Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[trvlr2]

Don't worry, Tim Leary and I know exactly what you're talking about.


Well, maybe I have to make my own clarification here.

I wasn't calling the idea hooey -- I was calling the sentences hooey because, to me, they weren't coherent and I could not understand the point you were making.

But actually, I was thinking about this point more last night, specifically regarding Beleth's point about features on the far side of the moon. So maybe a discussion of that will help clarify.

As Beleth rightly points out, for untold years no one had any idea what was on the far side of the moon. All that stuff was without definition. But it existed anyway.

Ditto today for who-knows-what out there in the unexplored regions of space, or in the deep seas, or in the realm of the very small. There must be many things, and many kinds of things, we have not yet even imagined. Undefined, yet real.

For convenience, let's call one class of this type of object or phenomenon a "u2" (short for Rumsfeld's famous term "unknown unknowns").

A u2 differs from an "anchored concept" (see post 64) -- which I'll abbreviate AC for convenience -- in that an AC has some set of defined qualities. For instance, the "7 bolt" example that I used here and in an earlier thread: a hypothetical piece of space junk, a bolt orbiting the Earth, with a number on its surface which begins with the digit 7. There's no reason to believe it exists. But we can't assert that it doesn't. Because we know that space junk exists, that bolts may be part of objects sent into orbit, and that machine parts can have numbers on them.

The thing about u2s is, they are utterly undefined. We've never heard of them or thought of them.

So, if it's possible for us to talk about a thing or event at all -- even a totally imaginary one -- it cannot be a u2. It's not a totally unknown thing which we may eventually or never know about.

So God is not a u2. The fact that people do have ideas about God and talk about God establishes that. Now we have to ask if God is an AC or some other kind of thing.

What other kinds of things can we name? Well, briefly, for our purposes here, among the other kinds of things are.... What we might call real things -- all the stuff we simply accept to be actual, like water, butterflies, and 2-for-1 Labor Day sales. We can also talk about unanchored concepts (UCs). These are things that are made up, but which we have no particular reason to imbue with any chance of reality.

For example, I can claim that there's an undetectable dog in my house that is responsible for moving my glasses when they're not where I thought I left them. But nothing in the world we know indicates that this should be so, there is no reason that it should be so, there are accepted real explanations for why my glasses aren't where I thought they'd be, and in fact everything we know about the world tells us that dogs cannot be undetectable and still be dogs. The concept is unanchored.

In fact, I would argue that the undetectable dog is a nonsense object (NO). NOs are things which, by their very definition, cannot be real -- like a circle with corners.

But not all UCs are NOs. We can't say that it must be impossible for us to dream up ideas totally out of the blue, with no basis in any facts we currently know, which may eventually turn out to be true.

Now, back to God....

In the world we know, no evidence for God -- as God is most commonly conceived of around the world and throughout time -- has ever panned out. In every case, when we became able to choose between God and another model, the other model has won. It turns out, the heavens are not filled with divine hosts. Angels don't move the planets. Demons don't cause disease. The mountains weren't raised in a divine war. Etc, etc, etc.

But the idea of God persisted. And retreated. As the God-based world view was thoroughly replaced with a world-view which did not require that concept, intellectual theism removed God in various ways from the realm of the here and now. (There's no need to discuss the thoroughly debunked theories of God which, though still wildly popular, are directly contradicted by evidence.)

Of course, even in ancient days, and certainly now, there were wildly differing conceptions of what God was, or could be. Many of these were/are mutually exclusive, and it's not uncommon for theists in one camp to claim that another camp isn't even talking about God at all.

This presents a special problem, and puts God in a rather rare category. It is a concept so fluid as to be infinitely plastic, within certain boundaries -- although the boundaries themselves are not agreed upon.

In this way, God is not at all like the un-thought-of stuff of the universe, or the features on the far sides of planets we have not observed, or black holes, or even the hypothetical structures of modern physics like p-branes.

Once we discard the models of God we know to be false, we're left only with ideas of God in people's heads -- and today, we have a perfectly rational theory of why those ideas should be in people's heads, which itself does not require God.

So we're left with a God which is not found in the world, and with "ideas about God" which are explained by valid theories that do not include God, and with no valid definition of what God may be.

God is a lot like phlogiston, in some ways. Once oxygen was discovered, and the essentials of modern chemistry firmly verified, there was no room in the world for phlogiston, which was once proposed as a component of combustion. So people discarded the notion, and everyone agrees that phlogiston is not real. But not everyone, by a long shot, has let go of the idea of God.

So what does this mean for claims of God's reality?

Well, no claim may be based on a concept so vague as to have no agreed-upon qualities. If any and every feature of God is open to dispute among those who believe, and an infinite variety of novel ideas may be added at will, and formerly accepted (even central) notions discarded with impunity -- as is the case with what may be rendered "GOD" in all-caps, meaning the totality of all existing conceptions of God or gods around the world -- then it cannot be said that anything at all is being claimed.

So there can be no claim based on GOD. Any claim based on GOD is necessarily a nonsense claim. And no one is obliged to concede that nonsense may be true.

That leaves claims about God or gods. And all of these are fatally flawed.

Definitions of God which give God an active role in the world are contradicted by the evidence.

Definitions which do not give God an active role in the world end up stripping God of all qualities, so that God becomes a non-concept -- as I said, "an I don't know what living in I don't know where at I don't know when doing I couldn't guess which". And it makes no sense to speak of the potential reality of a non-concept.

Of course, there are Humpty Dumpy definitions and other such canards, but these are dispensed with logically.

Once all is said and done, there turns out to be no possible definition of God which anyone is obliged to concede might be "real", unless -- as we have seen -- the term "real" ceases to have any meaning. So claims for God's reality are nonsensical.

Therefore, we can deny the reality of God.

I hope that clears things up.

Good post(again) Piggy!

"in the Mind" is exactly where god and much other stuff may be found.
Language, math, all in the mind!

Truly a strange universe we inhabit!

 

[BillyJoe]

Vintij
(I get it: vintage!)

But I also have a personal feeling inside that believes we are not the only intellectual beings in the universe and that we are thinkers simply because we are suppose to use our potential to discover and try to survive in the universe as long as possible. I also believe that we are nothing special considering how many red dwarf stars there are in the universe, able to theoretically sustain life. So what that means to me is, the only reason we are here, is to expand....along with the universe......perhaps forever.....perhaps not. But I do know that we are a very very young species and some day we will evolve and migrate to different planets perhaps even different galaxies and so on. And the only way that is possible is through science and tenacity. Which means that science will get us to where we want to go.....The belief in God will give us a reason to go there and survive, because perhaps life is not as significant in terms of science, but it is everything when it comes to belief. And that gives people the need to sustain there own life and other life forms around them.

This sounds like your answer to the question: "What do you firmly believe to be true but have absolutely no evidence for?"

 

[Vintij]

I don't mean to offend you, but what you're saying is not very clear and it's somewhat difficult to make sense of it and reply to you.

You say that generations of humans "are not going to be disproved?" Humans are an actual thing...no one's talking about disproving humans. Do you mean "they're not going to be convinced by a scientific study that does not go as far back as belief in God?" I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how your logic works. Why would something being new stop it from convincing people? The theory of evolution convinced a WHOLE lot of people and it wasn't nearly as old as "God made man."

I understand, but I used to have a personal feeling inside that a ghost was hiding in my closet and would attack me at night if it wasn't closed. That didn't make it true. It just meant that sometimes our personal feelings mislead us, and we have to use rationality, observations and so on to doublecheck them. And when those things disagree with our personal feelings, history has shown that it's rationality and observation and such that are right, and our personal feelings that are wrong.

You don't need belief in God to have a reason to live. You have joy, companionship, and a desire to allow others to experience the same.

If by co-existence, you mean that God is like a roommate that takes whatever space science has left open at the moment, then moves into more and more confined area as science stretches out over time. I believe that eventually God as a whole will largely disappear from the popular conscious, because it will be wholly unnecessary.

Yes but alot of people dont have JOY or companionship, or desire....some people have nothing at all, except for god. And in my opinion, I dont really know if god does or does not exist, but im an not prepared to take that one thing that people have to keep them going in life, away from them. See I do believe in a theoretical creator of the initial state of the universe, but if someone proved that to be false, I will continue to go on as if it was just another theory proved wrong. But alot of people dont think in terms of science or even know what science really is. So, Even If I can prove god wrong with evidence that I collected myself. I am not prepared to release that evidence out into the public, because I will not take away what some people believe to be there only reason for living. Compassion and science can co-exist as well.

Do you get me?

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes but alot of people dont have JOY or companionship, or desire....some people have nothing at all, except for god. And in my opinion, I dont really know if god does or does not exist, but im an not prepared to take that one thing that people have to keep them going in life, away from them. See I do believe in a theoretical creator of the initial state of the universe, but if someone proved that to be false, I will continue to go on as if it was just another theory proved wrong. But alot of people dont think in terms of science or even know what science really is. So, Even If I can prove god wrong with evidence that I collected myself. I am not prepared to release that evidence out into the public, because I will not take away what some people believe to be there only reason for living. Compassion and science can co-exist as well.

Do you get me?

Actually that is a much clearer statement, but there is one error and one misapprehension contained within it, in my opinion.
The error is that god is, at best, an hyothesis and certainly not a theory.
The misapprehension is that a true believer could be swayed by proof against god.

 

[lordcow]

Yes but alot of people dont have JOY or companionship, or desire....some people have nothing at all, except for god. And in my opinion, I dont really know if god does or does not exist, but im an not prepared to take that one thing that people have to keep them going in life, away from them. See I do believe in a theoretical creator of the initial state of the universe, but if someone proved that to be false, I will continue to go on as if it was just another theory proved wrong. But alot of people dont think in terms of science or even know what science really is. So, Even If I can prove god wrong with evidence that I collected myself. I am not prepared to release that evidence out into the public, because I will not take away what some people believe to be there only reason for living. Compassion and science can co-exist as well.

you infer that a lot've people don't base their belief in god on science or cold reason, and i agree. so i don't see the problem with releasing scientific evidence to those in the public who treasure knowledge, since those who don't care will simply not care ..

 

[lordcow]

Multiple universes cannot be observed within our universe because they are, by definition, outside our universe. It is simply an attempt to explain the problem posed by the universal constants. Atoms can be "observed" in our universe. As can subatomic particles. The properties of atoms and subatomic particles are so well known that the results of experiments involving them can be accurately predicted.
Also, both black holes and dark matter have pretty well been proven to exist.
But nothing about the creater outside the universe.

my $0.02 to the clarification sub-thread, black holes aren't as solidly 'proven' as atoms, but objects that match the predictions in models have been found so that's pretty good. i would say dark matter hasn't been proven at all though. there were no predictions from existing theories of it before it was proposed as an invisible fix to something else, and now its sitting as the ether did, undefined and without observations except the ones it was required to fix.

 

[BillyJoe]

...i would say dark matter hasn't been proven at all though...its sitting as the ether did, undefined and without observations...

Unfortunately, you are about a year out of date.


NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html

a team of scientists working with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has found direct evidence that dark matter is as real as the rings around Saturn.

"These results prove that dark matter exists,"

A blog by astrophysicists:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

now we know that there defnitely is dark matter out there

 

[Vintij]

Hypothetically, lets assume that an undefined god did create the universe.

What state would he exist in, would he be made of matter? Maybe not, and certainly sub-atomic particles would not exist.

Assuming this state would be outside the universe, we can preclude that time does not exist, physical laws do not exist. Will there still be 3 or more dimensions? Will the properties that float around this outer universe, include visible anti matter? Perhaps visible ethers and free quarks not bound by confinement or will it be total order?

Would this be a state of chaos or would it be some sort of new way to combine chaos with order? Perhaps even eliminating chaos as a theory, making the state either order, or anti order......Perhaps the anti order could still be linked to the state of order, by existing in general. And if the anti order and order were to meet, they would cancel eachother out! Kind of like a metaphysical heaven and hell except instead of a burning cave with souls trying to escape, hell would look more like a normal anti universe. And heaven would look more like a universe with no chaos factor.

Perhaps, in theory, when the anti order and order met.....it created an unstable singularity that split into 4 seperate forces that was once one single force for both states operating like a mirror to eachother. Creating the universe out of half chaos and half order. Which is why an even number of forces were produced.

If this were true, then all leads would point to our universe being a sort of natural hybrid of both chaos and order. Both can exist and be observed, but neither will be the ultimate study guide to the universe because there will always be that one chaos factor when trying to model an entirely elegant universe.

1/2 times -1/2= 1/4. That 1/4 is the chaos factor of sub-atomic particles. 3/4 is elegant, 1/4 is chaos. If we can link that last 1/4 then we will get full knowledge of how and when the universe was created. And we will be able to predict the nature of everything. Which initially, would have not been possible without intelligent life.

This is my own metaphysical theory.

Opinions, suggestions, anyone?

 

[lordcow]

Unfortunately, you are about a year out of date.


NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html

A blog by astrophysicists:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

wow, didn't know about that, thanx. quite an awesome result.

 

[BillyJoe]

Vintij,

You need to consider engaging in conversation.
I've tried twice but the shutters are firmly up.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[EGarrett]

Yes but alot of people dont have JOY or companionship, or desire....some people have nothing at all, except for god. And in my opinion, I dont really know if god does or does not exist, but im an not prepared to take that one thing that people have to keep them going in life, away from them. See I do believe in a theoretical creator of the initial state of the universe, but if someone proved that to be false, I will continue to go on as if it was just another theory proved wrong. But alot of people dont think in terms of science or even know what science really is. So, Even If I can prove god wrong with evidence that I collected myself. I am not prepared to release that evidence out into the public, because I will not take away what some people believe to be there only reason for living. Compassion and science can co-exist as well.

Do you get me?

Just because some people need a fairy tale doesn't make the fairy tale true. Nor does it make it a good idea for us to pretend the fairy tale is true on a large scale. I wouldn't go up to someone who was terminally ill and believed in God and tell them there was no God, but in terms of public discourse and discussion, we have to follow logic and thought, no matter where it may lead us. God leads us nowhere but into a fantasy world where we never have curiosity and never make any advancements or achievements.

And none of this has much to do with whether God can be disproven. I think you're just trying to duck the question.

 

[Vintij]

Just because some people need a fairy tale doesn't make the fairy tale true. Nor does it make it a good idea for us to pretend the fairy tale is true on a large scale. I wouldn't go up to someone who was terminally ill and believed in God and tell them there was no God, but in terms of public discourse and discussion, we have to follow logic and thought, no matter where it may lead us. God leads us nowhere but into a fantasy world where we never have curiosity and never make any advancements or achievements.

And none of this has much to do with whether God can be disproven. I think you're just trying to duck the question.

I already answered the question. God can not be proven or disproven. Did you not read that part? Please dont mistake me for a theist, I am an Agnostic theist. And if you do have evidence that god does or does not exist, I would love to see it. Hard evidence, that is....not rhetoric

 

[EGarrett]

I already answered the question. God can not be proven or disproven. Did you not read that part? Please dont mistake me for a theist, I am an Agnostic theist. And if you do have evidence that god does or does not exist, I would love to see it. Hard evidence, that is....not rhetoric

Which God? You have to assign some properties to it or you're just talking nonsense.

 

[Vintij]

Well whichever god that is out there.

We can assign several properties to different gods.

If you believe in the bible, they propose that god looks human, has a mortal son, is a loving god, and hates gays.

If you want it to be allah, its very similar to the christian god, except allah rewards martyr suicides, and treats woman as objects.

If you believe that god is life, well your properties are all things living.

If you believe god is outside of the universe, well your properties include a lack of time, dimensions, and possibly nothingness in general, but thats speculative.

So, if someone can prove or disprove that any of these properties exist for a good reason, or do not exist for a good reason, we can make some progress.

Personally, I think that if we are alive and able to think....we should try to survive as long as possible.....and create life, or help life in the process. Ofcourse, if you are athiest, then you have different reasons to live (ie. family, knowledge...etc) nothing wrong with that but the thing is, it does not give people a reason to live, it focus is mostly on ones own self. Theist's live for god mostly, and I would agree that to some degree it is an intellectual life wasted, UNLESS.....that person helps our species by being selfless.

So you see, they are polar opposites, but they both need eachother. Kinda like anti matter needs matter.

I believe that without scientific knowledge, the religious would turn the world into a fantasy island, with biggots everywhere.........But I also believe, without religion, science would turn the world into a giant depressive state, with much more suicide, less child dicipline, and no moral conduct.

So you see, science should be the majority, but you absolutely need that moral minority to keep people in check, just as much as religion need science to keep people from "falling off the edge of the earth". Meaning, doing or believing stupid things in gods name.

 

[slingblade]

I believe that without scientific knowledge, the religious would turn the world into a fantasy island, with biggots everywhere.........But I also believe, without religion, science would turn the world into a giant depressive state, with much more suicide, less child dicipline, and no moral conduct.

I am just as moral now that I have relegated all gods to the fantasy shelf, as I was when I believed not just in gods, but in most fantasy beings.

My morality has not changed, because the reason behind my morality never changed:

I know pain of all kinds hurts, so I try very hard not to inflict pain of any kind on others. I care about others, even more than I care about myself, and so not causing pain of any kind to others is important to me.

I also don't like to be to blame. Other people around me also very much think pain is wrong, and I don't want to be the one at whom their fingers can be pointed. This is different from not caring if you are to blame, so long as no one catches you. I don't care if I never get caught--I simply don't want to commit the act, or think the thought, or say the words that lead to pain. If nothing else, I'll blame me, and I don't need that, either.

See? No god needed for any of it. I worked it out just fine all by myself.

So you see, science should be the majority, but you absolutely need that moral minority to keep people in check, just as much as religion need science to keep people from "falling off the edge of the earth". Meaning, doing stupid things in gods name.

I don't need any "moral" majority or minority to form or inform my reasons for being a moral person. I'm already moral. See above.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well whichever god that is out there.

There is no god out there. We've looked. Not a whisper; no spoor, no bones, no artifacts, squat.

We can assign several properties to different gods.

One property we can assign to them all is that they are imaginary, and therefore so are all their properties.

So, if someone can prove or disprove that any of these properties exist for a good reason, or do not exist for a good reason, we can make some progress.

All supernatural concepts have been sourced from within a human skull. They all conform to the societies they're dreamt up in, and they change as those societies change. The sheer multiplicity and mutability of supernatural concepts is enough to prove their inanity.

In the objective sphere, the deeper and further we look into the Universe, the same we see no need to postulate the supernatural to explain what is observed. Actually observed, not vacuously postulated.

That seems to wrap it up for gods, then. If nobody had ever suggested them to us, we wouldn't even be talking about this in the first place. We might well be talking about Dark Matter, though, since that's actually out there and makes its presence felt.

 

[Piggy]

Hello, everyone. Back from a vacation that would make Peter Gibbons look like Ben Franklin. Ok, where were we....

Piggy has not debunked anyone so far.

That is only because no one has presented a claim to debunk.

He claims that thiests are not aligned with science yet there are thousands of scientists who will state that they believe in some creator but that creator can not be observed within the universe. Why is that a hard concept for piggy?

Yes, I know there are theistic scientists, but this fact is merely testimony to the persistent hold of the God delusion on the human mind.

Has he ever seen dark matter? What about a black hole? Yet we detect those things using mathmatical equations, and most of the time the equations need to be re-done over and over. His claim that mathmatics can disprove god is no better than the pope saying that the bible can prove god.

I don't know where you got the idea that I believe mathematics can disprove God. Rational inquiry can disprove God. But God is not a mathematical question, so I would be surprised if there were a purely mathematical refutation of the God hypothesis.

As for dark matter and black holes, these are anchored concepts. We propose their existence because they are expected, given what else we know about the world.

God is not like that. God is like phlogiston. It is an idea which once made sense based on our limited knowledge and our assumptions. But now, all of the assumptions which led to the idea have been debunked, and new understandings have filled in the gaps.

We live in a post-God world, just as we live in a post-phlogiston world.

It doesn't matter how many people still believe in God. God is a false notion nonetheless.

Unless he comes up with some logical way to disprove him, that does not involve rhetoric and one liners that are not backed by the scientific community, then he is in the same boat as all thiests.

I am prepared to disprove God on any and all grounds.

It is ironic, though, that I am accused of engaging in mere "rhetoric". I would be glad to engage the evidence for God... but none exists. So all of the arguments we see for God are airy, ungrounded, rhetorical arguments. It is unreasonable to expect that theistic arguments which are utterly lacking in substance should be somehow countered by arguments which engage the substance that was never provided.

The argument that god MUST be observed within the FRAMEWORK of our universe is not a valid argument.

It is possible to advance theories of what may lie outside our narrow window of observation. Just look at p-brane theory, for example.

However, there is a difference between theories of what is beyond our observable universe, which are grounded in observation and deduction, on the one hand... and on the other hand, empty verbiage regarding a "God" which boils down to nothing more than "damned if I know what it is".

So far, all of the discussion of a transcendental God we've seen on this thread has been in the latter category. It's all talk about nothing.

If we are able to predict things like multiple universes, atoms, black holes, dark matter.....all of which can not be observed in this universe....then why is it so scientifically impossible to predict some creator OUTSIDE of the universe that can never be observed.

I don't suppose it would be impossible. However, that creator -- given what we now know -- would not be "God". (Except in a Humpty Dumpty definition of God.)

If anyone wants to engage the question of why all possible definitions of God must prove false or empty, we can do that, too.

Has anyone seen an atom? Can it be observed visually? Yet there are detections of atoms and predictions. Same with god, detections and prediction in specific people, some who are not even religious have claimed to felt god or some outside force.

We have observed atoms. Atomic theory is solidly backed by evidence.

This business of "claimed to felt god or some outside force", however, is just talk about subjective mental states which, when examined, turn out to be explanable within a material framework.

If anyone is going to argue that god does not exist, then they must be on both sides because there is no way to prove or disprove god, just like there was not way for the ancient egyptians to measure the size of the universe. You have to go with what we know so far, but you can not allow that to be the ultimate answer as we have found out over generations that perfect answers are not always so perfect.

As I've said, I'm prepared to argue that the claim "God exists" is -- depending on how one defines "God" -- either false, empty, or nonsensical.

In short, I'm prepared to disprove God.

 

[Vintij]

I am just as moral now that I have relegated all gods to the fantasy shelf, as I was when I believed not just in gods, but in most fantasy beings.

My morality has not changed, because the reason behind my morality never changed:

I know pain of all kinds hurts, so I try very hard not to inflict pain of any kind on others. I care about others, even more than I care about myself, and so not causing pain of any kind to others is important to me.

I also don't like to be to blame. Other people around me also very much think pain is wrong, and I don't want to be the one at whom their fingers can be pointed. This is different from not caring if you are to blame, so long as no one catches you. I don't care if I never get caught--I simply don't want to commit the act, or think the thought, or say the words that lead to pain. If nothing else, I'll blame me, and I don't need that, either.

See? No god needed for any of it. I worked it out just fine all by myself.



I don't need any "moral" majority or minority to form or inform my reasons for being a moral person. I'm already moral. See above.

Thats great for you, and I agree with your moral code. But why do we have gun control, albiet lousy gun controll, but why is it there? To at least slow down idiots from getting any weapon and shooting anyone. Ofcourse the gun lobby will argue that it is a constitutional right, but without the government stepping in, 300 million plus guns would be in circulation which equals more violence.

So what IM saying is, if there are 300 million people in this country, your going to expect some of them to be either stupid, or hatefull. If you give 300 million a god that is proven to not exist, thats 300 million more idiots that have the capability to do something stupid, rather than most of them being "saved" by jesus. No matter how weird they are, they are generally on the right path to not hurting anyone, while keeping busy at church and staying out of my way in class.

So my theory is, that science and religion need eachother to counter act with. Negative and a posative, no matter which side you are on......without the other side, it would be far to easy to take control, dont you like a challenge?

 

[Vintij]

Hello, everyone. Back from a vacation that would make Peter Gibbons look like Ben Franklin. Ok, where were we....


That is only because no one has presented a claim to debunk.


Yes, I know there are theistic scientists, but this fact is merely testimony to the persistent hold of the God delusion on the human mind.


I don't know where you got the idea that I believe mathematics can disprove God. Rational inquiry can disprove God. But God is not a mathematical question, so I would be surprised if there were a purely mathematical refutation of the God hypothesis.

As for dark matter and black holes, these are anchored concepts. We propose their existence because they are expected, given what else we know about the world.

God is not like that. God is like phlogiston. It is an idea which once made sense based on our limited knowledge and our assumptions. But now, all of the assumptions which led to the idea have been debunked, and new understandings have filled in the gaps.

We live in a post-God world, just as we live in a post-phlogiston world.

It doesn't matter how many people still believe in God. God is a false notion nonetheless.


I am prepared to disprove God on any and all grounds.

It is ironic, though, that I am accused of engaging in mere "rhetoric". I would be glad to engage the evidence for God... but none exists. So all of the arguments we see for God are airy, ungrounded, rhetorical arguments. It is unreasonable to expect that theistic arguments which are utterly lacking in substance should be somehow countered by arguments which engage the substance that was never provided.


It is possible to advance theories of what may lie outside our narrow window of observation. Just look at p-brane theory, for example.

However, there is a difference between theories of what is beyond our observable universe, which are grounded in observation and deduction, on the one hand... and on the other hand, empty verbiage regarding a "God" which boils down to nothing more than "damned if I know what it is".

So far, all of the discussion of a transcendental God we've seen on this thread has been in the latter category. It's all talk about nothing.


I don't suppose it would be impossible. However, that creator -- given what we now know -- would not be "God". (Except in a Humpty Dumpty definition of God.)

If anyone wants to engage the question of why all possible definitions of God must prove false or empty, we can do that, too.


We have observed atoms. Atomic theory is solidly backed by evidence.

This business of "claimed to felt god or some outside force", however, is just talk about subjective mental states which, when examined, turn out to be explanable within a material framework.


As I've said, I'm prepared to argue that the claim "God exists" is -- depending on how one defines "God" -- either false, empty, or nonsensical.

In short, I'm prepared to disprove God.

Well I agree with you on alot of points. I also dissagree with you on some, but I am not prepared to define who or what god truly is. So I am not the one you are looking for in the quest to disprove god.

 

[Piggy]

Well I agree with you on alot of points. I also dissagree with you on some, but I am not prepared to define who or what god truly is. So I am not the one you are looking for in the quest to disprove god.

There is no quest. God has already been debunked, and resides on the same scrap heap as phlogiston, the flat Earth, geocentrism, sympathetic magic, unicorns, and the virgin birth. It is merely a matter of demonstration. Sadly, it is a demonstration which still needs to be made, even in certain educated circles.

The fact that intellectual theists are not even prepared to define God is simply one tiny bit of evidence in the conclusive case against the God hypothesis.