Evidence there is no god

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know we always say here "you can't prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but I'm following a thought process that I need help with, to go further, or to kill off.
[examples snipped]
Help me out here. I'm open minded in either direction. I'm not asking for evidence that god is real. I'm asking for evidence he isn't, and if this is an impossible request.

You have provided a sample of the overwhelming evidence that gods are myths people made up. Once you've explained the phenomena of god beliefs, there is nothing left over that needs further explaining. Ergo there is no need to explain myths beyond that.

 

[Mudcat]

You don't need to believe in a deity or deities to know that a real god may be a god that we may not have considered or even be aware of, and that they might not be aware of us or actively involved in the course of development of... well, anything.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't need to believe in a deity or deities to know that a real god may be a god that we may not have considered or even be aware of, and that they might not be aware of us or actively involved in the course of development of... well, anything.

Invisible pink unicorns and invisible garage dragons are not science, or you might say they would be sloppy science. Speculating on things purely for the sake of speculating is a useless exercise.

 

[Mr. Scott]

You don't need to believe in a deity or deities to know that a real god may be a god that we may not have considered or even be aware of, and that they might not be aware of us or actively involved in the course of development of... well, anything.

How easy it is to invent an undisprovable god. But what does it prove?

 

[Leumas]

Are we expecting evolution to happen neatly and according to some preset schedule now? They're from the same couple of centuries as Esther, and from the same period of exile-cum-Second Commonwealth.

Memetic evolution happens at a much faster rate than genetic evolution.

Read this book

The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God: An Evolutionist Explains Religion's Incredible Hold on Humanity​

The next time you want to put words in my mouth, please ask me first.

Read your post..... my conclusions are that....conclusions according to your words in your post that I quoted and highlighted and bolded to stress the words I drew my conclusions from.

 

[slingblade]

The mere existence of something outside the all-encompassing God is impossible unless God creates a "space" for it to exist as an independent entity. Doing so requires "emptying" that space of his manifest presence. Finite, physical reality cannot exist otherwise, and that's the world we know. "Showing himself" means negating the "space" and everything in it as separate entities or consciousnesses. There would be no decision.

I don't see how you can know that. For lots of reasons. And I don't mean to play "pile on the Rabbi," honest.

My former religion taught that god is omnipotent, and can do anything he wants to do, including negating the laws of physics.

If god could manifest in the old days, to provide a presence for immature humanity, then there's no reason he can't manifest in some way today.

If nothing else, he could create himself another avatar, and come to us in that manner. He did it once. Or so they say.

Were you actually asking how hell fits into this? I'm not sure I understand why it's a necessary thing to explore in this context.

Nah, I'm still just bugging on the "threat of hell renders free will moot" point.

 

[Kahalachan]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

Claiming a being who exists outside time and space is not the same as claiming beings that are just like us but on another planet.

I most definitely agree there.

So then there's just the criteria of how extraordinary existing outside time and space is.

I think for anyone to be able to boldly make a god claim to be even taken seriously in the slightest bit, outside time and space has to be first demonstrated as viable.

Since other planets have been proven it's only fair.

 

[Mudcat]

Invisible pink unicorns and invisible garage dragons are not science, or you might say they would be sloppy science. Speculating on things purely for the sake of speculating is a useless exercise.

How easy it is to invent an undisprovable god. But what does it prove?

I don't disagree with either one of you, just putting it out there.

 

[joesixpack]

Actually, Deuteronomy specifically warns against taking miracles as evidence of divine sanction.

And yet, the Bible (both Old and New Testament), the Torah, and probably the Koran are full of stories of just that. Do you not see these as internal contradictions?

 

[Leumas]

I most definitely agree there.

So then there's just the criteria of how extraordinary existing outside time and space is.
I think for anyone to be able to boldly make a god claim to be even taken seriously in the slightest bit, outside time and space has to be first demonstrated as viable.

Since other planets have been proven it's only fair.

Well.... since everything we are and will ever be is this space-time then I think it is quite an extraordinary claim.

If we ever can go outside our space-time then by definition it becomes part of our space-time. So we can NEVER go outside our space-time to see if anything is there since the moment we step there it immediately becomes part of our space-time and anything there is consequently NOT outside anything.

In other words….the instant we find such a being, is the moment it ceases to be god.


Think of when people used to think that earth was surrounded by a dome.

Then we realized it is not but then we thought our Solar system is IT.

Then we realized that there are more things, but thought our Galaxy is IT.

Now we know that our galaxy is one of trillions of others....but we think that our universe is IT.

What if…. just like our star is one of billions in a galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies...what if it turns out to be that our universe is one of billions of universes, which is one of billions of hyperverses and so on ad infinitum.

Where do you draw the line at OUTSIDE?????

Why should you draw the line at all????

Everything is part of the HYPER-HYPER-Verse..... and nothing...nothing is outside the hyperverse.

The universe is INFINITE and so is time....there is nothing outside INFINITE that is why it is called infinite.

So we can never be outside space-time and thus will never be able to prove a being that exists outside space-time while still existing.

So the only way to prove the existence or otherwise of a being that exists outside space-time is by ceasing to exist.

But...But...even if....why wouldn't this being be itself created by a being that is outside its own space-time that is outside ours?

 

[Mudcat]

Do you not see these as internal contradictions?

In scifi (and other) fandom we call those continuity errors and plot hole devices.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't disagree with either one of you, just putting it out there.

As a useless exercise that proves nothing? I see.

 

[devnull]

Every time a gauge is used to test god, it registers zero. Why isn't this evidence of god's nonexistence?

It is. The problem seems to be that a lot of people, atheists included, give religion a free ride. If it were any other topic, the debate would have been settled long ago.

 

[RobDegraves]

Well, I am sure everyone will hate me but I am going to disagree.

I think I would like to illustrate my opinion on God (s) with a bit of an example if no one minds.

Let's say you have a group of people in a room and they are sitting around a table. There is just one door but no one knows what is beyond it because it's locked.

Everyone speculates endlessly about what is on the other side. Eventually some people come up with some interesting theories but there is still no way to find out without opening the door. Is it another room, outside, a big hole?

One person starts to tell everyone else that there is a monster on the other side of the door. If you open the door, it will eat you. Others scoff and say that the door monster doesn't exist.

Eventually the scoffers try to open the door and a large goat kills them.

So... do you really think there is a point in saying yes there is a monster or no there is no monster? I don't think either side is valid and speculation is useless without evidence. Live your life without worrying about what is behind the door until you find a way to open it. Then watch out for goats.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is. The problem seems to be that a lot of people, [some]atheists included, give religion a free ride. If it were any other topic, the debate would have been settled long ago.

ftfy

 

[slingblade]

Well, I am sure everyone will hate me but I am going to disagree.

I think I would like to illustrate my opinion on God (s) with a bit of an example if no one minds.

Either way, there wasn't a monster behind the door.

It was a goat. A goat that can somehow kill multiple people.

Know what? If there is something behind the door, there would be evidence, or very well could be, without ever opening the door.

A skeptic would go to the door and listen closely for movement. That's evidence. Got a drill with a wood bit? I'll open a peephole and have a look. Evidence. Hey, there's at least one more door; the door we came in. I'll go outside, and if there's a window, maybe I can see or hear something.

There's a lot you can do to gather evidence besides just blithely open the door.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I am sure everyone will hate me but I am going to disagree.

I think I would like to illustrate my opinion on God (s) with a bit of an example if no one minds.

Let's say you have a group of people in a room and they are sitting around a table. There is just one door but no one knows what is beyond it because it's locked.

Everyone speculates endlessly about what is on the other side. Eventually some people come up with some interesting theories but there is still no way to find out without opening the door. Is it another room, outside, a big hole?

One person starts to tell everyone else that there is a monster on the other side of the door. If you open the door, it will eat you. Others scoff and say that the door monster doesn't exist.

Eventually the scoffers try to open the door and a large goat kills them.

So... do you really think there is a point in saying yes there is a monster or no there is no monster? I don't think either side is valid and speculation is useless without evidence. Live your life without worrying about what is behind the door until you find a way to open it. Then watch out for goats.

Why would we hate you for your beliefs?

As for your analogy, it sucks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Since believers make their gods unfalsifiable, it is impossible to disprove those gods. But then that's even more reason to doubt their gods as well.

 

[slingblade]

Why would we hate you for your beliefs?

As for your analogy, it sucks.

Oh, yeah; those, too.

 

[tsig]

It's sort-of impossible. Basically it depends on the audience.

Some people will take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and in some cases, such as the tire pressure gauge, as you point out, that's an eminently reasonable conclusion. But open the can of worms that is the debate over free will and all that goes out the window. To wit: revealing himself would negate mankind's free will, and God prefers that any relationship with him be volitional. In other words, the detector is manufactured to register zero no matter what, because the alternative would not serve the overall purpose.

How can you know that?

Why would god revealing himself void free will?