Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 236

Thread: I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Top | #1
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    13

    I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

    Yes, I can prove that God does not exist, but it is also true that other people can prove that he does not. That's because "proof" in the context of such an argument is usually about whether or not God or deities are likely to exist, not whether there is some absolute logical proof of existence. (Exception: philosophical debates in the sense of scholasticism, which I am not interested in here.) We believe or don't believe because the concept of God seems credible to us, and we establish credibility on the basis of evidence. In my experience, most believers think that they have sufficient evidence to find God credible.

    But how is it possible for me to prove something to exist, if someone else can prove it not to exist? Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises. The catch here is that the premises must themselves be true in order for the conclusion to be true. A conclusion that merely follows from premises is valid, but not necessarily true. A valid conclusion that follows from true premises is necessarily true. That is, the proof is sound.

    Debates over the existence of God always seem to go nowhere. People on both sides of the debate are almost never persuaded to a conclusion that is opposite the one they started with. My point here is that the debate is never over the truth of the conclusion. It is almost always over the truth of one or more premises. The only way to win such a debate is to stipulate that all the premises leading to the conclusion are true.

    So what is my "easy" proof that God does not exist? Right here:

    1. God is a disembodied spiritual agency.
    2. Disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist.
    3. Therefore, God does not exist.


    Too simple? Of course it is. Most people believe in the existence of disembodied spiritual agencies, so they reject the second premise right off the bat. Very few theists will deny the first premise, although I have rarely come across some who do. It is part of Mormon doctrine, I believe, that God does have a material body, although one would need to check on that with the individual Mormon, I think.

    What about the second premise? Is it true or false? I believe that it is true. All agencies, whether you want to term them "spiritual" or not, require material brains in order to exist. The evidence for my belief comes from the observation that agents cease to exist when the brains that they depend on are destroyed. We know this, because consciousness is impaired when the brain is damaged, and consciousness is a key component of volition or agency. Now don't tell me that you disagree with that belief, or we'll have to have a debate over it, before we come back to my original ironclad proof that God does not exist.

    I could obviously go on, but I invite others to comment on or critique my thesis: I can easily prove that God exists, but there are others who can easily prove he does not. The argument is almost always over the soundness of the proposed proof, not the validity. So the real debate is never really over whether the conclusion is true. It is really over whether other beliefs that the conclusion depends on are true.

  2. Top | #2
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,938
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,415
    Rep Power
    84
    Whether or not disembodied spiritual entities exist, we now know (as well as we know any scientific facts) that there is no possible mechanism for such entities to influence physical objects on a human scale.

    There are no unknown particles or forces at energies conversant with live human beings. And we can detect all of the known particles and forces, and there are no unexplained ones that could possibly be the vectors of divine intervention.

    Gods are as plausible and as real as perpetual motion machines. People who believe that either are possible simply don't understand fundamental physics.

    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...aning-of-life/

  3. Top | #3
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    13
    I've seen reports that roughly half the population believes that ghosts exist. The real driver behind such beliefs is an intuitive belief that thoughts and emotions exist independently of physical reality. This belief persists across all human cultures that I am aware of, and it exists despite the fact that people also seem well aware of the connection between brains and mental processes It is obvious that brain damage impairs mental functions, not to mention the ability to control one's physical body. Nevertheless, people seem to feel that there is a kind of parallel spiritual body that might be liberated by the death of the physical body.

    The point of the OP is that we don't really debate the existence of God. The debate always comes down to something other than the reality of God, and those premises that we use to justify god belief tend to be far more tractable and subject to debate than claims that we can't somehow really prove or disprove God's existence.

  4. Top | #4
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,938
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,415
    Rep Power
    84
    People believe all kinds of things that are not only untrue, but easily tested.

    It's no great shock that they believe untrue things that are hard to test.

    Lots of people believe that the sun is yellow; or that the moon is only visible at night.

    When people are able to be wrong about things that are constantly in their face on a regular basis, we must expect a lot of wrongness about a lot of things.

    Substance dualism is hugely popular; but it remains completely nonsensical.

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,236
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,824
    Rep Power
    54
    I accept the invitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    Yes, I can prove that God does not exist, but it is also true that other people can prove that he does not. That's because "proof" in the context of such an argument is usually about whether or not God or deities are likely to exist, not whether there is some absolute logical proof of existence. (Exception: philosophical debates in the sense of scholasticism, which I am not interested in here.) We believe or don't believe because the concept of God seems credible to us, and we establish credibility on the basis of evidence. In my experience, most believers think that they have sufficient evidence to find God credible.
    Close. Usually, the claim is (roughly if not exactly) that one can establish beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., conclusively) that God exists/doesn't exist. The arguments are not always or mostly deductions, but arguments in the sense of "arguing a case". They may and often involve a combination of deductive arguments, empirical evidence (i.e., observations), moral argumentation, appeals to authority, etc.

    I think equivalently (or close to that), it's to provide information so that it would be epistemically irrational for a person that gets that information to fail to believe that God exists/does not exist. Here, there is an implicit reference to certain epistemic position of the persons in question, since information that is rationally compelling to a rational agent may not be rationally compelling to another one with a different epistemic starting point (e.g., DNA evidence may contribute considerably to establish beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a present-day jury that a defendant is guilty, but it would have had no effect on a rational jury from 100 years ago; further evidence - about what DNA is, why tests are reliable, etc. - would be needed. Even if the present-day jury also requires expert testimony, the 1918 jury would require a lot more, just to establish the credibility of the experts in that weird thing called "DNA", etc.). Also, some information that part of the the intended audience already might be meant to be ignored, so perhaps other arguments and pieces of information are left aside for the sake of the argument.

    In philosophical discussions, by the way, this sort of argumentation is also very frequent, even if it's not called "proof" usually, and it's of higher quality than in ordinary debates (usually, i.e., in most cases).

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    But how is it possible for me to prove something to exist, if someone else can prove it not to exist?
    The same way ou can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty while someone else can establish that he is not. Most of the time, it is not doable. But it might be doable, for reasons such as:

    1. What is rationally compelling information (i.e., it would be unreasonable/epistemically irrational to fail to believe what is being argued for) to a person may not be so to another (see 1918 jury example above).
    2. Even rationally compelling information only increases the probability to a point, but not to 1, and further information might go in the other direction - though it would be unreasonable to expect so in a given case!

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises.
    Not in the sense of "proof" you are talking about, which is about establishing stuff conclusively. Even going by what you say in the first paragraph, except in the "Exception: philosophical debates..."), etc., also except in those cases, it's not about showing that it follows from a set of premises, at least not mostly. The premises and conclusion might help, but that's just the formal argument, which in this context is usually extremely simple. The real argument is the argument in the sense of "arguing a case", which is the part in which the arguer intends to establish some of the premises (usually, at least half the premises are obvious, so there is no need to argue for them), by providing information as explained above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    So what is my "easy" proof that God does not exist? Right here:
    That is not a proof that God does not exist in the sense of "proof" described above.

  6. Top | #6
    Zen Hedonist Jobar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,097
    Archived
    9,525
    Total Posts
    10,622
    Rep Power
    69
    There's a major problem here with defining the central term.

    I'm reminded of something from Robert Green Ingersoll:

    In the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows:

    "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without
    body, parts or passions."

    Think of that! -- without body, parts, or passions. I defy any
    man in the world to write a better description of nothing. You
    cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than "without
    body, parts, or passions." And yet this God, without passions, is
    angry at the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a
    jealous God, whose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God,
    without passions, loves the whole human race; and this God, without
    passions, damns a large majority of mankind. This God without body,
    walked in the Garden of Eden, in the cool of the day. This God,
    without body, talked with Adam and Eve. This God, without body, or
    parts met Moses upon Mount Sinai, appeared at the door of the
    tabernacle, and talked with Moses face to face as a man speaketh to
    his friend. This description of God is simply an effort of the
    church to describe a something of which it has no conception.
    One reason to be an atheist can be called non-cognitivism- "I do not understand what believers mean when they use the word 'God'." We can try and try to come to some common understanding with believers, but instead of a more precise mutual definition, things get more and more blurry; instead of converging on a single idea, it diverges.

    The same is true for believers in different faiths; even very slight differences in dogma are nearly impossible to mend.

  7. Top | #7
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I accept the invitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    Yes, I can prove that God does not exist, but it is also true that other people can prove that he does not. That's because "proof" in the context of such an argument is usually about whether or not God or deities are likely to exist, not whether there is some absolute logical proof of existence. (Exception: philosophical debates in the sense of scholasticism, which I am not interested in here.) We believe or don't believe because the concept of God seems credible to us, and we establish credibility on the basis of evidence. In my experience, most believers think that they have sufficient evidence to find God credible.
    Close. Usually, the claim is (roughly if not exactly) that one can establish beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., conclusively) that God exists/doesn't exist. The arguments are not always or mostly deductions, but arguments in the sense of "arguing a case". They may and often involve a combination of deductive arguments, empirical evidence (i.e., observations), moral argumentation, appeals to authority, etc.

    I think equivalently (or close to that), it's to provide information so that it would be epistemically irrational for a person that gets that information to fail to believe that God exists/does not exist. Here, there is an implicit reference to certain epistemic position of the persons in question, since information that is rationally compelling to a rational agent may not be rationally compelling to another one with a different epistemic starting point (e.g., DNA evidence may contribute considerably to establish beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a present-day jury that a defendant is guilty, but it would have had no effect on a rational jury from 100 years ago; further evidence - about what DNA is, why tests are reliable, etc. - would be needed. Even if the present-day jury also requires expert testimony, the 1918 jury would require a lot more, just to establish the credibility of the experts in that weird thing called "DNA", etc.). Also, some information that part of the the intended audience already might be meant to be ignored, so perhaps other arguments and pieces of information are left aside for the sake of the argument.

    In philosophical discussions, by the way, this sort of argumentation is also very frequent, even if it's not called "proof" usually, and it's of higher quality than in ordinary debates (usually, i.e., in most cases).
    In trying to wade through all of that, I searched in vain for something that was substantively different from what I had said. Maybe I just missed the point you were trying to make, but it seemed to me that you had missed what I was trying to say. I did explicitly say that I wasn't interested in an "absolute logical proof" but a proof of credibility. I was talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. empirical proof. My point was that the syllogism constructed to conclude God's likely nonexistence was never an adequate basis for reaching the conclusion, because credibility really rests on some premise, which turns out to be an argument that theists and non-theists are better able to come to terms on. You never want to actually directly conclude that God exists or doesn't exist on the basis of a high level argument. The real disputes invariably lie hidden at a deeper level, e.g. the question of substance vs property dualism. Almost all belief systems involving deities are ultimately based on substance dualism. If I start out arguing with a theist over God's existence and don't make clear my rejection of substance dualism, then I am arguing about the wrong area of disagreement. I would certainly agree with theists, if I accepted all of the assumptions that they were making to support their belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But how is it possible for me to prove something to exist, if someone else can prove it not to exist?
    The same way ou can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty while someone else can establish that he is not. Most of the time, it is not doable. But it might be doable, for reasons such as:

    1. What is rationally compelling information (i.e., it would be unreasonable/epistemically irrational to fail to believe what is being argued for) to a person may not be so to another (see 1918 jury example above).
    2. Even rationally compelling information only increases the probability to a point, but not to 1, and further information might go in the other direction - though it would be unreasonable to expect so in a given case!
    From this, I conclude that you are in basic agreement with my point--that people who fail to agree on the premises (or factual evidence) are wasting their time unless they can agree on what the facts are. So the argument is always at a lower level, and it is imperative to take the argument there rather than to just leave it at the 'guilty/not guilty' level, where everyone just assumes a common understanding of the premises. Guilt or lack thereof follows after there is an agreement on priors. So when someone says "Prove that God does not exist", I can easily prove it, based on the premises that I hold to be true. But that kind of superficial proof is uninteresting and beside the point. Arguments over the existence of God are always less interesting than those over issues that bear on stepping back to premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises.
    Not in the sense of "proof" you are talking about, which is about establishing stuff conclusively. Even going by what you say in the first paragraph, except in the "Exception: philosophical debates..."), etc., also except in those cases, it's not about showing that it follows from a set of premises, at least not mostly. The premises and conclusion might help, but that's just the formal argument, which in this context is usually extremely simple. The real argument is the argument in the sense of "arguing a case", which is the part in which the arguer intends to establish some of the premises (usually, at least half the premises are obvious, so there is no need to argue for them), by providing information as explained above.
    This is where I remind you that I wasn't interested in establishing stuff conclusively. I am interested in establishing it as credible. I was always talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt. See that in the last sentence of the first paragraph that you quoted. When you step back to arguing over a critical premise--the place where theists and non-theists really have a substantive disagreement, you still use logic to make the case. Logic exists at all levels of an argument, even when one is arguing on purely empirical grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus
    So what is my "easy" proof that God does not exist? Right here:
    That is not a proof that God does not exist in the sense of "proof" described above.
    Now you've lost me. Or perhaps my argument went completely over your head. You may have a very different idea of what you think I meant by "logical proof". I was very clear that a "logical proof" is not necessarily a sound proof. You have to establish the truth of all prior premises before you can reach a sound conclusion. IOW, we aren't ever really arguing over whether God exists. We are arguing over the premises necessary to reach such a conclusion.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I've seen reports that roughly half the population believes that ghosts exist. The real driver behind such beliefs is an intuitive belief that thoughts and emotions exist independently of physical reality. This belief persists across all human cultures that I am aware of, and it exists despite the fact that people also seem well aware of the connection between brains and mental processes It is obvious that brain damage impairs mental functions, not to mention the ability to control one's physical body. Nevertheless, people seem to feel that there is a kind of parallel spiritual body that might be liberated by the death of the physical body.

    The point of the OP is that we don't really debate the existence of God. The debate always comes down to something other than the reality of God, and those premises that we use to justify god belief tend to be far more tractable and subject to debate than claims that we can't somehow really prove or disprove God's existence.
    I suspect that most people who believe God exists don't believe this as a result of any rational process. Instead, it seems more plausible that they believe it because they want to believe it. The reason for that is that people are outraged to have to die and feel better for thinking there is a God that will take care of their mind as their real self when they die. There are other avenue to get to believe in God. Still, I also suspect most people who say they believe in fact don't. They just convince themselves they will be better off joining a community of believers who may look like they are caring people. And there are still other avenue. Some people have a subjective experience whereby God is just impossible to deny, just like reasonable people like you can't deny the world around them. Logic as the main reason to believe in God really comes last if at all. Believers may brandish proofs of God but that's not the reason they believe in God, if they do at all.

    And the mechanism you signal about going up the logical chain to question the premises applies to any argument about anything. If you can't fault the logic, you question the premises. That's just the logical thing to do.

    Proofs are also clearly a way to analyse what you want to prove into different premises, thereby clarifying the concepts and cutting up the problem into several and therefore smaller and more easily manageable questions. It's essentially trying to go up the chain of premises up until you can find where you disagree exactly and trying to force other people to agree with your premises and therefore forcing the conclusion. This goes for maths theorems, too. There can't be any difference in this respect.
    EB

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,600
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,306
    Rep Power
    59
    A belief in god is
    1. Absurd.
    2. Ludicrous.
    3.preposterous.
    4. ridiculous.
    and finally 5. Idiotic.
    Religion is all that and more. It breeds terrorism. Terrorism is most likely the biggest threat in the world.

    Can one imagine a terrorist[s] getting his/her's hands on a nuclear bomb! All of this springs forth from a belief of a friend in the sky who doesn't exist.
    That this superstition is still with us in the 21st century is because of wishful thinking and a fear of oblivion.
    God and religion are not compatible with common sense or of reason. It's simply absurd to think that there is a god somewhere up there who watches over the whole 7.4 billion people on this planet 24/7, 354 days per year, century after century, millennia after millennia on this or other planets of which there may be billions of out there in the cosmos!

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,355
    Rep Power
    14
    Before modern science no one knew there was an EM spectrum outside the visible. At best an individual can say he or she sees no evidence for disembodied spirits or gods.

    To say no such mechanism exists for a spirit to interact with reality is not the same as saying there is no current science to support the hypothesis.

    Whether a god exists is not objevely provable either way. What those of us n the science side can do is evaluate specific claims, such as young Earth creationism which fails all objective science analysis of the Earth and the cosmos.

    The theists can not objectively prove a god exists. If so we would have no debate.

    I pray to god for something and I do not get it doesn't mean god does not exist. If a Satanist claims a chant will summon a demon, but it doesn't in a demonstration maybe the demon was busy.

    Someone appears and claims to be a god. Is it a god or an ET with advanced technology? No way to know.

    The theists 'proofs' fall into categories in different forms. None of it objective proof, which is why it is faith and not science.

    Look at the world, it is self evident god created it.

    Ny favorite the bootstrap argument:
    How do you know god exists?...because god is in the bible.
    How do you know the bible is true?...because god is in it or god inspired it.
    Ok but then how do you know god exists?....

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-28-2019, 01:51 AM
  2. For Christians:If god exists why must you prove it?
    By steve_bank in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 263
    Last Post: 12-31-2018, 01:52 AM
  3. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 06-13-2017, 09:04 PM
  4. If Russia caused Trump to win does that mean Americans are easily led?
    By Will Wiley in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 07:15 PM
  5. Now it is non veg fasicism to prove 'secularism!
    By hinduwoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 01:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •