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

[Angra Mainyu]

There is no major problem with defining the central term unless you reject the truth of premise #1. If you accept its truth and the truth of the second premise, then the conclusion is inescapable. If you want to argue over premise #1, then that just means that the real argument is not over my proof. It is over a low level premise. That is where the substantive argument exists. However, at that point, we are just having a terminological dispute, not a substantive one. Most atheists are not non-cognitivists. They know perfectly well what most believers mean by their use of the word "God", IMO. But we can always have an argument over that.

Different theists (and sometimes the same) often mean different things in different contexts. That does not imply they mean nothing (of course), or that they're not making truth claims. I think they generally are. Often, theists who give somewhat sophisticated arguments tend to accept at least omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection as necessary conditions for an agent to be God. In cases like that, arguments like Kalam or Fine Tuning would only be part of a case for theism. Sometimes, of course, they just switch concepts in the middle of an argument without realizing, so they equivocate.

[Learner]

And... the claims that dark matter exists but its invisible to detection by our current methods so far, but we are sure DM infuences our physical universe. Its hard to prove (to see at all the invisible let alone see the actual "laws of physics" so to speak) but then ... there is the idea / claims of theists that God exists in a different "realm" to our physical realm like that of erm... the believed realm of Dark Matter.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And... the claims that dark matter exists but its invisible to detection by our current methods so far, but we are sure DM infuences our physical universe. Its hard to prove (to see at all the invisible let alone see the actual "laws of physics" so to speak) but then ... there is the idea / claims of theists that God exists in a different "realm" to our physical realm like that of erm... the believed realm of Dark Matter.

Invisible but not undetectable or immeasurable. We can certainly empirically make a case for it.

Also, dark matter is not a disembodied spiritual agency. It is not a ghost. It is real enough to measure and be quantified. We can't see the wind either, but it isn't therefore a creature of woo.

Dark matter is not a belief, nor a belief in a belief, such as would be a god or a ghost. And because ghosts and gods are so alike, perhaps we should combine them and call them ghods. The big kahuna could be Ghod.

Like gods and ghosts, disembodies spiritual entities are only beliefs. There is nothing more to the claim than just that. I could just as easily believe I am that world's first trillionaire. Believing in a god is just believing in a belief. That probably has psychological implications, perhaps advantageous to some, but it doesn't make anything real, certainly not gods, ghosts, etc.

[ideologyhunter]

Not all gods are 'disembodied spiritual agencies'-- Mormon theology asserts that God was once an exalted man (and that Mary was impregnated through a physical encounter -- at least this was the company line at one time.) There could be a god Ned, with his followers, the Neddites, worshiping him in person, who knows.
If your focus is Bible God, as defined by the preponderance of churches, then I'm on board, although syllogisms are never going to jump ahead of the special pleading done by religionists.
How about: God in the Bible has a gender. He is male, male, male.
Gender is determined by primary sexual characteristics present at birth, and by secondary sexual
characteristics that arrive at puberty.
Disembodied spiritual agencies can have no sexual characteristics; therefore Bible God is an
incoherent concept.
Also, if God is male, is he circumcised? And who did it? (I would like to think the Holy Ghost was the mohel, and took the job partly out of resentment for not having a showier role in the regime. Also that the actual circumcision was done with those Cecil B DeMille laser blasts that cut the stone tablets in the '56 Ten Commandments. With a sound effect like ZEEEERCH!!) Sorry, I got carried away, but today is Sunday, and I feel extra pious. ZZZEEEEERCH!!!

[steve_bank]

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?....

[Lion IRC]

The blurred line between matter and energy does not allow you to make such a brute claim as..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist." This is a basic secular proposition. Nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.

Our 'physical' bodies shed dead cells which are progressively replaced by new ones, and this process is so comprehensive that over the course of our lifetime, every cell in our entire body is replaced. We literally don't have the same body we were born with. This too is an entirely secular, scientific fact. No need to invoke religion or supernaturalism. So you need to go easy with the ..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist" stuff.

Now can we talk about the ubiquitous, corroborated eye witness evidence for discarnate consciousness which has existed since the dawn of time? Or are you going to dismiss billions and billions of your fellow humans as liars and lunatics just because you think you have 'proved' something to yourself by brute special pleading a contradiction of their sensory evidence?

[bilby]

The blurred line between matter and energy does not allow you to make such a brute claim as..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist." This is a basic secular proposition. Nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.

There's no 'blurred line'. Matter is a specific kind of energy. None of this is mysterious, except to the ignorant; And there's no gap in the science here tbat you can cram gods into without starting from a position of ignorant faith.

Our 'physical' bodies shed dead cells which are progressively replaced by new ones, and this process is so comprehensive that over the course of our lifetime, every cell in our entire body is replaced. We literally don't have the same body we were born with. This too is an entirely secular, scientific fact. No need to invoke religion or supernaturalism. So you need to go easy with the ..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist" stuff.

Patterns are more important than components. A human is a pattern of molecules, not the molecules themselves. Again, this is not a mystery, nor a gap for gods to live in. You can justify your beliefs by deliberate ignorance, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to take you seriously, or to want to join you in your ignorance of reality.

Now can we talk about the ubiquitous, corroborated eye witness evidence for discarnate consciousness which has existed since the dawn of time? Or are you going to dismiss billions and billions of your fellow humans as liars and lunatics just because you think you have 'proved' something to yourself by brute special pleading a contradiction of their sensory evidence?

Lots of people have been ignorant for a long time. Most of them at least had the excuse that nobody had yet discovered the facts of which they were ignorant. But that excuse expired in the twentieth century. Now your choice is between knowing that gods are impossible, or deliberately avoiding finding that out.

Wilful ignorance is not laudable, nor is it moral. You need to stop it, as you are harming others with your failure to understand reality.

[Copernicus]

The blurred line between matter and energy does not allow you to make such a brute claim as..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist." This is a basic secular proposition. Nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.

Lion, that premise can be defended on the basis of empirical observation and makes no claim about religion. Premise 1 made a reference to a religious entity, not 2. Don't forget that we are talking about the likelihood or credibility of the existence of agencies, not a self-evident truth. Atheism is a belief about gods, but gods are only one type of spiritual entity that human beings believe in. So you are right that it isn't about religion, nor was it intended as such. It is just a step in a simple argument about the existence of God, and it is an empirical claim that one can argue for or against on the basis of observation. Occam's razor would be relevant in such an argument.

Our 'physical' bodies shed dead cells which are progressively replaced by new ones, and this process is so comprehensive that over the course of our lifetime, every cell in our entire body is replaced. We literally don't have the same body we were born with. This too is an entirely secular, scientific fact. No need to invoke religion or supernaturalism. So you need to go easy with the ..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist" stuff.

I did not say that agents were necessarily material, only that they are not disembodied phenomena. An agency is an entity that has a causal effect on the behavior of matter. It isn't totally clear what a "spiritual agency" is, but one can try to clarify by citing examples of the way English speakers use such an expression. I think most of us would understand ghosts to be spiritual agencies, so evidence of the existence of ghosts would falsify the second premise. I would claim that no such evidence exists. If there are ghosts, then they are always to be found inside the machine.

Now can we talk about the ubiquitous, corroborated eye witness evidence for discarnate consciousness which has existed since the dawn of time? Or are you going to dismiss billions and billions of your fellow humans as liars and lunatics just because you think you have 'proved' something to yourself by brute special pleading a contradiction of their sensory evidence?

Sure, that's exactly my point. We can talk about such things, but you are getting ahead of yourself by jumping to conclusions about how I would dismiss their claims. I'm quite certain that one would find some such claims to be false, so the question would be whether or not they were all false. Again, the relevant issue here is no longer about the existence of God, but about a much more substantive dispute than, say, trying to justify belief that God exists. No need to get that specific. The more interesting discussions are almost always to be found in discussions about something other than God or gods.

[Cheerful Charlie]

There are several basic approaches to demonstrating God exists.

1. Revelation.
William of Okham stated that God is incomprehensible. So all we can possibly know about God comes from revelation.
But which reveation? Christianity? Moslem? Mormon? Other? With so many varying revelations, many must be wrong. It is then possibe all revelations are wrong. No proof really exists to prove any revelation true.

2. A priori. One defines God (usually loosely based on revelation), and having defined one's God, looks for evidence to prove that God exists. This includes sub-claims, existence of a supernatural realm et al. There is no one good argument for God. The supposed theories soon become bogged down in incoherent problems, self contradictions and attempts to eliminate things like naturalism to allow God to stand by default.

3. Evidence for possible Gods derived from the nature of the Universe as we experience reality. Natural religion. But the Universe seems to be a Universe with no trace of God(s). We have the hiddeness of God problem and again, lack of evidence for a supernatural realm. We end up with unprovable ideas like Process Theology or Spinozan pantheism.

Pick your poison.

[skepticalbip]

^ ^

You missed two of the most common arguments:

. "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."
. "Science can't explain everything, therefore god."

As absurd as those are as arguments, the believer can never be convinced that they are not proof.