Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[BillyJoe]

Wrong, spacetime is expanding. Getting bigger, but how could it get bigger if there is nothing to expand into? Obviously our answer is nothingness, but that was my point......how do you define something as nothingness, just because it is impossible to observe or know for sure?

You are trying to force the fact that space IS everything, which is wrong.....to us it is 4 dimensions, but beyond that.....you dont know what is beyond the universe...outside the walls so to speak. (Please dont quote that as literall) Your logic of, "nothing is outside of the universe because the universe is everything" is not accepted as the best theory, to be more clear you should have said nothingness is beyond the universe, in which I will debate that with my own predictions but neither of us will be right.

First of all, you are wrong to say "wrong", because you are giving an opinion, not relating facts.

If we define The Universe as "all there is", then there is nothing outside The Universe, by definition. If our universe is "all there is", then our universe is The Universe and, by definition, there is nothing outside our universe. There is a wild conjecture about a Multiverse consisting of an unimaginable large number of universes of which our universe is but one. If that is true, and if that Multiverse is "all there is", then that Multiverse is The Universe and, by definition, there is nothing outside that Multiverse.

What you are saying is that The Universe is not "all there is" and that God could be an extra onion skin outside The Universe.

And yes it is expanding, maybe "into" is not the best way to describe it because it is not converting anything, that we know of....but the fact is....its expanding.....and whatever is outside of it, must be getting slightly smaller. That is where my theory of god lies

If what you say is true about there being nothingness outside the universe into which the universe expands, where does this nothingness end? Especially if, as you say, the nothingness outside the universe is getting smaller as the universe expands. On the other hand, if you want to extend the nothingness outside the universe to infinity, perhaps we might be better off saying that the universe (or The Universe) is "all there is"

 

[BillyJoe]

I swear that smilie was unintentional.
I don't know how it got there and I don't know how to delete it.
Sorry.

 

[tsg]

I think that's exactly what has to be done, without possibly checking god out with the Pope first. Whose definition of god shall we use?

I have provided one that may or may not spur the conversation. I would like to hear your opinion on it.

Jesus, you know what christians are like - they shift goalposts faster than a team of machinery contractors. No sooner would he disprove one christian's version of god than another would pop up with a different flavoured one.

I think the task's impossible and completely pointless.

Only because you are allowing them to cheat. And that's Piggy's point: the only reason they can claim their god is not disprovable is because they refuse to define what it is. They claim an undefeated record because they refuse to play.

And what happens in any discussion about the existence of god is that what constitutes god moves farther and farther away from what they really believe just so they can continue to say "it's possible". And what nobody calls them on is the fact that what they have ultimately backed their god into being doesn't qualify as god anymore. They've moved their goalposts so far off the field their not even playing the same sport.

When people are stupid enough to buy into creationism, they aren't interested in proof of any kind.

I don't think the point of the exercise is to prove it to them.

We're back to that stinking summae theologica again - god can only be proven satisfactorily if you start at "God exists..."

For the statement "god exists" to have any meaning at all, there has to be a definition for god. It doesn't have to be perfect knowledge, but there must be some attributes of god that separate it from everything else. Can god be a paper clip? If the answer to that question is anything but "no" then there's no significance to the statement. If it is "no" then they have to tell us what else it can't be. But people are making the statement because they believe it is significant. If the statement is significant then there has to be some attributes of god that make the question matter. And the, well, religious fervor with which it is debated makes it absolutely clear that it does.

Proof is irrelevant; the war against religion - if there is one - is going to be fought at the philosophical level. Why do humans need a cuddly-blanket? Those are the questions we need to answer, not whether we can disprove a mythical being. Isn't that the entire attraction of mythical beings? You can make up your own rules for them and how they behave, what they look like and what their powers are.

By that argument, god can be a unicorn, an alien, a paper clip, a toaster, or bigfoot and the statement "god exists" ceases to have any meaning or, indeed, relevance.

To disprove "god", we must disprove all gods.

Even the phrase "all gods" carries with it some restriction on what counts as a god. Otherwise "god exists" becomes a synonymous with "everything exists". The words "god" and "exist" cease to have any meaning and the discussion not worth having.

He probably wouldn't be claiming to be able to disprove it if that were the case.

God has lots of attributes, but no definition.

Even specifying what attributes god has would suffice for defining it.

 

[Piggy]

I do not suggest that the possibility of god must be accepted by anyone. I am The frigging Atheist, mate! I am saying that you cannot disprove god. I am a hardline atheist who has even gone as far as labelling myself as an "Extreme Atheist" to rid myself of any hint of pandering to religion.

Your personal beliefs are not at issue. I am not addressing them.

I'm addressing your argument that the claim "God is real" must be accepted as possibly true.

And when you argue that this claim cannot be dismissed as false (or has having no possible truth value) this is precisely what you are arguing.

 

[Piggy]

You'll have to help me out here, I don't know of any laws of chemistry which were broken in scripture...

Oh, I don't either. I was using that as an example.

To use another example that's perhaps more inuitive, let's say there's a claim that the laws of gravity sometimes reverse themselves, so that massive objects repel rather than attract each other. And suppose that, in support of this claim, we are offered stories from the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Mahabharata.

If that's all we're offered, then the claim -- which violates what is known about the world -- may be simply dismissed, because the evidence is not valid. We do not need to provide positive proof against these stories in order to reject the claim.

Similarly, when we look at claims for resurrection of a dead body after 3 days, during which no special efforts of preservation have been made, our knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics tells us that this cannot occur. If, as evidence for the claim, we are offered stories (mutually contradictory ones, no less) from ancient scripture, the evidentiary threshold has not been achieved, and we may dismiss the claim out of hand, without having to provide any positive disproof of the ancient stories.

 

[Vintij]

Well the bible can be explained scientifically. Jesus wasnt dead, is an option.....the sea was at low tide when it was "split"......virgin birth is done all the time. All of this stuff could have happend but its better to say that none of it actually did. Disproving the bible does not disprove the god theory.

And outside of the universe. I predict it to be infinite. Although I do not believe infinite nothingness exists. Outside I believe we are in a cluster of universes, very similar to our own, that will never touch. This cluster makes up a giant spiral galaxy, at the center ofcourse is infinite energy..... stronger than all the energy of all the singularitys needed to create these universes. At the center, ofcourse is infinite density in which nothing can survive, but theoretically it is the way out of this cluster into a larger universe with giant people, whos finger tips are the size of our universe alone. Meaning, our universe is basically an elementary particle smaller than an atom. And these super organisms, are elementary particles in there own cluster. And it goes on forever.

If we can prove that the universe is expanding at an angle or curve, this would help my prediction that we are revolving around a very large superblack hole that is causing the curvature of our universe. Ofcourse this would mean that spacetime does not stop with our universe.

 

[EGarrett]

QED

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. But if we don't define God then we don't need to disprove it, as there is nothing to be disproven. Nonsense is inherently illogical, establishes nothing and thus is self-refuting.

 

[EGarrett]

Mate, I'm pleased to see that the holiday has rejuvenated you, but I have to let you in to a secret: that stuff above is pure bollocks! I don't know how many threads we need to have on proof, standards of proof, atheism and levels of atheism, but I think you'll find that every mind which has ever dwelt on the subject, from Einstein, Russell and Dawkins to mere minds like mine will tell you - it can't be done.

Not even close.

I doubt we'll ever be able to "disprove" god to anyone's complete satisfaction, although I think we'll come close as neuro-science develops. (With a rider that one of the world's leading lights in the field is a christian!)

I don't necessarily agree with everything you write, but I have considerable respect for your opinion. In this instance, you're just wrong. You're demeaning yourself by saying it.



This is a valid point and it's one which bothers me.

In fact, I'd class it as the central question to the entire athiesm/religion debate.

I'll repeat a position I've used elsewhere:

Imagine that all cops died tonight - every single one of them. (and any militia who could be called upon to come in) All authority figures have overnight deserted the rest of humankind and we are on our collective tods.

Hands up everyone who thinks that would be a really, really bad idea?

Lemme count 'em up...

Goodness me, unanimous!

Yes, all the pieces of #### (I just typed the actual word then, LOL!) would take it as an invitation to rape, murder, steal and do whatever the hell they like. Ever seen what happens in a mere black-out? Now imagine all the buddies of the scumbags being let out prison as well and see how they get on.

God is a fair bit bigger cop than the cops - after all a cop can only bang you up for life, the big sky-fairy can get the guys with red-hot pokers on the case for all eternity. I doubt anyone can quantify what might happen if religion was removed overnight, but I am certain that the threat of hellfire and damnation holds some psychopaths in check.

Maybe this is one of those times where we need more information. It'd be a really bad one to get completely wrong! When large sects of christianity (Jesus Camp, anyone?) see things in the way they do, what kind of angst and anger might be released and what the targets for such anger might be would be well worth knowing.



Again, I suspect you're speaking hyperbolically. And remember, I am The Atheist, here, not some apologist bloke.

There are actually quite a few extremely smart christians and I personally know several who would carve you into little pieces on the basis of the statements above. You cannot debunk god. You can certainly debunk lots of impressions of god which various people hold, but you cannot debunk him/her/it.

If you want a list of people to debate against who are able to define god, let me know and I'll get myself a spectator seat, because while I know you're a very smart bloke, some of these christians just might surprise you. None of them are American, by the way.




Smart fella - probably the safest option. Like my wife - don't know, don't care.

I don't mean to offend you, but you didn't make a single point in this whole post. You just made a vague appeal to antiquity and authority, then said that someone else is flat-out wrong with no back-up.

You should know that doesn't fly here.

 

[EGarrett]

I dont think piggy has a valid argument. There have been predictions about who or what is outside of the physical universe, but there must be some sort of space because what are we expanding into?

You're misunderstanding. The universe doesn't have to be expanding into anything. Space itself could be expanding and growing.

This example might help...you can walk around the surface of a balloon infinitely. As a two-dimensional space, there is no beginning or end to its surface. But that surface can expand also.

Which proves that there is a place which is undefined and not observable beyond the universe in which we are currently expanding into. That raises the possibility of "something can exist beyond the universe" because it has a place to exist in, outside of spacetime.

The misunderstanding of the universe's expansion has short-circuited your reasoning.

People who like to question science almost always turn out to only be misunderstanding what it's saying. No offense.

Another thing that piggy can not debunk, the initial state of the universe. We know it to be a singularity, but how do you explain a singularity that has existed forever until the big bang?

Who said it existed forever? The idea of time itself may break down at the point, if time and space are related.

Obviously you will always get the same question, "who created that singularity"? And the reason you will get that is because of science itself, and the laws of thermodynamics. If the law states that matter can not be produced nor destroyed, well what the hell created the singularity? It is your own belief in thermodynamics that stops you from debunking god as a creator type being.

Ofcourse everyone likes to tell you, "well who created god then?" and I believe this to be a horrible question. Because on the one hand your trying to say that thermodynamics makes an exception for the big bang theory, yet it does not make an exception for the God theory? This is unfair....and also, If god is omnipotent, he wouldnt need a creator now would he? He would be like the singularity that created thousands of singularitys that created thousands of big bangs that created thousands of universes.

Now you're just changing the definition of God for your own convenience, and once again we are descending into nonsense.

 

[The Atheist]

I have provided one that may or may not spur the conversation. I would like to hear your opinion on it.

I thought it was ok, but I will have a go at refining it in a minute.

Similarly, when we look at claims for resurrection of a dead body after 3 days, during which no special efforts of preservation have been made, our knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics tells us that this cannot occur. If, as evidence for the claim, we are offered stories (mutually contradictory ones, no less) from ancient scripture, the evidentiary threshold has not been achieved, and we may dismiss the claim out of hand, without having to provide any positive disproof of the ancient stories.

Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but it isn't a valid option as the central tenet of god is that he can do what the hell he likes and needn't let little things like that bother him.

As a level of proof, "It's never been done" doesn't work. Nothing had been done until the first time.

That's basically the entire point here - just because something is impossible under our current scientific and medical rules doesn't mean we can disqualify god from having involvement in it.

I don't mean to offend you, but you didn't make a single point in this whole post. You just made a vague appeal to antiquity and authority, then said that someone else is flat-out wrong with no back-up.

You should know that doesn't fly here.

It could be said that I used exactly the same standards of evidence as given in the "proof". None.

I'm addressing your argument that the claim "God is real" must be accepted as possibly true.

And when you argue that this claim cannot be dismissed as false (or has having no possible truth value) this is precisely what you are arguing.

Going back, I think I just misconstrued your use of "we".

 

[The Atheist]

Who said it existed forever? The idea of time itself may break down at the point, if time and space are related.

This is an ugly position.

Whether or not time and space commenced at the Big Bang, the matter is the only thing which matters.

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, there was certainly matter nanoseconds later. Did it just appear out of nothing? Where did the matter come from? I think, until that question can be answered with some kind of validity, it's a mire.

 

[EGarrett]

So here is god:

God is an intelligent being

I'm not sure if you mean the universe as a whole, but the universe has no possible signs of structure that would support an overall intelligence. (unless you change what intelligence is for convenience, which once again makes the convo nonsense)

that is responsible for consciously and deliberately creating the universe and everything in it.

Here we run into violation of the laws of thermodynamics, which makes the statement reasonably impossible and thus disproven.

He is not bound by its rules.

Same as above. This is impossible, given everything we know and have observed.

 

[EGarrett]

It could be said that I used exactly the same standards of evidence as given in the "proof". None.

If by "proof," you mean my original post, please show me where I used logical fallacies there. Your post had no valid arguments. It was a long sequence of appeal to authority (Einstein etc), appeal to consequences (Your question of 'what if there were no police? what would keep people in check'), ad hominem ('you're demeaning yourself') and appeal to antiquity (no one could disprove it in all this time).

And just to answer beforehand, my argument is "X is impossible, therefore it did not happen," which is a fair form of disproof, as opposed to the argument from ignorance which is "I don't know how X could happen, therefore it did not."

 

[EGarrett]

This is an ugly position.

Whether or not time and space commenced at the Big Bang, the matter is the only thing which matters.

My reply was to the claim that science implies that the singularity existed forever. Your reply here has very little to do with that.

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, there was certainly matter nanoseconds later. Did it just appear out of nothing? Where did the matter come from? I think, until that question can be answered with some kind of validity, it's a mire.

Who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? You're inventing strawmen.

 

[tsg]

I'm not sure if you mean the universe as a whole, but the universe has no possible signs of structure that would support an overall intelligence. (unless you change what intelligence is for convenience, which once again makes the convo nonsense)

It only has no recognizable signs of structure. If god could create a whole universe it makes sense that he may know things about structure which we could not even begin to understand.

For the record, I am using "intelligence" in the "capacity for learning, reasoning and understanding" sense.

Here we run into violation of the laws of thermodynamics, which makes the statement reasonably impossible and thus disproven.

Same as above. This is impossible, given everything we know and have observed.

This does not follow if god exists outside the universe he created.

 

[The Atheist]

To clear up the confusion surrounding god, I asked a christian friend for a description of god, and he apparently received the following:

Hello there, mortals; and I do use the term advisedly since you are all mortal - everlasting life only being achievable through me and my son.

You are seeking a description of me, which I cannot blame you for, you lot like to class yourselves as "rationalists", believing only the "evidence"! That's why I created people who always demand evidence, to foster confusion - when there is no evidence, I can be quickly dismissed by those without faith.

What am I?

I am an entity.

I live outside of time and space, which are both my creation.

I run a long-term boarding house for friends which your fellow humans like to refer to as "heaven".

I am judge, jury and occasionally executioner for all of mankind - you are my creation which I love as my favourite pets.

I watch over the Earth, seeing all.

I can see deep into the hearts of men to separate the good from the evil and have an old, lapsed, friend who runs the guest-house for those who would tend towards the evil side.

I can - in your terms - work magic, and have shown this in several ways; most notably the ressurrection of my only son and creation of everything.

I cannot be seen, but can be heard. When I speak to my pet creation, I must use a means such as a burning bush or stone, because if you saw me whilst still contained in your human bodies, you would be burnt to a crisp in a millisecond.

I refuse to provide physical evidence of my existence, apart from the life and death of my son Jesus, because your human lives are but a short-term test to decide which of my creation is worthy of life in my boarding house and which deserves to spend an eternity or two wearing red-hot pokers - ahem - internally. Other humans, who have neither sinned nor been saved shall just wither and rot in the ground. (Despite what the bible says, atheists won't actually meet Satan, they just croak, the end.)

While I love you all very dearly and wish you would all join with me in heaven, I have given you all the ability to choose which path you wish to walk - the good, the bad, or the indifferent, because while I am omnipotent, I only want those of you who would choose me as a friend to come and live with me.

Lots of people have tried to define me, but it's a very difficult task - I repeat that you could not possibly see me as I am - it would be akin to trying to look at a large star from a distance of ten feet from the surface.

The greatest clue to my existence is in the book named the bible. While much of it is apocryphal (I will be dealing with Jews separately!), as my good friend, Matthew, states: "Seek and ye shall find." People who wish to find me invariably do so.

I move in mysterious ways to your human brains.

I am the way, the truth and the life.

Yours in Love

YHWH

Hope it helps...

 

[The Atheist]

If by "proof," you mean my original post...

No, you're getting it all wrong, the post I was answering - Piggy's.

 

[EGarrett]

It only has no recognizable signs of structure. If god could create a whole universe it makes sense that he may know things about structure which we could not even begin to understand.

For the record, I am using "intelligence" in the "capacity for learning, reasoning and understanding" sense.

I understand. The problem is that you're referring to something that we've observed and studied on earth. You're borrowing the idea of intelligence from the brain, and then trying to redefine it so that it fits God. (if we're talking about God as an intelligence throughout the universe)

Intelligence carries with it certain structures, (synapses etc.) and attributes (electrical activity) that we can observe and measure. There is no such thing in any form in the universe as we observe it. Therefore this 'intelligence' is impossible given everything we know and have observed.

This does not follow if god exists outside the universe he created.

This argument invalidates any possible understanding. Impossible still means "it cannot happen or is not true within the context of all observations and reasoning." That's what you mean when you say something is impossible.

If you refer to an alternate place where no rules need apply (it just as likely that 1 + 1 = 3 in this place with no laws), then you're arguing on behalf of nonsense and against any understanding. Within the context of reasoning (where disproof, impossibility and logic all operate), this God is impossible and thus validly disproven.

 

[The Atheist]

Who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? You're inventing strawmen.

No I'm not, I'm asking questions. That's why I used question marks.

 

[EGarrett]

No, you're getting it all wrong, the post I was answering - Piggy's.

Then please show me the specific post by Piggy that consists purely of logical fallacies.