? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- "This is similar to the principles of contradiction which can not be explained a posteriori but only a priori.
- "This makes the idea of God a metaphysical notion which can only be disproven by another set of metaphysical doctrines that isolates and captures the notion of God, very similar to the way that the Christian God captures the Hindu God Vishnu; because Vishnu has a form, he takes part in the natural order of the universe, if he manifests directly to the human consciousness then he would exist in time, space and through matter; while the notion of God precedes the natural order and the notion of God does not directly manifest in the human consciousness but only through dialectics or intuition, he is a cause before a cause."
--Rival 22:26, 30 November 2008 (CST)
God is dependant on an orderly non-existence. In fact; it is non-existence which is orderly and we are just a reflection of this non-temporal, non-material and non-spacial order. --Thomas
- Do you have evidence to support any of this, or is this just another of your assumptions? I'm getting a "div/0" vibe from this line of thinking... Rival 00:50, 1 December 2008 (CST)
- I have direct evidence. Imagine how the universe would look like without a line of time running through reality. It would look like all of time at once and instantaneous, but you would still be limited to the distance between objects not in direct contact with the timeless entities. Then we take away space so that all of matter is in direct contact with all other matter, and that is how matter can influence through non-time and non-matter, matter not in contact with other matter and outside the present. Then we take away matter which is just points of finite quantities atop of a infinity (not God but close), but we still hold the internal correspondance between matter but without quantity and thus we get pure order that can only be explained by math. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- Sounds like bunk to me. Non-temporal + non-material + non-spacial = non-existent = what are we even discussing? - dcljr 14:01, 1 December 2008 (CST)
- As you have been informed, repeatedly, there is a difference between "assumption" and "reality". Please learn that difference before you post. Rival 18:23, 1 December 2008 (CST)
- What I can read from your argument is: "The direct evidence that God exists, is that some laws of nature can only be explained by math." I have to admit I fail to see the connection. Are you trying to make a God of the gaps argument? - Soulkeeper 07:30, 25 January 2009 (CST)
The nature of awareness is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The question at hand is whether you (Thomas) acknowledge a fundamental difference between reality and fantasy, truth from fiction. Your arguments to date suggest that you are less concerned with the substance of the argument than you are with the style in which it is executed. You can dress your turd of an argument in all manner of fancy garb, but at the end of the day, it's still a turd. [Rival]
- I can't dress my arguments in a fancy garb. I can barely spell correctly in the English language.
- You quote 4 Christians, one pagan and one pantheist and you want me to give you the easiest, shortest and most direct awnser? That awnser would be: Have faith. But you don't like that awnser so i have no choice but to look for another question that is not simple and easy to understand because the alternative simple awnser would be: Damnation!
- Now; let's move up a block and you can try awnsering my questions for a change. Why? The simple awnser is: Have faith, go along at your own free will, have fun and see where you get to.
- I actually have one question that fits into here: How many of the writers you are quoting here have you read? and how many have you studied? I have read all 6 and studied 3 (Cicero, Einstein and Elliot) of these writer/artists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas (talk • contribs).
- It appears that that your only relevant argument can be effectively stated "Have faith or burn in hell". I said to you, two days ago, "If you can bring something interesting to the table, I'm more than willing to discuss the issue!". How is this old argument even the slightest bit interesting? Rival 11:48, 2 December 2008 (CST)
- Out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge. Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words when short are best of all.
- Winston Churchill
- When you wish to instruct, be brief; that men's minds take in quickly what you say, learn its lesson, and retain it faithfully. Every word that is unnecessary only pours over the side of a brimming mind.
- Words in prose ought to express the intended meaning; if they attract attention to themselves, it is a fault; in the very best styles you read page after page without noticing the medium.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
- Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
- Leonardo da Vinci
- Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
- Albert Einstein
- The finest language is mostly made up of simple unimposing words.
- George Eliot
Please see Reality.
--Rival 20:19, 1 December 2008 (CST)
Guilty until proven innocent
Perhaps a nice analogy (in layments terms) is that "believe until proven false" correlates with the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", as such, expecting something to be considered true until proven (to a reasonable degree of certainty, ofcourse) false basically equates to considering an accused in court as being guilty until the defence can prove otherwise.
I would (hopefully) presume that most rational thinkers would consider any given proposition to be "innocent until proven guilty" (translation: unproven until proven) until sufficient evidence and/or logical argument could be put forward to the contrary - afterall, is this not the scientific method in a nutshell?
Woops, forgot to sign (Tking 18:17, 5 November 2010 (CDT))