| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
27 May 2005 07:21:51 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "Philip Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
03 Jun 2005 02:55:30 AM |
|
|
Why do you think it necessary to prove the non-existence of an absurdity?
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:119se9vgsa94u84@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Mading wrote:
In article <1117383178.647319.132900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Paul
Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
Positive atheism [PA] implies negative atheism [NA],
but not vice versa.
There's a subtle difference between claiming
that there are no rational
reasons to believe that God exists [NA] and
claiming that there are
rational reasons to believe that God does not exist [PA].
If one wants to be completely scrupulous, it is correct to say that
one cannot be certain that there is no god.
As a negative atheist one can at least be certain that there are no
rational reasons to believe in God's existence.
Well, technically all you can be certain of is that there aren't any
that you've heard of so far. Granted, all the theists you've met so far
are batting .000, but that doesn't guarantee that the next one that
comes along will be the same - it only makes it very highly likely
that the next one will be the same.
Strong Atheism is pretty easy.
The theists make claims, god created all, he is omnpotent,
omnisceint, omnibenevolent.
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence gives us the problem of evil
Evil exists. Either god cannot or will destroy evil.
Therefore god is either not one or the other or possibly
not either.
Theists claim free will is the answer, man has free will
so evil exists. This does not explain natural vil (tsunamis).
But god createds all and is omniscince.
But if he creates all and knows all, if he creates a
world he knows that there will be a man named John
Smith and if he is evil or not.
At that point god may decide, he lets John Smit
exist as an evil agent or he makes John Smith a good
moral agent.
Allmenn and women, angels and devils are created by
god and god decides if they wil be moral or immoral,
All choices are his only.
Free will is something that is in principle impossible.
We can have no free will since everything we do to the
smallest act, to the smallest thought was forseen by god
long ago and he decided if we would do these things or not,
personally and purposefully.
Further more, just to bang this home in another manner, god
has free will and yet freely chooses only to do good.
Teh fact he can only do good is not taken by theologians
to mean he does not have free will.
So if god can have that, man can too.
If god fails to likewise give us free will and a good
natures such as god, evil exists because god wills evil
to exist, it is all god's fault.
So much for god, and there are more like this debunking god.
This is the general, maximal class of gods.
Debunk this, debunk all specific god that are creators of
all, omni-everything. Allah, The Jewish god, Christian god,
Brahaman, all such maximalist gods.
And once that class of gods is debunked, so are all
subclaims, Jesus vs Mohammed for example.
So, no theist that comes along with a maximalist
god of some sort will ever succeed because that sort
of a god is self destructive.
Its a whole class of gods that gets taken out.
And lessor gods are simply not acceptable
to the true believers, much less theologians,
much less all these religions and denominations.
and a lot of theologians in the pass have offered
up alternative gods, its not like that hasn't been
tried.
Ideas like a good god and and evil demiurge have
their problems too. Note their adherents were
burnt at the stake in the middle ages.
Disproof of the maximalist gods isn't hard.
Its almost trivial.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 02:41:26 PM |
|
|
On 29 May 2005 09:12:58 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
Positive atheism [PA] implies negative atheism [NA],
but not vice versa.
There's a subtle difference between claiming
that there are no rational
reasons to believe that God exists [NA] and
claiming that there are
rational reasons to believe that God does not exist [PA].
If one wants to be completely scrupulous, it is correct to say that
one cannot be certain that there is no god.
As a negative atheist one can at least be certain that there are no
rational reasons to believe in God's existence.
It is interesting to
note, however, that no one applies such strict conditions to other
such statements. "There is no Santa Claus" does
not raise any serious
objections. Nobody insists that the person has
an obligation to prove
there is no Santa. The total lack of evidence and the total illogic
of all the Santa stories makes his non-existence an
accepted fact -
even without objective evidence.
You are right insofar as in many cases the absence of evidence can
indeed justifiably count as evidence of absence.
Many argue that the case of God belongs to those ones:
(01) If God exists, then there is sufficient evidence for God's
existence.
(02) There is no sufficient evidence for God's existence.
(03) Therefore, God does not exist.
This is a valid argument, but its alleged soundness certainly depends
on the truth of premise (1).
I will then agree that the person
who positively asserts that there is no god has exactly the same
obligation to prove his point as does the person who asserts that
there is no Santa.
I agree with the theists that, compared with Santa Claus and similar
undeniably fictional entities, the question of God is of vital
philosophical and existential importance, and so we ought to be
extraordinarily scrupulous before passing judgement on God's existence.
Not at all. Any number of unlikely propositions can be made and have
been made that would have been of great importance if true. Without
evidence there is simply nothing to consider. The assertion is made;
evidence is asked for; no evidence is given; that should be the end of
it.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 08:48:01 AM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 18:17:03 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour
of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence.
This stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove
God's nonexistence.
One assumes that your "positive atheist" is also aware of the
non-existence of any evidence, so no, he is
not obliged to offer any
evidence for the non-existence of any god or of Santa
or of any other
proposed fantasy that lacks evidence.
Positive atheism [PA] implies negative atheism [NA], but not vice
versa.
There's a subtle difference between claiming that there are no rational
reasons to believe that God exists [NA] and claiming that there are
rational reasons to believe that God does not exist [PA].
Do they not teach simple logic, sets, Venn diagrams etc any more?
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 09:58:03 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 09:00:42 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
What's a g-o-d? There's nothing rational about superstition, which is
what Christianity is. What's even more amusing is the superstition is
mainly based on stolen stories and stolen concepts which is against
the Christian 'Prime Directives.'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 11:32:53 AM |
|
|
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Hawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 06:55:33 AM |
|
|
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117297973.025029.34120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
One of the best known logical proofs - Euclid's proof of the infinity of
primes - is actually a non-existence proof.
It proves the NON-EXISTENCE of a supposed largest prime.
Jim Hawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Brockbank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 12:17:27 PM |
|
|
"Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins@manx.net> wrote in message
news:0vere.9472$Kt2.5220@fe07.highwinds-media.phx...
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117297973.025029.34120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
One of the best known logical proofs - Euclid's proof of the infinity of
primes - is actually a non-existence proof.
It proves the NON-EXISTENCE of a supposed largest prime.
Jim Hawkins
There is great difficulty caused by using the word 'proof' in a correct
sense, referring to mathematics and logic, and then using the same word in a
field in which the word does not apply. A similar difficulty about the word
applies in discussing court proceedings where people might say that the man
was proved guilty, but missing off the crucial words 'beyond reasonable
doubt'.
It is a great pity in diiscussing philosophy to have words used so casually.
In fact of course it shows that most people exchanging messages in
newsgroups are not interested in philosophy etc., just in arguing. Nothing
wrong with that in principle, but it is very tedious that the range of
arguments they present is so extremely limited.
There is no proof of anything outside maths and logic, but the evidence that
there is no God is that there is no such evidence. My comment on it is that
if someone has faith then it is OK for them to believe I am sure, but I'd
advise them not to part with any money because they are probably being
cheated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
14 Jun 2005 05:01:40 PM |
|
|
John Brockbank wrote:
There is great difficulty caused by using
the word 'proof' in a correct
sense, referring to mathematics and logic, and then
using the same word in a
field in which the word does not apply.
For example, in Antony Flew's "A Dictionary of Philosophy" the concept
"proof" is defined as follows:
"1. (in non-formal contexts)
A proof (or demonstration) of a proposition C is a valid argument from
true premises with C as conclusion.
2. (in a formal system)
A proof of C in the system S is a sequence P_1, ..., P_n of well-formed
formulas of S such that P_n = C and each P_i, 1 <= i <= n, is either an
axiom of S or there are j1, ..., jm < i such that P_i follows from
P_j1, ..., P_jm according to some rule of inference of S."
In informal contexts "proof" normally has meaning (1), i.e. it is
synonymous with "sound argument".
That there are (logically) valid arguments with God's nonexistence as
conclusion is indubitable, but, of course, the atheists believe that
those are also sound, while the theists believe they aren't.
It all depends on the truth (or falsity) of the respective premises.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
16 Jun 2005 03:33:42 PM |
|
|
Paul Holbach wrote:
That there are (logically) valid arguments with God's nonexistence as
conclusion is indubitable, but, of course, the atheists believe that
those are also sound, while the theists believe they aren't.
It all depends on the truth (or falsity) of the respective premises.
The most that an atheist can do is show that a particular theist's
mythology is inconsistent.
Theists argue that following their mythology and moral values will lead
to a better society. Theists don't have to prove their is a god or that
their mythology is consistent if their claim is correct.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 12:38:44 PM |
|
|
John Brockbank wrote:
There is no proof of anything outside maths and logic, but the
evidence that there is no God is that there is no such evidence.
There is also proof that the essential properties of ``God'' as
defined by modern theism--that is, that God is omnipotent,
or omniscient, or omnibenevolent, or the creator of the
universe--are each, separately, inherently self-contradictory and
impossible. Thus, there is proof that no such entity exists.
Cheers,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Brockbank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 09:40:56 PM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:42adc592$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
John Brockbank wrote:
There is no proof of anything outside maths and logic, but the
evidence that there is no God is that there is no such evidence.
There is also proof that the essential properties of ``God'' as
defined by modern theism--that is, that God is omnipotent,
or omniscient, or omnibenevolent, or the creator of the
universe--are each, separately, inherently self-contradictory and
impossible. Thus, there is proof that no such entity exists.
Cheers,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
No, not quite. First I will argue about modern theism. That is a non
existent thing, theism might be the actually most ancient human thing there
is. People want to know things. But they of course do not because some
things are very hard indeed to find out while easy to ask about.
Next because those things are hard, people make up answers. That, the
making up, is modern theism, and also is ancient theism.
'It must be true because I can not think of another reason', and you then
have religion.
All that stuff about 'omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnibenevolent' is
baloney. Science is not Maths or Logic or English or Proof.
Science is about trying to find out things without making them up, or
deciding it's magic without explanation, or hoping it might be so, or just
surrendering and believing things.
So, you think that the existence of God is proved to be not true. I reckon
that you should just leave that alone; what has been found out since you
started asking?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 09:53:51 PM |
|
|
John Brockbank wrote:
All that stuff about 'omnipotent, or omniscient, or
omnibenevolent' is baloney.
Exactly. And at least one of those characteristics is at the
foundation of the beliefs of most of the faithful; their beliefs
are equally baloniferous.
So, you think that the existence of God is proved to be not
true. I reckon that you should just leave that alone; what has
been found out since you started asking?
What has happened is that some of the faithful are not quite as
certain of their faith any more.
Most of the faithful, as a last resort, claim, ``Well, you can't
prove that there *isn't* a God, so I'm best off believing in him
regardless!'' Pascal's Wager and all that.
But if we call Pascal's Bluff and discover that there isn't any
maximalist God, and thus no smaller gods, his Wager is determined
to be a losing proposition. Some will insist on continuing to
waste their energy and lives, but many might not.
Those who stop wasting their lives may well do something useful
with them.
Cheers,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
14 Jun 2005 11:07:47 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
John Brockbank wrote:
So, you think that the existence of God is proved to be not
true. I reckon that you should just leave that alone; what has
been found out since you started asking?
What has happened is that some of the faithful are not quite as
certain of their faith any more.
Most of the faithful, as a last resort, claim, ``Well, you can't
prove that there *isn't* a God, so I'm best off believing in him
regardless!'' Pascal's Wager and all that.
But if we call Pascal's Bluff and discover that there isn't any
maximalist God, and thus no smaller gods, his Wager is determined
to be a losing proposition. Some will insist on continuing to
waste their energy and lives, but many might not.
But even if there is a god, Pascal's wager may not be true. A god may
not have disclosed himself to any humans and may think that those that
make up fallacious stories about him and his desires deserve eternal
damnation.
Atheists shouldn't be concerned about whether a god exists, but whether
theists are harmful to the people that they indoctrinate and society in
general.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
14 Jun 2005 11:29:53 AM |
|
|
Ron Peterson wrote:
But even if there is a god, Pascal's wager may not be true.
Certainly. It assumes that there is only one possible God,
Pascal's God. If there is a God, but it's Mumbo Jumbo, King of
the Jungle...well, you've just screwed any chances you may have
had with *him* by professing your faith in Christ.
Atheists shouldn't be concerned about whether a god exists, but
whether theists are harmful to the people that they indoctrinate
and society in general.
Ah, but the two are inextricably linked. For their beliefs all
rest upon God. Take that away from them, and their beliefs
shatter. Nothing left to indoctrinate with, now, is there?
Cheers,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
14 Jun 2005 05:59:40 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Ron Peterson wrote:
Atheists shouldn't be concerned about whether a god exists, but
whether theists are harmful to the people that they indoctrinate
and society in general.
Ah, but the two are inextricably linked. For their beliefs all
rest upon God. Take that away from them, and their beliefs
shatter. Nothing left to indoctrinate with, now, is there?
I was thinking of the case of Deists, who only attribute creation to
their god and not the imposition of any dogma.
There are religions that don't rely on a god mythology such as
Scientology, Objectivism, and Buddhism which try to give moral
judgements beyond using knowledge and reason.
The Catholic dictionary/encyclopedia defines a moral atheism as one
that rejects the morality established by the Catholic church, and I
think that is what is most feared by the theists.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Hawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 01:35:38 AM |
|
|
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117297973.025029.34120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
One of the best known logical proofs - Euclid's proof of the infinity of
primes - is actually a non-existence proof.
It proves the non-existence of a supposed largest prime.
Jim Hawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
13 Jun 2005 01:47:07 AM |
|
|
Jim Hawkins wrote:
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117297973.025029.34120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
One of the best known logical proofs - Euclid's proof of the infinity of
primes - is actually a non-existence proof.
It proves the non-existence of a supposed largest prime.
So, what you're suggesting is that, in an infinite universe, an infinite
amount of beings could exist and, therefore, a probability that an
entity matching the Christian god in every fashion could exist?
Then, what's stopping an even more powerul entity from creating that
god, and an even more powerful entity creating that entity, ad infinitum?
Are you seriously suggesting that we model our lives around that
concept? We might as well model our lives around the sentient
mattresses of Squornshellous Zeta, or the Jatravardids on Viltvodle 6?
Really, once you start getting into the metaphysical realm like this,
anything is possible and nothing is possible.
Solipsism, anyone?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:48:57 PM |
|
|
D-word wrote:
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
???
I have showed you, as an example, a valid proof (which I also consider
sound) whose conclusion is "God does not exist".
As a matter of fact, that is a proof of God's nonexistence!
Any proof whose conclusion reads "Object O does not exist" is a
nonexistence proof.
Your claim that there are no nonexistence proofs is doubtless false,
since e.g. in mathematics it is easily possible to prove the
nonexistence of e.g. the greatest natural number.
There might be no sound proofs of God's nonexistence, but there
undeniably are (valid) proofs of God's nonexistence.
So your assertion that nonexistence proofs constitute a type of logical
fallacy is simply false.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:57:25 PM |
|
|
Paul Holbach wrote:
I have showed you, as an example, a valid proof
(which I also consider sound) whose
conclusion is "God does not exist".
And of course, "valid"--by definition--means "non-fallacious".
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 11:51:00 AM |
|
|
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Claim: I have an apple in this bag.
Proof: Open the bag and there's the apple.
versus
Claim: I do not have an orange in the bag.
Proof: The bag is empty.
Proof of the non-existence of the orange.
However, these are ordinary claims and require only ordinary proof.
Extraordinary claims (such as "I have a talking apple.") require
extraordinary proof (having an apple is not proof of its ability to talk).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:58:24 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Uj1me.10072$Ri3.5709@trnddc09:
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's
existence rationally justifies one's not believing in God's
existence. This stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of
non-existence." There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only
existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Claim: I have an apple in this bag.
Proof: Open the bag and there's the apple.
versus
Claim: I do not have an orange in the bag.
Proof: The bag is empty.
Proof of the non-existence of the orange.
Sounds like you haven't experienced some of the wilder conspiracy
theories. It could be the orange was invisible, or maybe because you
refuse to believe in the existance of an orange in the bag, you fail to
see it. Most likely, the reason you *say* you don't see the orange in
the bag is because you've either been payed off or threatened by the
government not to reveal the existance of the orange in the bag.
However, these are ordinary claims and require only ordinary proof.
Extraordinary claims (such as "I have a talking apple.") require
extraordinary proof (having an apple is not proof of its ability to
talk).
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 01:08:01 PM |
|
|
Grogs wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Uj1me.10072$Ri3.5709@trnddc09:
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's
existence rationally justifies one's not believing in God's
existence. This stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of
non-existence." There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only
existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Claim: I have an apple in this bag.
Proof: Open the bag and there's the apple.
versus
Claim: I do not have an orange in the bag.
Proof: The bag is empty.
Proof of the non-existence of the orange.
Sounds like you haven't experienced some of the wilder conspiracy
theories. It could be the orange was invisible, or maybe because you
refuse to believe in the existance of an orange in the bag, you fail to
see it. Most likely, the reason you *say* you don't see the orange in
the bag is because you've either been payed off or threatened by the
government not to reveal the existance of the orange in the bag.
No, you haven't dealt with the wilder conspiracy theories. The actual
reason for the "lack of existence" of the orange is that I've been
seduced by the Apple King to say that there is no orange.
The greatest trick the Apple King ever did was to convince people that
there is no orange.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 02:16:17 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:5s2me.7484$tv3.5116
@trnddc06:
Grogs wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Uj1me.10072$Ri3.5709@trnddc09:
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's
existence rationally justifies one's not believing in God's
existence. This stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of
non-existence." There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only
existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Claim: I have an apple in this bag.
Proof: Open the bag and there's the apple.
versus
Claim: I do not have an orange in the bag.
Proof: The bag is empty.
Proof of the non-existence of the orange.
Sounds like you haven't experienced some of the wilder conspiracy
theories. It could be the orange was invisible, or maybe because you
refuse to believe in the existance of an orange in the bag, you fail
to
see it. Most likely, the reason you *say* you don't see the orange in
the bag is because you've either been payed off or threatened by the
government not to reveal the existance of the orange in the bag.
No, you haven't dealt with the wilder conspiracy theories. The actual
reason for the "lack of existence" of the orange is that I've been
seduced by the Apple King to say that there is no orange.
The greatest trick the Apple King ever did was to convince people that
there is no orange.
You're probably right. I've probably been dealing with lesser woo-woo
theories like the Moon Landing Hoax. Their theories are usually more
like 'my uncle's friend worked at the Alcoa plant (they produce Aluminum)
and they all knew it was faked.' Of course the reason the 1000's of
engineers, scientists, and astronauts deny this is because the government
has payed them to keep silent. Even other governments, and in fact
anyone who posts a contrary post on their web page seems to be in on the
conspiracy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 11:59:34 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Yes, try to pick a relevant example next time.
Claim: I have an apple in this bag.
Proof: Open the bag and there's the apple.
versus
Claim: I do not have an orange in the bag.
Proof: The bag is empty.
Proof of the non-existence of the orange.
We know apples exist. We aren't proving that god "isn't in the bag",
we are proving that he doesn't exist. Like I stated, there is no way
to prove that something DOES NOT exist.
However, these are ordinary claims and require only ordinary proof.
Extraordinary claims (such as "I have a talking apple.") require
extraordinary proof (having an apple is not proof of its ability to talk).
Again, we aren't talking about "talking apples" or PROVING EXISTENCE.
(Are you really this dense?) We are talking about the *proof for
non-existence* which is logically impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:31:01 PM |
|
|
D-word wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Yes, try to pick a relevant example next time.
Oops, this is what happens when you type distractedly. My apologies.
You're absolutely correct, D-Word. I retract my post.
(Might I suggest a chill pill, however? Jeez.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:46:48 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
D-word wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
D-word wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
No Paul:
You are committing a common logical fallacy, "proof of non-existence."
There is *no logical proof* for non-existence, only existence.
1. One cannot prove something that does not exist.
2. Proof of existence must come from those who make the claim.
Depends on the claim, really.
Yes, try to pick a relevant example next time.
Oops, this is what happens when you type distractedly. My apologies.
You're absolutely correct, D-Word. I retract my post.
(Might I suggest a chill pill, however? Jeez.)
Chill pill taken. Someone has to keep people on their toes around
here, "god knows" the theists aren't up to the challenge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 03:16:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 28 May 2005 09:59:34 -0700, "D-word"
[snip]
We know apples exist. We aren't proving that god "isn't in the bag",
we are proving that he doesn't exist. Like I stated, there is no way
to prove that something DOES NOT exist.
Sure there is.
We can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exist. We can prove
that there is no prime number larger than all other prime numbers.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 05:11:29 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on 28 May 2005 09:59:34 -0700, "D-word"
[snip]
We know apples exist. We aren't proving that god "isn't in the bag",
we are proving that he doesn't exist. Like I stated, there is no way
to prove that something DOES NOT exist.
Sure there is.
We can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exist. We can prove
that there is no prime number larger than all other prime numbers.
There are plenty of married bachelors, it happens every time a man gets
married for the first time. That is just semantics. The point was not
to see if you could come up with a concept that cannot exist according
to present laws and knowledge, or by use of contradiction, but to prove
that something does not have a material (or metaphysical) existence.
For example, please prove -- logically -- that there ISN'T a species of
plant that holds the cure for cancer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 04:00:02 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on 28 May 2005 09:59:34 -0700, "D-word"
[snip]
We know apples exist. We aren't proving that god "isn't in the bag",
we are proving that he doesn't exist. Like I stated, there is no way
to prove that something DOES NOT exist.
Sure there is.
We can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exist. We can prove
that there is no prime number larger than all other prime numbers.
If the god of the christian bible exists as stated in the bible then
accrding to what the bible says there are any number of ways to demonstrate
it exists.
Ask for something in it's name and it *will* be granted.
Find somebody with faith.
Move a mountain, walk on water, drink poison...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 07:49:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:00:02 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on 28 May 2005 09:59:34 -0700, "D-word"
[snip]
We know apples exist. We aren't proving that god "isn't in the bag",
we are proving that he doesn't exist. Like I stated, there is no way
to prove that something DOES NOT exist.
Sure there is.
We can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exist. We can prove
that there is no prime number larger than all other prime numbers.
We have proof there is no good God.
If the god of the christian bible exists as stated in the bible then
accrding to what the bible says there are any number of ways to demonstrate
it exists.
Ask for something in it's name and it *will* be granted.
Find somebody with faith.
Move a mountain, walk on water, drink poison...
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
