Evidence there is no god

[joesixpack]

Looks to me like you're really determined to leave a back door open to god.

I'm not gonna' touch that one with a ten foot pole.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sigh...

I don't have beliefs, that was the point I was trying to make. I guess it wasn't clear enough.

That and the fact it is impossible not to have beliefs unless you are in a persistent vegetative state. Perhaps you meant you have no current god-myth beliefs? Other than of course, the belief a god could exist we are unable to detect. Since we have enough evidence to determine people-made myths explains 'gods', why bother with such a baseless premise? Why not just go with the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns?

As far as my analogy, saying that it sucks... sucks.

It's not exactly an insightful dissection of my comment.

I was tired and didn't know where to start.

The people in your example are not demonstrating how one exercises critical thinking or the scientific process. Rather, your example people are exercising superstitious uncritical thought. So if that analogy is supposed to represent how we would approach the unknown, it is wrong from the beginning.

You've completely missed the point of addressing the evidence to understand the Universe.

Ok.. you know I'm not referring to an actual door right?

In the case of God (s) or their absence, the fact is that we can speculate all we want but lacking a specific definition makes it impossible to determine much.. if anything as to what would constitute evidence of existence or evidence of absence.

What "we"? I don't lack a specific definition. I look at the evidence and I see a repeating pattern with confirmable evidence for the conclusion I draw about what gods are. The pattern is one of humans inventing god myths for a number of reasons both involving nature and nurture. And the pattern includes perpetuating the myths by indoctrinating children and in the case of some religions, recruiting and indoctrinating people in other groups.

Let's say we are looking at a God (s) that is omniscient and omnipotent. Of course He/She/It could act and we could not prove a thing if such proof was, for some obscure reason, unwanted.

God (s) could just do a huge miracle and then make us all forget about it. Or have everything planned out in advance so nothing is needed. Etc.


Again, if you want to reference my so-called beliefs.... speculation is useless, though sometimes fun, unless you have some facts to back them up.


We just don't.

There is irony in your reference to 'speculation'. I would describe your example as defining an irrelevant god, which is a useless speculative exercise that takes your ball off the science playing field. I addressed that in post #43 above.

 

[slingblade]

@ slingblade et al.

Well... I'm going to ignore the ad hominems since you seem to be emotionally attached to the subject. I usually don't like these sorts of conversations because everyone seems to want to insult everyone else. I'm more interested in the logic of the op.

The logic of the OP is that god is evidently absent, because of the absence of the evidence for a god that all our religions tells us is there, but which no one can empirically produce.

The statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is like all statements of conjecture that people produce: it is not iron-clad, 100% true, 100% of the time. There are exceptions. Refuting it exceptionally isn't difficult to do.

If there were a fully-grown African elephant in this room with me, there would be certain, specific evidence of it, and we both know that. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is an elephant in the room with me. None.

I may, with perfect logic and in perfect safety, conclude there is no elephant in this room with me. The complete absence of evidence for an elephant is most certainly evidence of the elephant's absence.

I needn't then speculate that there may be some kind of elephant I can't detect in the room. Why should I do so? Of what conceivable benefit to me or anyone else would it be to grant the possibility that a completely undetectable elephant, that impacts my life in no discernible way whatsoever, may in fact be somewhere in this room with me?

Why should we waste five seconds' thought on this notion? Give me just one sound, valid reason for that. Just one.

"I should consider there may possibly be a completely undetectable African elephant in my room, because....?"

Irrelevant statement.

No it's not. It's perfectly relevant. You apparently either want to discuss--or else just toss out ideas you have no intent of discussing, which is a waste of everyone's time--evidence for god.

You haven't shown any, because there is none to show. There is only speculation, and in order to evaluate mere speculation, we must analyze it--what else would you do with it?

Analysis shows that if these speculations are attributes of a real god, he's inept, no smarter than a human child playing hide-and-seek, and expecting not to be found!

So these cannot be attributes of a superior being; they are too much like attributes you'd find in a not-very-bright human child. This is evidence that they are only invented speculation, not reflected by reality.

My statement was simply a couple of examples from a list of possible definitions for God (s) that obviate the need to answer prayers in a way that is obviously miraculous.

The subject of answering prayers is an ancillary one at any rate. How do we know what criteria a deity would have for answering prayers, if it does at all. Maybe it does so randomly, or for some secret purpose either benign or not so benign. Maybe it throws a dart at a board.

Maybe it isn't even there. Maybe speculating about it at all is pointless and a waste of time, just as speculating about that completely undetectable elephant in my room is an equally pointless waste of time?

That statement has nothing to do with the subject.

Yes, it does. You can't make it irrelevant by simply stating it is. You have to prove the irrelevancy.

Why would we speculate that a god or gods may exist, when we can detect no discernible evidence for god(s)? What's the point? Either it is there, and has no interaction with us whatsoever, so we not only don't need to worship it, we can't worship it, because we don't even know it's there or it wants worship; or it isn't there, and the entire point is moot, without substance, merit, or foundation.

It's about whether or not you can prove that there is no such thing as God(s).

Nothing about gods can be proven at all.

I can't prove there is no such thing as an undetectable elephant in my room, either, but why should I even want to? What would be the point of trying? The undetectable elephant has no effect on me that I can discern, or can't explain in other ways besides being the influence of an undetectable elephant.

Your analysis of it's intent or psychology is irrelevant.

You keep making these statements as simply saying it makes it so. It doesn't.

If there is no evidence for god(s), and if god(s) may exist, but can't be detected, then what is the point of our being concerned with it, with them?

There is a third possibility. We made them up but something exists that we don't know about that may or may not fit our imaginary concepts.

So what? Who cares? Why should we care?

If it never contacted us or engaged with us, then we clearly made it and all its attributes up. Even if it is real, if it has never contacted us, we cannot know any of its attributes, so we must have invented them.

And if all that is true, IF it is true, then what's the point of bothering with a god idea at all? If a god exists that we do not know about, why should we care? We don't even know so much as to say it cares, so why should we?

All these ideas we conceive about what god is or what god wants are totally useless, without any evidence such a being even exists.

If that was your point, there were better ways to make it.

I did say it clearly and I didn't claim it was original.

You did not say it clearly. You played Poe with it, and rendered the point ridiculous. Hardly necessary for simply re-hashing an unoriginal notion.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Well.. statements in big letters obviously must be addressed.

I bolded my replies simply to differentiate them from you. Is this better?

Not insults, ad hominems. For example...



That is obviously not an actual argument.

No, it was obviously an invitation for you to elaborate on a vague metaphor, which you ignored.


It largely depends on your definition of God and what you base your estimate of sophistication and intelligence on. Something could be intelligent and sophisticated without necessarily thinking like a human would, just to name one example.

I have no definition of God. I respond to the definitions given by others. So far, I have seen none that suggest that God is anything but an invention of the human psyche.

I know that this seems difficult for everyone to comprehend so I will attempt to be very clear.



1. I am not in any way saying that anyone should worship, pay attention to or even give a rat's ass about any deity without actual evidence of that deity existing.

2. I am simply pointing out the logical mistake in the OP. Claiming that you can logically prove that God does not exist depends on a host of definitions that are not established in the op, or elsewhere in this thread and do not take into account a number of possibilities. Ergo, it is not logically proven.

If you folks want to think that I have some religious view point that I don't.. that is hardly my fault. I hope I have been clear enough.

I was originally simply responding to your point that believers and nonbelievers alike should ignore the issue of God without proof. I continually point out that I do ignore God, but as long as people feel the need to "prove" His existence, and by doing so, "prove" that the rest of us should pay attention to their beliefs, I will argue the opposite. I'll stop as soon as they do.

 

[RobDegraves]

So far their are only a few responses worth bothering with. Sorry if you think this ignores many points but since I really feel that what I am saying is either misunderstood or misconstrued, I don't see a real point in spending a lot more time on this.

@TheGoldCountry

I was originally simply responding to your point that believers and nonbelievers alike should ignore the issue of God without proof. I continually point out that I do ignore God, but as long as people feel the need to "prove" His existence, and by doing so, "prove" that the rest of us should pay attention to their beliefs, I will argue the opposite. I'll stop as soon as they do.

Actually that is close enough to my point as to allow me to say that I agree completely. I think that, without proof of presence or proof of absence, the matter is moot. If someone tries to argue one or the other without proof or logic, I will argue against it.


@Slingblade

The statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is like all statements of conjecture that people produce: it is not iron-clad, 100% true, 100% of the time. There are exceptions. Refuting it exceptionally isn't difficult to do.

If there were a fully-grown African elephant in this room with me, there would be certain, specific evidence of it, and we both know that. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is an elephant in the room with me. None.

However, your example is a bit of a false dichotomy. Just because there are situations where absence of evidence is proof of absence does not mean that all situations can be resolved in the same way.

So these cannot be attributes of a superior being; they are too much like attributes you'd find in a not-very-bright human child. This is evidence that they are only invented speculation, not reflected by reality.

Again, your analysis means nothing.

1. Define God, specifically. Is He all powerful, all knowing, thinks just like us, exists in time, inside the universe or out of it? etc.

2. Superior how? Based on what criteria?

Quite frankly your attitude is turning me off this conversation entirely. If you want to shout me down, I am fine to simply leave it be and you can pretend you won. Will that be better?


@Skeptic Ginger

The people in your example are not demonstrating how one exercises critical thinking or the scientific process. Rather, your example people are exercising superstitious uncritical thought. So if that analogy is supposed to represent how we would approach the unknown, it is wrong from the beginning.

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

@Slingblade



However, your example is a bit of a false dichotomy. Just because there are situations where absence of evidence is proof of absence does not mean that all situations can be resolved in the same way.



Again, your analysis means nothing.

1. Define God, specifically. Is He all powerful, all knowing, thinks just like us, exists in time, inside the universe or out of it? etc.

2. Superior how? Based on what criteria?

Quite frankly your attitude is turning me off this conversation entirely. If you want to shout me down, I am fine to simply leave it be and you can pretend you won. Will that be better?

To be fair, this was directed at slingblade. She usually articulates my arguments better than I can, but I want it made clear that I don't speak for her. As to your points:
1)No. I refuse to define the belief of someone else. It's a losing game, as the other person can simply continue to redefine their deity, leaving me to chase phantoms. I refuse to play.
2)It is not my claim that there is any kind of superior being, yet you want me to define it for you. I can only refute the existence of superior beings that others propose. If I don't believe in any of them, how am I supposed to define them? All I can say is that all the descriptions I have ever heard of God either attribute human qualities to Him, making him significantly less than "God-like", or outside of human definition. Either these Gods that I hear described are not Godlike at all, or they are totally outside of our perception. Either way, I see no value in debating the importance or value of their existence.
I don't want you to leave the debate, BTW.

 

[Mudcat]

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

Are you kidding me? If Yahweh actually existed than the evidence would be hard to miss, indeed you'd have to be functionally brain dead not to notice the heaps of evidence for him. The most damning evidence of all: We're still alive.

And yeah, I'm familiar* with the notion that there may be a deity of which we have no concept of. To which I say bullocks. There's no point in investing in the idea at all**.

_{*Evidence is earlier in this thread. I have pointed it out before, because God botherers like to try to use the concept. **As was pointed out by a few here.}

 

[RobDegraves]

@TheGoldCountry

1)No. I refuse to define the belief of someone else. It's a losing game, as the other person can simply continue to redefine their deity, leaving me to chase phantoms. I refuse to play.

1. I'm not defining any deity.

2. The op says "Evidence there is no God". Ergo, I ask which God.

2)It is not my claim that there is any kind of superior being, yet you want me to define it for you. I can only refute the existence of superior beings that others propose

Again, it's the op in question. If you say "There is no evidence for a deity, based on the common notion of deity.. no problems.

If you say "I have evidence that God doesn't exist", I will want to see what evidence this is and what you mean by God.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

I have already clearly stated how one does that. One follows the evidence to the conclusion. One does not start with the conclusion and then look for evidence.

Following the evidence one finds overwhelmingly that evidence supports the conclusion that gods are mythical fiction generated by humans. One finds zero evidence that gods are any more than human generated fiction. And just as it is unscientific to start an investigation searching for Harry Potter's Hogwarts based ONLY upon the evidence found in a fictional story, it is equally unscientific to fabricate a god myth where the god would be undetectable and then proclaim science cannot disprove said fiction.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

@TheGoldCountry



1. I'm not defining any deity.

2. The op says "Evidence there is no God". Ergo, I ask which God.



Again, it's the op in question. If you say "There is no evidence for a deity, based on the common notion of deity.. no problems.

If you say "I have evidence that God doesn't exist", I will want to see what evidence this is and what you mean by God.

Seems reasonable to me.

Fine, after thousands of years, the only God I have seen proposed is the one who mirrors the ideals of each individual.

I am incapable of disproving the existence of the millions of personal deities of billions of people. I see no significance in this. Please explain to me why I should.

 

[tsig]

Are you kidding me? If Yahweh actually existed than the evidence would be hard to miss, indeed you'd have to be functionally brain dead not to notice the heaps of evidence for him. The most damning evidence of all: We're still alive.

And yeah, I'm familiar* with the notion that there may be a deity of which we have no concept of. To which I say bullocks. There's no point in investing in the idea at all**.

_{*Evidence is earlier in this thread. I have pointed it out before, because God botherers like to try to use the concept. **As was pointed out by a few here.}

Would that be a God That Exists In Mysterious Ways?

 

[Mr. Scott]

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

How about the quite scientific Templeton study of intercessionary prayer? Financed by people who wanted to show it was effective. Proven ineffective, to the point that people who knew they were being prayed for didn't do as well. Prayer had a negligible or negative effect. Evidence at least the god they were hoping to find scientific evidence for was absent.

Of course, there would need to be an infinite number of scientific studies to perfectly disprove the infinite number of possible gods people will invent. Instead, maybe we can just stop worrying and enjoy our lives.

 

[RobDegraves]

Of course, there would need to be an infinite number of scientific studies to perfectly disprove the infinite number of possible gods people will invent. Instead, maybe we can just stop worrying and enjoy our lives.

Pretty well what I do.

I also think that the concept of God granting prayers is a childish concept. Though I accept the idea that it's remotely possible, and I do mean remotely, it would be a really stupid system at best.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Evidence Touchdown Jesus Not Real!

Evidence at least this god is nonsense (I bet they thought their god would protect it):

 

[IanS]

What about the miracles in the Bible? Nobody was asked to take them on faith. Talking snake, staff turned into snake, pillar of fire, burning talking bush, wife turned into pillar of salt, water into wine, oil lamp staying on longer than expected, walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection, and on and on. God's tire gauge was working fine in Bible days. What happened?

As you probably realise, you were right in the first place - there is no genuine evidence of a biblical-type God. Is that lack of evidence, actually evidence that he does not exist? Yep, it is. Because what we are talking about is ancient beliefs which 2000 years ago claimed that God was the cause of almost everything that happened on earth (and in the heavens) ... only now, since modern science, we know that none of those things were due to any God ... all those things have perfectly normal explanations.

That is very direct and abundant evidence to show that the original beliefs and claims about God were entirely wrong ... every single one of them.

Today of course, many religious people wish to drop all those ancient miracle claims, and claim instead that God somehow fits nicely together with whatever we discover from modern science ... eg, the Christian church now officially accepts evolution, but says (contrary to it's original claims) that God created man indirectly simply by setting the universe itself in motion in the first place ... but that's obviously a rather pathetic attempt to keep shifting the goalposts by God-in-the Gaps type arguments.

Can we "prove" that a god does not exist? No, not literally by a 100% certain "proof". Because we can't absolutely prove anything in that 100% literal sense, not even in pure maths (there is always a defining assumption somewhere).

The only valid question is "what is the evidence?". And the answer to that is - there is zero evidence for any God, but mountains of evidence for perfectly natural explanations in every single thing we have ever discovered and investigated.

 

[Minoosh]

I needn't then speculate that there may be some kind of elephant I can't detect in the room. Why should I do so? Of what conceivable benefit to me or anyone else would it be to grant the possibility that a completely undetectable elephant, that impacts my life in no discernible way whatsoever, may in fact be somewhere in this room with me?

Why should we waste five seconds' thought on this notion? Give me just one sound, valid reason for that. Just one.

Why assume the thought is "wasted"? People speculate. Some ideas are useful and some aren't, but is the thinking itself a waste?

 

[Minoosh]

Indeed, if you want to get sciency ...

I don't think I'd ever heard that word "sciency" - thanks!

 

[Minoosh]

When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains.

There are believers who say that's a fair enough statement. Does that prove there's no god - no, I don't think so. My opinion.

 

[devnull]

Tim Tebow is a famous American Football player who is currently know for annoying atheists by praying excessively to Jesus before or after plays. He's been quite successful, but on Christmas day, his team was demolished by an opponent not know for atheist-annoying public praying.

Why on earth would a footballer praying annoy anyone?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are believers who say that's a fair enough statement. Does that prove there's no god - no, I don't think so. My opinion.

No, but the evidence all gods are mythical human creations is overwhelming. IMO.