Existence of God disproved!

AlecR said:
Nah m8 you just enjoy ur time here on Earth.
Click to expand...

Read up on the Burden Of Proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


Also understand that most atheists don't actually say there is no god, they say they reject the theistic claims that a god exists. Most atheists would call themselves agnostic atheists (Most who read up on the subject), as Atheism/Theism deals with belief and Agnosticism/Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Intellectually honest atheists would label themselves as agnostic atheists as we don't believe (atheism) but we can not know there is no god (Gnosticism).
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Would that it be true that I actually believed in a God, at this stage I my existence I don't think I do, but I wouldn't discount the existence of one, as I can't.
Click to expand...

Do you also not discount the existance of dust breathing dragons on Mars? What about Zeus? If you have such an open mind, then you must admit that even you could be God but you're not currently aware of it as your ways are mysterious. That's the beauty of the realm of imagination, anything is possible. ;)
 
Zethor said:
Do you also not discount the existance of dust breathing dragons on Mars? What about Zeus? If you have such an open mind, then you must admit that even you could be God but you're not currently aware of it as your ways are mysterious. That's the beauty of the realm of imagination, anything is possible. ;)
Click to expand...

I rather do enjoy the idea of being God myself, such fun when I realise my potential, as long as I can then forget it again to enjoy the abundance of existence as a minion then awaken again. Oh, yes please!

On a more serious note, I do entertain the possibility that something may have 'created' this universe, some form of extra dimensional being. I am less inclined to entertain the possibility of a Zeus, or Yahweh or Christian God, or Allah type entity that benevolently/malevolently observes the Universe, smiting those who don't do at they are told, and rewarding with eternal life those who follow a set of edicts that seem very humanesque in their reading and translation.

I think even recently the Catholic Pope said something along the lines of, 'You don't have to believe in God to go to Heaven, just to lead a good life.' Well I reckon if heaven exists, and God does, even if I denounce him, a good life will get me there, but unless it is some form of download or transference of consciousness from this Universe to something entirely extra dimensional, then it is unlikely to exists or occur.

I don wonder regarding gravity and the potential for a graviton, in that I think we shall find considerable more questions and answers than any search for a being known as God.
 
Zethor said:
Scepticism may not be the only available starting position but it's certainly the most useful one because it allows us to focus on ideas that have the potential to produce results, rather than those that lead to philosophical tail-chasing. There's not much difference between dismissing the idea of a Creator than dismissing the idea of Zethor being at the origin of the Universe. Or the keyboard on which I'm typing, it does seem to have a mind of its own sometimes.. Maybe I should write a book about it, who knows what will happen in a few hundred years?

Our imagination is virtually unlimited which means someone probably imagined the atom before it was first observed. But, at the time, it was just an idea among an infinity of ideas and if we want learn the true nature of reality, we should follow the clues, not go on voyages to nowhere.
Click to expand...

Useful is not the same as real though, which is why you can't run recursive proof exercises. When you get into complex science, you frequently end up selecting from useful models that you know aren't 'true', but that certainly doesn't make them not useful, bad or any other negative.


Yes, you are. Just like you, the robot will never accelerate to a speed faster than the speed of light and it is affected by gravity or the electromagnetic force, among many other limitations.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point here. The comparison is that the universe the robot is aware of is limited by its design. If I didn't fit a sound sensor, for example, the robot would be unaware of sound, but I don't have that limitation. Just because our observations do not show something, or our interactions with the environment suggest certain limitations, it does not make those things absolute, unless you take the position that our observations are absolute, which is back into assumption territory.
 
Sliver said:
Read up on the Burden Of Proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


Also understand that most atheists don't actually say there is no god, they say they reject the theistic claims that a god exists. Most atheists would call themselves agnostic atheists (Most who read up on the subject), as Atheism/Theism deals with belief and Agnosticism/Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Intellectually honest atheists would label themselves as agnostic atheists as we don't believe (atheism) but we can not know there is no god (Gnosticism).
Click to expand...

You do realise the philosophical burden of proof represents a position taken a priori and cannot be considered to be an arbiter of truth due to it not being possible to independently verify the validity of the approach?
 
jsmoke said:
Seems like the random soup of amino acids idea has been well and truly surpassed, now scientists believe that,

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”

I knew they would work it out one day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html
Click to expand...

You mean there isn't a sky fairy that whispered a few words and everything appeared out of thin air, fully formed?

GTFO
 
Dolph said:
Useful is not the same as real though, which is why you can't run recursive proof exercises. When you get into complex science, you frequently end up selecting from useful models that you know aren't 'true', but that certainly doesn't make them not useful, bad or any other negative.
Click to expand...

It's real enough, if I may say so. It allowed mankind to step on the moon and look back into a singularity 14b years ago. What have completely imaginary concepts such as a Creator accomplished other than to give people reasons to kill each other?

I think you missed the point here. The comparison is that the universe the robot is aware of is limited by its design. If I didn't fit a sound sensor, for example, the robot would be unaware of sound, but I don't have that limitation. Just because our observations do not show something, or our interactions with the environment suggest certain limitations, it does not make those things absolute, unless you take the position that our observations are absolute, which is back into assumption territory.
Click to expand...

You still interacted with that robot in the process of creating it. Unless of course you used magic, which is what this debate is about: whether or not we should accept the possibility of magic. I too accept magic in a way, I just don't give it names such as God, the Creator, the Force or Zeus. I just call it the unknown, I'm ok with it being unknown for the time being and I'm confident that more and more parts of it will be revealed, in time, as they have for thousands of years in history.
 
Dolph said:
You do realise the philosophical burden of proof represents a position taken a priori and cannot be considered to be an arbiter of truth due to it not being possible to independently verify the validity of the approach?
Click to expand...

What's your point ? The person making the claim has the burden of proof. Period. Who said it was a tautology ? Who said it was an epistemic panacea ? Stop over complicating things.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
 
Last edited:
but we can not know there is no god (Gnosticism).
Click to expand...

Sliver, i'm curious where you got this definition of Gnosticism from?

Also curious as to how old you are? (after i had read this thread and your exchanges with Spoffle and Dolph)


With regard to the whole "assumptions in Science" tangent read this Sliver

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

You see now why Science does depend on things which are unproven...you could even call it Faith :D Faith in the predictability and constant conjunction of events and our environment in the world in which we live.
 
Sliver said:
What's your point ? The person making the claim has the burden of proof. Period. Who said it was a tautology ? Who said it was an epistemic panacea ? Stop over complicating things.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Click to expand...

It isn't overcomplicating things to highlight limitations in science or philosophy any more than it is to do so with the bible, the Torah or any other religion.

Faith allows people to ignore or disregard the limitations, but it doesn't make them go away.
 
Surfer said:
Sliver, i'm curious where you got this definition of Gnosticism from?

Also curious as to how old you are? (after i had read this thread and your exchanges with Spoffle and Dolph)


With regard to the whole "assumptions in Science" tangent read this Sliver

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

You see now why Science does depend on things which are unproven...you could even call it Faith :D Faith in the predictability and constant conjunction of events and our environment in the world in which we live.
Click to expand...

Gnosticism refers to knowledge. Atheism refers to belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief and so knowledge and belief are contingent. I do not believe in a god/s so I am an atheist. I can not know there is no god so I am an agnostic about it. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist.



Google agnostic atheist if you are not happy with my explanation.

You say science can depend on things which are unproven and you are correct. However, the scientific endeavour starts with observation and so therefore is empirical. In other words, it starts with evidence, not faith. As a scientific hypothesis develops, more empirical evidence is gathered and should experiment/s produce repeatable valid predictions, a theory can emerge and laws can be formed. Faith is not required during the process.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
It isn't overcomplicating things to highlight limitations in science or philosophy any more than it is to do so with the bible, the Torah or any other religion.

Faith allows people to ignore or disregard the limitations, but it doesn't make them go away.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim ?
 
Zethor said:
It's real enough, if I may say so. It allowed mankind to step on the moon and look back into a singularity 14b years ago. What have completely imaginary concepts such as a Creator accomplished other than to give people reasons to kill each other?

You still interacted with that robot in the process of creating it. Unless of course you used magic, which is what this debate is about: whether or not we should accept the possibility of magic. I too accept magic in a way, I just don't give it names such as God, the Creator, the Force or Zeus. I just call it the unknown, I'm ok with it being unknown for the time being and I'm confident that more and more parts of it will be revealed, in time, as they have for thousands of years in history.
Click to expand...

Is the robot capable of remembering how it was created? The analogy is seen from the viewpoint of the robot. The self awareness of the robot can be absolute from a recursive standpoint, but its awareness of its creator does not have to be.
 
Sliver said:
So you agree that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim ?
Click to expand...

If you want someone to accept a claim, you should be providing proof of some sort. That doesn't necessarily lead to a requirement to justify a claim however. I gain and lose nothing based on whether a claim I make is accepted or rejected by others.

The situation gets even more complicated when you start trying to determine what is acceptable proof. By and large, this is where the scientific method comes in, it tries to define a process to ensure evidence is useful, repeatable and transferable. This does not make the process a defininer of reality though.
 
Sliver said:
Gnosticism refers to knowledge. Atheism refers to belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief and so knowledge and belief are contingent. I do not believe in a god/s so I am an atheist.
Click to expand...

Just find it a bit baffling you even mentioning Gnosticism because its an old secret religious sect that has its own belief system. See the following links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

http://www.theopedia.com/Gnosticism


You say science can depend on things which are unproven and you are correct.
Click to expand...
Its not can depend...it does depend on accepting these assumptions. But you acknowledge that certain basic tenets of Science are unproven assumptions which is all we were saying. (which is part of what Spoffle and Dolph were saying) Just a little thing but important to note about science.
 
Surfer said:
Just find it a bit baffling you even mentioning Gnosticism because its an old secret religious sect that has its own belief system. See the following links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

http://www.theopedia.com/Gnosticism
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Gnosticism in the sense that your links quote. I'm talking about the definition which refers to knowledge in theology.

EDIT:

I would be referring to definitions 1,2,3 but not 4:

1.pertaining to knowledge.


2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.


3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

4.(initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom