Disproving God

[adherent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, there are only 2 possibilities about a God:
1) There is a God
2) There isn't a God
Could anybody out there prove that there isn't a God. And, by the way, please don't answer this post with another question, like: "Well... can you prove to me there IS a God?"

[lifeisboring]

If the existence of God cannot be disproved, then wouldn't be it true that being an atheist is illogical? At best, they can only logically be an agnostic.

It depends on opinion. You can't be wrong if you call atheists illogical, but you can call God illogical as well.

[QED]

I'm glad lifeisboring ressurected this topic. The Subtitle "Can you prove to me there isn't a God?" is an interesting question. I think most people would agree that proof is confined to the realms of mathematics due to its pure (perfect) nature. Proof outside the Platonic realm is sullied by the inevitable impurities and imperfections of the material world. If God is more than just a sterile, Platonic, entity then it would seem that our only hope of gaining an answer is to resort to probability. In this case we can ask if God is probable, however first we must specify what we mean by God:

In the context of these forums it would seem reasonable to assume God to be that which is worshipped by world religions -- this would mean, at least, that God was the creator of everything (except God?), that God has an interest in Human affairs (sitting in judgment of us when we die) and that the whole purpose of creation was to bring humans into the world.

If those assumptions are representative of God's attributes then I would say "Yes, I think I can show to a high degree of probability that that God doesn't exist"

[harvey1]

If those assumptions are representative of God's attributes then I would say "Yes, I think I can show to a high degree of probability that that God doesn't exist"

Okay, I'm all ears...

[Scrotum]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, there are only 2 possibilities about a God:
1) There is a God
2) There isn't a God
Could anybody out there prove that there isn't a God. And, by the way, please don't answer this post with another question, like: "Well... can you prove to me there IS a God?"

Oh yes, this is very easy, if you decided to seriously come into truth, the only thing you have to do, is to become Logical.

And then you have the answer you seek. If you turn away from ignorance facing logic, you will see there is no possible way for your God. End of Story. But if you pærefer ignorance, well, i cant do anything about it.

If the existence of God cannot be disproved, then wouldn't be it true that being an atheist is illogical? At best, they can only logically be an agnostic.

It depends on opinion. You can't be wrong if you call atheists illogical, but you can call God illogical as well.

Can you disprove that their is no Pink Flying Unicorns named "Bob" in the Universe? Well then, why dont you believe in it?


Reality is not based on "what you can disprove", its based on WHAT you CAN prove. A normal (not idiot) person beliefs in things because their are proof for it. If you belief in things that do not exist, and defies logic (god for example), we normal healthy individuals can do nothing about it, we can only hope you get education for it.

[QED]

Okay, I'm all ears...

It's certainly comforting to know that you're interested, but I doubt if I can offer anything that you've not already heard OK, I'll assume that you're happy with my definition of God and that I'm talking about probability -- which is, after all, what we use to inform our opinions when we're being rational. So why do I think that God as defined above is improbable? Well, so far our collective reasoning has been riddled with errors yet it is through much of this reasoning that we have come to our idea of God. Let's start with the Copernican principle...

The bible is choc-full of Ptolemaic notions placing man at the very hub of the universe. Where does this notion come from? From incomplete observations and a rather nasty streak of arrogance IMHO. But as astronomy progressed the Heliocentric perspective of Copernicus became irresistible. With man now firmly orbiting a star, the idea that everything revolved around us should have been well and truly dispelled but even now, as new data continues to come in (such as the homogeneous and isotropic nature of the universe) the move away from an anthropocentric position is still far from complete in the minds of many people. I believe that this is an intrinsic defect of human perception and accounts for the assumption that God created the world as a platform especially for us.

Closely allied to the Copernican principle is the mediocrity principle. Now that the bright dots on the celestial sphere are know to be other stars and that not only is our planet not located at the centre of our solar system but our solar system is not at the center of our galaxy. And with every point in space experiencing the degree of universal expansion no galaxy can be at the centre of the universe either. So our planet and its location is nothing special. But it's also possible to take this further. Our universe itself may not be unique -- a fact which relieves the considerable pressure to posit a God in order to explain the fine-tuning of the parameters that define our universe.

It's clear that the initial state of our universe resembles the singularity that is a black hole. When the density of a collapsing star reaches the point where the escape velocity exceeds the sped of light we get an event horizon beyond which no communication is possible. In effect a portion of space-time becomes cut-off. On the other side of the event horizon things are expected to resemble our own big-bang such that a new universe is created. The cosmic parameters in this new universe may be different to our own and may produce a 'dud' that doesn't have the qualities required to provide an eventual home for life. But the process is totally repeatable with any number of 'tries' such that from time to time universes such as our own appear with the qualities that make life eventually possible.

Now this isn't proof, but I think that it's a very important consideration. We know our track-record when it comes to our previous errors of judgment and we clearly have a habit of repeating the same sort of mistake again and again. What I'm suggesting here is that if we learn from our mistakes then we can see that there are ways in which our incomplete observations and tendency towards anthropocentricism might be leading us down the garden path towards a God when, in fact, the question of our creation has everything to do with cosmological evolution. I quite simply use our known mistakes of the past to construct a probability for the unknown being mediocre.

[lifeisboring]

If the existence of God cannot be disproved, then wouldn't be it true that being an atheist is illogical? At best, they can only logically be an agnostic.

It depends on opinion. You can't be wrong if you call atheists illogical, but you can call God illogical as well.

Can you disprove that their is no Pink Flying Unicorns named "Bob" in the Universe? Well then, why dont you believe in it?


Reality is not based on "what you can disprove", its based on WHAT you CAN prove. A normal (not idiot) person beliefs in things because their are proof for it. If you belief in things that do not exist, and defies logic (god for example), we normal healthy individuals can do nothing about it, we can only hope you get education for it.

I don't recall saying that reality is not based on "what you can disprove"...

A normal (not idiot) persion...

Please don't act like you're smarter than everyone else.

[harvey1]

Let's start with the Copernican principle... The bible is choc-full of Ptolemaic notions placing man at the very hub of the universe. Where does this notion come from? From incomplete observations and a rather nasty streak of arrogance IMHO. But as astronomy progressed the Heliocentric perspective of Copernicus became irresistible. With man now firmly orbiting a star, the idea that everything revolved around us should have been well and truly dispelled but even now, as new data continues to come in (such as the homogeneous and isotropic nature of the universe) the move away from an anthropocentric position is still far from complete in the minds of many people. I believe that this is an intrinsic defect of human perception and accounts for the assumption that God created the world as a platform especially for us.

Oh come now, QED. The Copernicus principle shows nothing except that a Creator may not care about distinguishing one planet from the many googles of planets that exist out there.

In addition, evidence could be generated tomorrow that shows the Copernicus principle on a cosmological scale is wrong. You can't gauge probability on information you don't know. It would be like gauging the probability of 9/11 the day before 9/11.

Now this isn't proof, but I think that it's a very important consideration. We know our track-record when it comes to our previous errors of judgment and we clearly have a habit of repeating the same sort of mistake again and again. What I'm suggesting here is that if we learn from our mistakes then we can see that there are ways in which our incomplete observations and tendency towards anthropocentricism might be leading us down the garden path towards a God when, in fact, the question of our creation has everything to do with cosmological evolution. I quite simply use our known mistakes of the past to construct a probability for the unknown being mediocre.

I think this is an invalid conclusion because you invalidate anything that invalidates your conclusion (e.g., physical constants being unlikely, or the unavoidability of a singularity in big bang/inflationary cosmology, mathematical nature of fundamental theories, quantum entanglement, quantum which-way information, etc., etc.).

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Oh yes, this is very easy, if you decided to seriously come into truth, the only thing you have to do, is to become Logical.

And then you have the answer you seek. If you turn away from ignorance facing logic, you will see there is no possible way for your God. End of Story. But if you pærefer ignorance, well, i cant do anything about it.

A normal (not idiot) person beliefs in things because their are proof for it.

FYI, these comments strattle the line of civility. You may want to more closely adhere to rules 5, 7, and 14, under the risk of future indictment.



The theoretical flaw in your argument however, is that logic is solely subjective. One person's logic may lead him/her to the conclusion that there is a God. The stem of religion is not ignorance, but rather a differing perspective. You are not likely to convince anyone by arrogantly professing your perspective as superior; something any person of normal brain capacity could easily see. There is far more knowledge to attain before any of us can rightly claim objectivity.

Can you disprove that their is no Pink Flying Unicorns named "Bob" in the Universe? Well then, why dont you believe in it

There is both philosophical and (arguably) scientific evidence in support of a God. There is none such for "Bob".

[QED]

Let's start with the Copernican principle...

Oh come now, QED. The Copernicus principle shows nothing except that a Creator may not care about distinguishing one planet from the many googles of planets that exist out there.

I say that the Copernican principle should be a constant reminder to us of a fundamental, bad habit of thinking that frequently steers us towards wrong conclusions.

In addition, evidence could be generated tomorrow that shows the Copernicus principle on a cosmological scale is wrong.

Of course, but the principle exists for good reason and this good reason should be taken into account in any evaluation of parsimony.

Now this isn't proof, but I think that it's a very important consideration. We know our track-record when it comes to our previous errors of judgment and we clearly have a habit of repeating the same sort of mistake again and again. What I'm suggesting here is that if we learn from our mistakes then we can see that there are ways in which our incomplete observations and tendency towards anthropocentricism might be leading us down the garden path towards a God when, in fact, the question of our creation has everything to do with cosmological evolution. I quite simply use our known mistakes of the past to construct a probability for the unknown being mediocre.

I think this is an invalid conclusion because you invalidate anything that invalidates your conclusion (e.g., physical constants being unlikely, or the unavoidability of a singularity in big bang/inflationary cosmology, mathematical nature of fundamental theories, quantum entanglement, quantum which-way information, etc., etc.).

But the Physical constants being unlikely, the unavoidability of a singularity in big bang/inflationary cosmology, mathematical nature of fundamental theories, and so on do not invalidate the conclusion that the Universe might be "accidental". Nor do they invalidate the fact that we have already made many errors in our conclusions about the world because we felt it to be special in some respect -- so I'm a bit confused as to what conclusion it is of mine that you think is invalid.

[QED]

There is both philosophical and (arguably) scientific evidence in support of a God. There is none such for "Bob".

I'm not so sure. The philosophical evidence for God that I've seen pretty much applies to Bob in every respect apart from his assumed appearance and intentions. As for the "arguable" scientific evidence, I certainly agree that there's none for Bob. Perhaps you could briefly mention the scientific evidence for God that you're thinking of so I can check to see if it's something I've not come across before. Thanks.