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

I already answered this. You've moved back to the original question. Please notice the following development of the conversation...

So to recount,

1) I accepted your definition of what the statement "no gods exists" includes. Here we had agreement.

2) You proceeded to add a premise (B): that if the universe is created then this implies a creator.

3) You then procede from this new premise to claim that the assertion (C) "No gods exists" entails the burden of proving the universe is not a creation.

4) I raised an objection that your premise (B) needed clarification concerning your understanding of the term creation, because it appears that some creations are accidental and not intentional (as is seen for example in planets randoming colliding and creating moons).

5) You agreed that accidental creations should be considered creations.

6) I then objected that this problematizes your premise (B) because only intentional acts would necessarily entail a creator, since unintentional creations can be explained by either a creator or a non-creator. In addition I claimed you need (B) to justify your claim (C). And that therefore the argument must address this mistake.

7) You respond by saying that this concern is irrelevant and that we need to come to agreement concerning what the statement "no god exists" includes. And we are back at step 1.

 

First an observation: You seem to be saying that an "unintentional CREATION is somehow NOT a creation. I would argue a creation is a creation...whether intentional or not. I suggest, with all the respect possible...any rational person should.

IF there is a creation...there is a CREATOR (event or being) no matter whether it was an intentional creation or not.

BUT...it matters not one whit anyway...because I am not arguing that there is a creator if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...

...but rather that IT IS POSSIBLE this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation and therefore IT IS POSSIBLE that there is a creator god.

Unless you are saying it is not possible this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation (and therefore a "creator" is impossible)...then IT IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE that a creator god exists...which is what I have been saying all along.

Therefore...anyone asserting that there are no gods IS stuck with having to establish (since you seem reluctant to accept the word "prove") that this thing we humans call "the universe" is NOT a creation.

Obviously my point is: Good luck to anyone attempting to do that.

Adorno, surely you recognize that the guess, "No gods exist" has no more merit than the guess, "At least one god exists."

I want to get past this so we can discuss the no-more-valid assertion (guess), "It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists." (Alternatively, we can discuss the no-more-valid assertion (guess), "It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist. Six of one, so to speak.)

All this pursuant to something I have mentioned dozens of times:

 

Before I had consciousness I knew no god. The eternal state is without form or movement. Hence there is no knowing. The Absolute doesn't know itself at all. It just is.

 

No, actually that's not what I am saying. In fact, my point actually hinges on the contradictory being true.

Keep your claim here in mind - that a creator does not have to be a being and therefore god, but can be an event. The term creator would seem to suggest some sort of agency, but regardless, you have implied here that there are some creations not made by gods, including those that are random events...

You have to claim this, or your claim lacks any justification.

Again no one has to do that, given your own argument. Your conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premises. You are claiming no gods = no universe creation. This requires that if the universe is a creation there must be a creator god. But as you suggested above what you mean by creator can be a mere event. Hence, if the universe can be created by a mere random event, then the universe can be understood as a creation and not be created by creator gods. Hence, if someone claims that no gods exist, they can still claim that the universe was a creation by virtue of random occurrences (there is no contradiction in saying this because you have already accepted the claim that creations can be random events).

 

The issue concerning guesses versus evidential claims, I leave for later.

 

Not so fast.

Just because our particular reality might have been formed through random events is not relevant--one could still claim something created the random events.

 

Of course, this is a possibility* but it is not an absolute necessity. For Frank's claim to be true (that claiming "no gods exist" means that one must prove the universe was not a creation) he has to hold that a creator god(s) is necessary for universe creation and that it is impossible for the universe to be created by non-god caused random events. Hence it is relevant.

*I'll assume you mean by random events, that a creator god created the things acting randomly but did not determine their course.

 

As I suspected it might be, the word 'creation' in the context of 'if' is redundant and unnecessary fluff. If 'creation' is expanded to the extent of covering any incidence that brought about the universe then we are not even discussing gods. All that is happening is that someone is pointing at the universe and saying if it is real then whatever caused it I am choosing to call gods. I choose to call it Leprechaun, substitute that into the assertion and it makes just as much sense.

Of course it's not honest because at every turn what you are dealing with is someone who is willing to jump on the regression if ignorance all the way back to how do we even know that the universe exists. Like I said, good luck.

 

One thing I have noted is that people arguing as you are right now have decided you are not going to concede anything, no matter how obvious, because you have decided that you already know the answer to the question being considering...before actual consideration of the arguments.

IF the god I have proposed...A CREATOR GOD...exists (we do not know if it does or not)...but IF IT EXISTS...it would be part of the "gods" being mentioned in, "There are no gods."

YES...if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation (whether it is or not...we do not know)...but IF IT IS A CREATION...that would imply a creator...OR AT VERY LEAST THE POSSIBILITY OF A CREATOR (god).

Once you have the POSSIBILITY of a creator (god)...THE ONLY WAY TO LOGICALLY ASSERT "There are no gods" is to show that the "creator" (god) DOES NOT EXIST.

That MUST occur...or the assertion is shown to be invalid.

Now...you are more than intelligent enough to understand that what I am saying is rock solid.

AND STOP INSISTING THAT I HAVE CLAIMED THAT "...no gods = no universe creation"...because I never have...and STOP INSISTING THAT I HAVE CLAIMED THAT..."(T)his requires that if the universe is a creation there must be a creator god"...BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT EITHER.

I have, perhaps unadvisedly, suggested that IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...it "implies" a creator...which by definition it would whether accidentally or purposefully...BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY...

...it demands that the POSSIBILITY of a creator god must be eliminated before one can justifiably and logically assert "there are no gods."

YOU recognize this by now. Time for you to acknowledge it.

 

Well you should.

But:

One: If a creator god exists...THAT GOD must be considered part of the "gods" in the statement "No gods exist."

Two: The POSSIBILITY of such a god CANNOT be eliminated...so the assertion "No gods exist" is not valid.

Some of the other participants here, anxious to justify "No gods exist" insist that such a god would not be part of the "gods" of that statement.

Time for you to acknowledge that I am on the correct side of the issues defined by "one" and "two" above.

 

Exactly. The one thing that surprised me was Frank's rejection of the possibility that the universe could arise from the random behavior of relativistic quantum fields, so he seemed early on to paint himself into some sort of creator agency. I do appreciate the heads up though, it's like playing a game at the county fair, you know the game is rigged but sometimes you can't help yourself.

 

What I find interesting is that every religion has its mystics who all turn inward and who all seem to find and say the same basic things, whether Christian mystics, Kabbalist, Sufi, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other. And all those who succeed in going the deepest into meditation beyond the material, say that there is one Self, one Life, one IS. They say that is what you are and that your conscious mind is not that. It will end. Thoughts, memories, and all we believe, think, and consider will end. But Being will remain without self-awareness. Some call this "God". Others have other names for it, like "Brahman". But this is why all mystics appreciate each other and their traditions. There is no arguing among them, no criticisms, no claims of superiority.

Those who do not succeed at going so deep cannot understand, so they talk of God, salvation of mind, "being with God", "resurrection", and they fight and argue among themselves.

This should tell a wise person something very significant.

 

A master of irony.

Perhaps I'm confused, can you help me understand the following:

Seems like that was obviously your point.

 

I see no irony in what I said...but if you do, I will accept that you do.

You either are confused...or unwilling to see what I am saying. I will attempt to help you...but you have to do the work to understand what is being said...rather than supposing I am saying what you want me to say in order to suggest that I am wrong.

My VERY OBVIOUS point is that IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...IT IS POSSIBLE that a creator god exists.

It is NOT necessary that a creator god exists simply because this is a creation (IF IT IS A CREATION)...but IF IT IS A CREATION...it is POSSIBLE that creator god exists.

Since the assertion with which I am dealing is: "No gods exist"...the individual making that assertion has to deal with the fact that this thing we humans call "the universe" MAY BE A CREATION...AND MAY HAVE A CREATOR GOD THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION.

That is so obvious, Adorno, that I honestly am having trouble understanding how an individual of your obvious intelligence...cannot see it...and have seen it right along.

It is not a difficult concept. It is a fundamental, easily seen concept.

If you still do not see it...how do we get past this.

Break your concerns or consternation down into an easily understood sentence...and I will try to deal with it. DO NOT COVER ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS AT ONE TIME...let's take it slow so that we have no problem with understanding what is happening.

 

Actually, it was an ad hominem, the implication being that WE are closed minded and too stupid to comprehend the word salad.

 

Where does this come from???

I have never rejected the possibility that the universe could arise from the random behavior of anything...relativistic quantum fields or strawberry fields.

EVER. ANYWHERE...not here in this thread; not in any other thread in this forum...and not in any of the thousands upon thousands of posts I've made in other fora.

EVER.

That is purely your imagination at work.

I defy you to point to me rejecting any such thing.

For the record...I have no idea of whether this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not...and If it is a creation...I have no idea if it is random or specific.

Where did you get this idea from?

 

I think if we can ever discover the origin of energy, we will have discovered the Original Cause.

It occurs to me that if we can believe that God had no beginning but "always was", then we can just as easily believe that energy had no beginning but just always was.

 

Are you saying that no such statement made by you exists? But isn't such a statement at least logically possible? Wouldn't you have to show that such a statement made by you is logically impossible for to you to claim that no such statements exist? Or are you just guessing? So give me one piece of evidence that you didn't make such a statement. Just one.

 

We can't hear gods, feel gods, see gods, taste gods or smell gods either personally or with any instruments of science so that should be enough evidence to at least disprove them until such time as such evidence is available.

 

Yes it tells us that fruit loops lack creativity.

 

Wasn't your definition of god " The Creator " Now normally by definition a creator is one who creates.

 

You are asking me to prove a negative that you invented???

C'mon.

I never said that I reject ANY POSSIBLE explanation for the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

EVER.

ANYWHERE.

AT NO TIME DURING MY POSTING DAYS ON THE INTERNET...AND ACTUALLY, AT NO TIME DURING THE THREE DECADES BEFORE I STARTED POSTING ON THE INTERNET.

Doing so would go against everything I have ever said on the subject...and said again, and again, and again, and again.

I have never said anything that could be interpreted reasonably by anyone to be a rejection of any possible explanation...and I consider ANY explanation to be possible unless it has somehow been established as IMPOSSIBLE.

I have no idea of what you are getting at...but you are dead wrong. And you should show the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you are wrong...and apologize for having mischaracterized by position.

 

The fact that we can't hear gods, feel gods, see gods, taste gods or smell gods either personally or with any instruments of science...

...does not "disprove" them in any way.

 

I offered a "creator god" as one possible god.

I have no idea if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not. Theists often call it "a creation" in order to justify the need for a creator.

I don't.

I say IT MAY BE A CREATION...and that implies a creator.

But as Adorno and I have discussed...it does NOT require a "creator" in the sense of a purposeful creator.

 

So what are your other possible gods. The Creator god is the only one I remember.