A test to prove God doesn't exist

Originally posted by chappy1
I cannot prove anything to you because that's not my job. The only person who can bring you to him is God/Holy Spirit..........so I'll hope for the best.

You could prove it to me, even if it is not your job to, with evidence. Your failure to do so only goes to show you have no objective evidence.

It's not my job to provide corrections on student manuscripts, yet I happily do it.

Originally posted by chappy1
I never wrote that nature's complexity is proof that he was invented! You interpreted it wrong. The complexity of nature proves there is a God NOT THAT HE WAS INVENTED.

Does that mean God isn't very complex?

Originally posted by chappy1
I never wrote that nature's complexity is proof that he was invented! You interpreted it wrong. The complexity of nature proves there is a God NOT THAT HE WAS INVENTED.

Sorry, you simply didn't explain your proof so I assumed that it was along the lines of:
1. Nature is complex
2. Complex things must be created/invented.
3. There must be a creator/inventor
4. Call that creator/inventor God.
If that is not your proof, then please explain how "The complexity of nature proves there is a God".
Simply stating it proves nothing.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You could prove it to me, even if it is not your job to, with evidence. Your failure to do so only goes to show you have no objective evidence.

It's not my job to provide corrections on student manuscripts, yet I happily do it.

evidence and proof are two different things.

There is evidence for a god.

There is evidence for the absense of a god.

Yet there are people who believe in both of those things. You don't want evidence, you want undeniable proof. There is no undeniable proof for god, and there is no undeniable proof for the big bang theory. Different people come to different conclusions based on their own personal experience and reasoning.

You quest for 'proof' one way or the other will never end, and you will continue to think that it 'proves' there is no god until you either die or change your mind. No-one on this forum will change that; only a life experience or close friend might.

Originally posted by chappy1
I cannot prove anything to you because that's not my job. The only person who can bring you to him is God/Holy Spirit..........so I'll hope for the best.

I'm not sure why you choose to argue with athiests on these forums. You've succeeded in quoting things you've "heard" without showing any evidence or providing sound reasoning. Just like scottishinnz, you have no intention of conceding any points, and nothing you or he have said on this forum will convince either of you of something you don't already agree with.

Originally posted by forkedknight
I'm not sure why you choose to argue with athiests on these forums. You've succeeded in quoting things you've "heard" without showing any evidence or providing sound reasoning. Just like scottishinnz, you have no intention of conceding any points, and nothing you or he have said on this forum will convince either of you of something you don't already agree with.

I concede when I'm wrong. Why would I concede when I'm right?

Originally posted by forkedknight
evidence and proof are two different things.

There is evidence for a god.

There is evidence for the absense of a god.

Yet there are people who believe in both of those things. You don't want evidence, you want undeniable proof. There is no undeniable proof for god, and there is no undeniable proof for the big bang theory. Different people co ...[text shortened]... mind. No-one on this forum will change that; only a life experience or close friend might.

All I ask for is credible evidence. That's all.

You seem loathe to admit it, but there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

Every time these guys show me something, then normally within 10 minutes or so I've spotted the logical flaw, and shot it down. The problem with the God idea is that it is chock full of logical contradictions, and bits where the story doesn't even make coherent sense.

Originally posted by forkedknight
I'm not sure why you choose to argue with athiests on these forums. You've succeeded in quoting things you've "heard" without showing any evidence or providing sound reasoning. Just like scottishinnz, you have no intention of conceding any points, and nothing you or he have said on this forum will convince either of you of something you don't already agree with.

Do you think you've said something that I didn't already know? I know that I won't convince anybody to think like I do. I'm simply voicing my faith and letting the pieces fall where they may. Certain people in here though just can't stand that there are millions who take God on faith instead of only believing in what they can see, hear, and feel.

Originally posted by chappy1
Do you think you've said something that I didn't already know? I know that I won't convince anybody to think like I do. I'm simply voicing my faith and letting the pieces fall where they may. Certain people in here though just can't stand that there are millions who take God on faith instead of only believing in what they can see, hear, and feel.

Why should anyone take anything “on faith”? What does that mean?

I have no arguable evidence that the cosmos is enspirited by many gods—however, I take that on faith. How is my faith different from yours? You, perhaps, take the Bible on faith; I take the Elder Edda on faith—how is my faith any different from yours?

If, for example, you think the evidence for one god—any one god—is better than for more than one god, then present your evidence and your argument. Otherwise, my faith is no more or less reasonable than yours, and—given the history of religions—the whole thing is pretty much a matter of guessing which slot the roulette ball will drop into.

“Well, if you guess wrong, you won’t be saved.” You too. At that level there isn’t anything more to be said—not anything.

Are you going to grant that every other religious “taking on faith” is as reasonable as yours? Is there no more evidence for your “taking it on faith” than for anyone who takes another set of religious beliefs on faith? Does your god grant salvation to the faithful of other faiths, just because they are faithful?

Now, I likely have a different understanding of “faith” than you do—one that does not have anything whatsoever to do with what I believe. You seem to be using the word “faith” to mean choosing to believe things for which there is no sufficient evidence to actually convince anyone. How is that a virtue of any sort? [I may be wrong, of course, on how you are using the term.]

Here are two simple questions: (1) Is your faith reasonable or unreasonable? (2) Why or why not?

Or—(3?) do you mean that “faith” is simply unreasonable belief?

Now, these questions are not simply rhetorical. At the same time, they are not simply argumentative either. They are, I think, worth considering—rather than either dismissing out of hand or answering in some knee-jerk fashion. I only ask you to consider them... Just those two (or three) questions... The rest is just a setting of context...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All I ask for is credible evidence. That's all.

You seem loathe to admit it, but there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

Every time these guys show me something, then normally within 10 minutes or so I've spotted the logical flaw, and shot it down. The problem with the God idea is that it is chock full of logical contradictions, and bits where the story doesn't even make coherent sense.

Explain morality to me. Tell me why people behave with good will toward others. Why are people generous to those in need who they do not know?

Why are all of the laws of physics/thermodynamics/electricity so elegant and simple?

Why do so many of the basic themes in religion appear so universally across all parts of the globe, even those that had no contact with the outside world until the last couple hundred years?

Give me proof for what caused/created those things.

Originally posted by forkedknight
Explain morality to me. Tell me why people behave with good will toward others. Why are people generous to those in need who they do not know?

Why are all of the laws of physics/thermodynamics/electricity so elegant and simple?

Why do so many of the basic themes in religion appear so universally across all parts of the globe, even those that h ...[text shortened]... orld until the last couple hundred years?

Give me proof for what caused/created those things.

One. The onus is not on me. It is on you. It's up to you to provide evidence for the existence of God. Right now, God has the same evidential basis as moon pixies. I do not need to disprove God, we can assume that neither God nor moon pixies exist until evidence to the contrary is supplied - that is not the way logic works.

Two. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Many fantastic books exist on the evolution of society. Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" is perennially useful, although a better introduction to evolution may be provided by Dan Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

Three. You think physics is elegant and simple? Fine, explain Quantum Physics or the Higg's Boson - that should give us all a good laugh.

Four. Basic themes of religion. Such as? The fact that many people have conceived of a God doesn't make it so. One elegant idea is Julian Jeynes theory of bicamerality. See his book "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind".

Five. Give me proof for what caused/created those things. You are asking me to explain all of history from the Big Bang onwards. This is completely unreasonable. First, you give me some type of credible evidence for God.

Originally posted by forkedknight
Explain morality to me. Tell me why people behave with good will toward others. Why are people generous to those in need who they do not know?

Why are all of the laws of physics/thermodynamics/electricity so elegant and simple?

Why do so many of the basic themes in religion appear so universally across all parts of the globe, even those that h ...[text shortened]... orld until the last couple hundred years?

Give me proof for what caused/created those things.

Why is “I don’t (yet anyway) know” not a valid answer? [Granted that there are a number of theories about human morality...]

If someone asks, “Who/what create/caused ‘God’?”, the answer is generally that God is causa sui. That is, there is no who/what/or why permitted when it comes to God. The causal/explanatory chain is truncated—by no more than simple fiat—at that point. One can just as logically truncate the explanatory chain at—the cosmos as it is. (Note: the cosmos is not a thing in itself, but the collectivity, the totality, the whole; if every aspect of that totality could be—internally—explained, there would be no further need of any explanation for the cosmos-itself.)

Why is there a god? Why should one assume that such a god is benevolent? Why would a (presumably) perfect god create an imperfect cosmos? Why would god (any god) not let his/her creatures know the existence and nature of that god perfectly?

The point is just that such “why” questions are no less artificially truncated at “god” than at “the cosmos”. Or at this god rather than that one.

Why do people love? Perhaps it’s rooted in the survival urge (especially with regard to communal animals). Perhaps it’s an accident of our consciousness. Perhaps it’s “God”. In the face of not knowing, however, it seems better to acknowledge the possibility of natural explanations—or even “I don’t know”—than to leap to some supernatural category, which really begs the same sort of questions—unless they are simply disallowed at that point.

Why do people love? Why do some people claim that “God” loves? Why, why, why...

____________________________________

I don’t know what you mean by “proof”. What level of proof? Preponderance of evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Certainty?

____________________________________

The Buddha said (among other things): “In living there is suffering.” He did not ask “why?”. He asked: “What is the source?” Clutching/grasping. He did not ask: “Why do people clutch and grasp?”. He asked: “Can such suffering be alleviated?” He asked: “How?”

If there is no god, why is there suffering? If there is a god, why is there suffering? Or loving? Or compassion? Why is there morality? Why is there immorality? If there is no god, why is there death? If there is a god, why is there death? “God” does not really answer any of those questions. It just introduces a new level for the same old asking. And, at the so-called “supernatural” level, anyone can make up whatever answers they want—or buy into whatever answers have previously been given by others who speculated.

In life there is suffering. How can such suffering be alleviated? In life there is compassion. How can such compassion be extended?

These kinds of questions seem to me to be far more meaningful than why, why, why...

EDIT: Of course, one can put simple causative or descriptive questions in terms of “why?” “Why are you worried?” “Because I can’t figure out how to pay my bills this month.” Etc., etc. These are not quite the same as the metaphysical “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?” or "Why is there God?" type of questions.

Originally posted by vistesd
Why should anyone take anything “on faith”? What does that mean?

I have no arguable evidence that the cosmos is enspirited by many gods—however, I take that on faith. How is my faith different from yours? You, perhaps, take the Bible on faith; I take the Elder Edda on faith—how is my faith any different from yours?

If, for example, yo ...[text shortened]... nsider them... Just those two (or three) questions... The rest is just a setting of context...

When you say reasonable do you mean "do I have evidence for it"?

Originally posted by chappy1
When you say reasonable do you mean "do I have evidence for it"?

Any evidence. Yes. For example, someone said that “love exists.” To me that just means that people behave in ways that we describe as “loving”—and we know what we mean when we say that. It does not mean that “love” is some physical entity floating around in the cosmos. And yet I would admit the fact that people behave in loving ways as “evidence” for some argument, perhaps.

When one links two physical facts together in a causative way—well, if one says that bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth because of the force of gravity, it is the force of gravity that is given as the reason why bodies behave in that way. The physical evidence is that bodies fall toward the center of the earth. (I’m no scientist, so there may well be other evidence of the force of gravity than inference from the behavior of bodies, large and small.)

I assume that you have reason(s) for your faith. Perhaps those reasons do not derive from the kind of physical evidence cited in the opening post; perhaps they derive from something else. The point being that a faith that has no reasons is an unreasonable faith.

If one has reasons for their faith, they may be either sound reasons or unsound reasons depending on the logic of the connections. Just like our reasons for anything else that we think or say or do.

If one says, “I believe X”, I might ask: “Why do you believe X?” (that is, what are your reasons for believing X?).

If one says, “I just have faith”, I might ask: “But what are the reasons for your faith?”

If someone pits faith against reason, I don’t know what they are talking about. Literally. However—

For me, “faith” is an existential attitude of trust or confidence (the meanings of the NT Greek word translated as faith) in the face of uncertainty. I may not believe that I can make that long shot before the buzzer sounds to end the game, but sports psychologists will say that the more confidence with which I make the attempt, the more likely I might succeed. I may have no evidence at all that I can make such a shot (perhaps I have never tried before). Belief is built on evidence and reasons. Faith is an attitude, not a belief. That is how I use the word. In that sense, faith is not a reason for belief.

I took you to be either (1) using “faith” synonymously with “belief”; or (2) as some kind of reason for believing. As I say, I use the word “faith” (in my personal vocabulary) in such a completely different sense that its “reasons” are strictly pragmatic. Nor is it a religious term for me. Most people do not seem to use the word to mean what I do.

Does all that clarify the questions? Or complicate them?

Look, maybe I’ve complicated it too much—

Either you have reasons for believing what you believe or you don’t.

If you don’t, you are simply unreasonable in your beliefs.

If you have reasons, they are either sound or they are not. When you present them, others might argue that they are not sound (not good—reasonable or logical—reasons). You can either defend them (to your satisfaction) or you have to admit that they are not sound.

Claiming that you have faith in your beliefs does not make them any more or less sound.

If you cannot defend the soundness of your beliefs, then you should re-examine them.

If you cannot convince someone else of the soundness of your beliefs, then they have no reason to accept them.

If I say that I believe in the existence of little pixies (some people have and probably do) that live under the flowers, you are within your epistemic rights to ask me why—by what reasons—I believe in such a thing.

What do you take as a sound reason for believing—whatever?