OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

How is the concept of God different than the definition of God ? Someone's concept of a God is by definition - their definition of a God.

Of course it is speculative. No one knows with any certainty if such powers are possible. At the same time - we do not know for certain that it is not possible for some entity to have a greater ability than humans to manipulate matter/energy through force of will.

Given that humans have some ability to manifest a thought into physical reality - it is not that huge of a leap to suggest that it is possible for some other living entity has a greater ability.

Humans may develop greater abilities over the next million years - should we not kill ourselves off.

 

It is not possible to use logic to prove negative universal existential claims. Which is the only type that is relevant in this discussion.

You can prove negative punctual claims such as "there is no water in this bucket". Or you can falsify positive claims, which is done every day in Science.

A negative assertion of existential claims does not need to be made, because it's the default position. The burden of proof lies in whoever proposes a claim. However, if somebody demands proof of a negative existential claim, the fact that it is the default position (as per Occam's Razor) should be pointed out.

 

If they are part of nature, than they are not gods, by definition.

 

Huh. I distinctly remember being called a "denier" after I merely asked for proof. Hmm, I know I could show you links to forums where this has taken place but you seem to already really just know what's happened to me w/o looking.

Ah, that explains it! You've no need to show any observations that we can look at together for determining whether an assertion is valid, you're simply saying that something is true if it's what scientists say. Science to you isn't inquiry through observation but rather it's a body of knowledge that's been blessed by the established scientific community.

OK, great. Please now be informed that the majority of scientists say that there is a God. Problem solved.

Hey, if it works for global warming it's got to be perfect for God!

 

I just used the word supernatural because that wa used in the other thread we were in. It's really your definition of "gods" that I'm interested in.

I think maybe some folks choose the word because if God created the universe then he must be outside of it. It's difficult to comprehend a being that is a subset of the unit that it created.

This is why I excluded the pantheistic view of God, pantheism typically defined God as the universe itself, a non-personality. Einstein was known to be a pantheist and to have been very familiar with the writing of Baruch Spinoza.


Here is a link to a video I like to watch to refresh my mind on Spinoza. If you've ever read Will Durant's History of Philosophy he has a great chapter on Spinoza. I really enjoy his thoughts on the matter

 

I'm sure I had already sent this to you but.... ok... here it goes again http://www.ipcc.ch/

Hope to read about how much you learned in the appropriate thread.

 

There is a minimal probability that gods exist. There is a high probability that no god exists.

The same probabilities exist for the Bunny.

 

Some say he got the Nobel Prize because back in 1905 he published a paper advancing the hypothesis that light energy is carried in discrete quantized packets to explain experimental data from the photoelectric effect. This hypothesis of quanta became the basis of quantum mechanics much of which he rejected, stuff like uncertainty and having probability replace causality. Sure, eventually he came on board, but that was much later.

We're digressing so much I'd be willing to say "OK, I'm wrong and you're right about whatever it is that we're saying about Einstein" if we could please just clarify whether we agree to accept the idea of an observable reality exists, and not merely some kind of personal "illusion" that some folks arbitrarily decide to share.

 

Correct

 

Right, you have no link to any post where you sent it to me and you're not about to let that get in the way of your being "sure".

Natch, a link to a political body's conclusions.

When you google "what is science", most definitions that pop up are that of a "systematic study" or the "effort to understand with observable physical evidence". A secondary definition is that of "a body of knowledge". This is why I said that accepting a consensus as proof of global warming is as silly as accepting a consensus as proof of the existance of God.

fwiw, this is a NOAA site with hundreds of datasets of observations, and an example of one of them can be seen at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt . imho a data set can support and confirm a scientific hypothesis and while a consensus can get funding it can't prove scientific validity.

Then again, if you're willing to accept the scientific consensus on God's existence I may be willing to change that opinion of mine...

 

Given that Newtonian physics has better predictive power by several orders of magnitude than anything demonstrated by climatologists to date, he'd be foolish to take that as a given.

You're under the impression the same doesn't apply to positive universal existential claims?

 

OK theists.......prove your god(s) of choice exist(s)

 

The Great Flood, as described in Genesis, is a myth.

The evidence for that assertion comes from the science of geology.

The bible says everything in it is the True Word of God. We know that because that's what the bible says.

If the bible is wrong about the Great Flood, then we know the the entire bible must be a collection of folklore and myth.

 

I said "the very concept of gods". A concept is an abstract idea; a general notion. All religious people accept the concept of gods.
Ask fifty people,especially from different persuasions, to define god. You'll get 50 different definitions

What do you mean when you say "force of will"? Do you mean they can create mountains (planets, universes) by thinking about them? Like the god of Genesis did?

I can move my finger by manifesting a thought into physical reality. I can do this because my finger is attached to my brain. I cannot move your finger by manifesting a thought because your finger is not attached to my brain. So, yes, it is a huge leap.

Yet, by keeping just a few basic abilities intact, cockroaches have already survived for many millions of years.

 

But that is not proof. It is simply evidence

 

If I may jump in here...

• The majority of scientists say that there is a God.
• The majority of scientists cannot provide evidence for their belief outside of the writings of thousands of years ago.

• The majority of scientists in the field of climatology say AGW is a real thing.
• The majority of scientists in the field of climatology can provide evidence for their beliefs based on extensive modern day scientific research.

 

It is not "simply" evidence. It is overwhelming evidence.

Outside of mathematics nothing can be "proved". Can you prove that you are a physical entity as opposed to something in a kid's video game created by highly advanced, but not supernatural, entities? Can you prove that everything was not created LastThursday?

Unless we want to drive ourselves nuts, we have to accept overwhelming evidence as the equivalent of proof. Better yet, let's be realistic and recognize that asking for proof is, in most cases, disingenuous.

 

Something is made out of nothing....that is where faith begins. If you don't have faith....don't go there. All Creation is evidence of God.

 

I agree. But we can never rule out anything in science since we can not disprove it. There was once overwhelming evidence the earth was flat. And we still can not prove it is round

 

God laughs from His throne.

 

There you go again, using that word "prove".

So, you wouldn't rule out that everything was created LastThursday by a psychic snowflake.

 

Well, there you go...

God said it.
I believe it.
End of story.​

Oh, wait. I gotta ask...which god?

 

Ever hear of Russell's Teapot?

 

Which essentially is what I said. So???

Yes, one can. Which essentially is what I said. So???

It is not THE default position. The default position can vary. In the case of "Are gods part of the REALITY of existence?"...the default position is: It is unknown.

Which is essentially what I have said. So???

And if the claim or assertion is, "There are no gods"...the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Occam's Razor is a device for lazy minds...one of the most misunderstood and misused pieces of philosophical floss ever.

As I said above...the default position on the question being discussed here IS NOT there are no gods. So if someone asserts that there are no gods...the burden of proof falls on that person.

 

Are you a god...and therefore decreeing that?

Get off your nonsense. If gods exist...they are part of what IS.

And you do not get to decide they are not gods.

If this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation (it may be; it may not be)...but if it is a creation, whatever created it IS A GOD.

This has to do with matters humans do not know. Some people have trouble acknowledging there are such matters.