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?"

[McCulloch]

This is what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

This is the position of the philosophical community on the subject. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Therefore the definition of atheism is dependant on the definition of God. If you allow any possible definition of God, then I am an agnostic. How could I be otherwise? Can anyone deny the existence of something which itself defies definition? Furthermore, I don't think that I could seriously and convincingly disprove the existence of a deist sort of god. But if you take the definition of God used by most monotheists, then I am an atheist. Harvey, I know that this does not fit well into your neat little categories, but I place myself into both the atheist and the agnostic camps.

[harvey1]

If you allow any possible definition of God, then I am an agnostic. How could I be otherwise? Can anyone deny the existence of something which itself defies definition? Furthermore, I don't think that I could seriously and convincingly disprove the existence of a deist sort of god.

McCulloch, being an atheist doesn't mean one has to disprove every possible definition of God. All it requires to be an atheist is an answer to one simple question: do you believe there is sufficient evidence to rule out an immaterial God as a real entity that exists (i.e., an Existence that has some form of (semi-)intelligent consciousness and control over the universe which is non-reducible to something material)? If you think the problem of evil most likely rules out such an Existence, then you're an atheist. If you think the evidence is pretty one-sided that the universe pretty much explains itself and Occam's razor requires that you believe that such an Existence is in contradiction to reason (e.g., parsimony), then you are an atheist. If you think the evidence of the universe leans strongly away from an immaterial thing existing, then you are an atheist. If you think that there is evidence of indeterminism in the universe and that an indeterministic universe makes God unlikely, then you are an atheist. So on and so on.

I think where many people are confused is that they equivocate on the term "possibility." They think that if something is possible, and cannot be ruled 100% out, therefore they ought to ignore that concept as defining what an atheist is or is not. However, this interpretation of possibility is not even consistent with strong atheism. Strong atheism also cannot rule out God as existing. Strong atheism can only assert that it is not possible for God to exist if the world is rational given our understanding what rationality means. God is irrational to a strong atheist in this sense. A weak atheist isn't saying that God is impossible by any stretch of the imagination. The weak atheist is an empirical atheist. They say that Occam's razor prevents them from adding unnecessary entities to the inventory of things that exist, and therefore God is not on that list of things that exist. It has little to do with what is possible.

But if you take the definition of God used by most monotheists, then I am an atheist.

Then you could be a theist for that matter. To be an agnostic or atheist, you have to commit to the notion that any kind of intelligent/conscious and immaterial existence is either not decidable as "out there" given the evidence available, or we can rule out as "out there" with the evidence available. If you can only say such an existence is undecidable in terms of our knowing (but no evidence exists which rejects such an existence from existing), then you are an agnostic--no bones about it.

Harvey, I know that this does not fit well into your neat little categories, but I place myself into both the atheist and the agnostic camps.

It's not my categories. Earlier I quoted the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'll now quote the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Heading For Atheism: Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. (2000, p.62-63)

I just don't understand why so many people cling to philosophical labels that don't mean what they think (or want) them to mean. Do you guys get money for being an atheist, or something? Perhaps ST88 is going to have to start sending out checks to people to stick with the agnostics union.

[Cephus]

Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Therefore the definition of atheism is dependant on the definition of God. If you allow any possible definition of God, then I am an agnostic. How could I be otherwise? Can anyone deny the existence of something which itself defies definition? Furthermore, I don't think that I could seriously and convincingly disprove the existence of a deist sort of god. But if you take the definition of God used by most monotheists, then I am an atheist. Harvey, I know that this does not fit well into your neat little categories, but I place myself into both the atheist and the agnostic camps.

Harvey knows he's being dishonest, it's been pointed out to him enough times that he'd have to be utterly blind not to have noticed it at least once. He defines people's positions out of existence, insists that everyone goes by his definition, then denies any validity to people who argue outside of his definition. Atheists can't prove him wrong because he's so narrowly defined "atheism" that only the most ludicrous examples who have no rational or logical arguments in the first place still exist. It's like defining "Christians" as "people who wander the desert in sandals, own nothing and talk to trees". Sure, there might be a couple people out there that meet that definition, but I doubt they're posting here. If we just dismiss anything said by anyone not "Christian", it makes it hard to debate against your position, doesn't it? That's exactly what Harvey does and he does it on purpose.

[harvey1]

Harvey knows he's being dishonest, it's been pointed out to him enough times that he'd have to be utterly blind not to have noticed it at least once. He defines people's positions out of existence, insists that everyone goes by his definition, then denies any validity to people who argue outside of his definition.

Show me a philosophical encyclopedia that acknowledges your definition, and then we can talk seriously about the subject.

That's exactly what Harvey does and he does it on purpose.

There's real atheists out there, so I don't see what is so bad about discussing their particular philosophy. If someone wants to confuse their philosophy with agnosticism or pantheism, it's hardly my fault.

[McCulloch]

Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Therefore the definition of atheism is dependant on the definition of God. If you allow any possible definition of God, then I am an agnostic. How could I be otherwise? Can anyone deny the existence of something which itself defies definition? Furthermore, I don't think that I could seriously and convincingly disprove the existence of a deist sort of god. But if you take the definition of God used by most monotheists, then I am an atheist. Harvey, I know that this does not fit well into your neat little categories, but I place myself into both the atheist and the agnostic camps.

Harvey knows he's being dishonest, it's been pointed out to him enough times that he'd have to be utterly blind not to have noticed it at least once.

I do not believe that Harvey is being dishonest. Harvey simply is trying to consistently apply the experts definitions of words.

He defines people's positions out of existence, insists that everyone goes by his definition, then denies any validity to people who argue outside of his definition.

The problem is that a word's meaning is seldom the same in all contexts and the experts seldom define what a word might mean to certain people. This is why I am an agnostic to Harvey who holds to technically correct meanings of these words and an atheist to those who hold to the more common usage.

Atheists can't prove him wrong because he's so narrowly defined "atheism" that only the most ludicrous examples who have no rational or logical arguments in the first place still exist. It's like defining "Christians" as "people who wander the desert in sandals, own nothing and talk to trees".

No it is not. I have not seen any evidence that Harvey has tried to disprove a specific argument based on the categorization of the individual making the argument. Harvey, in my experience is a better debater than to make such ad hom arguments.

Sure, there might be a couple people out there that meet that definition, but I doubt they're posting here. If we just dismiss anything said by anyone not "Christian", it makes it hard to debate against your position, doesn't it? That's exactly what Harvey does and he does it on purpose.

No one should dismiss an argument made by someone who claims to be a Christian simply because that person does not measure up to someone's definition of Christian. Neither should anyone dismiss an argument simply because the debater may call himself an atheist even though he may not fit a rigorous definition of atheist.

[Greatest I Am]

It is not possible to prove a negative, this is well known.
One can only prove a positive.
Not finding a positive on the other hand may mean nonexistence, but we can always say that you just have not looked in the right place.

[Cephus]

Not finding a positive on the other hand may mean nonexistence, but we can always say that you just have not looked in the right place.

You are right, but not finding a positive doesn't mean that you should assume the positive is true either, which is what theists do. Many assume that because no one can prove God doesn't exist, that God must exist.

That is fallacious thinking. In fact, the only rational position one can take on such a thing is to withhold belief until evidence is presented.

[Cathar1950]

Not finding a positive on the other hand may mean nonexistence, but we can always say that you just have not looked in the right place.

You are right, but not finding a positive doesn't mean that you should assume the positive is true either, which is what theists do. Many assume that because no one can prove God doesn't exist, that God must exist.

That is fallacious thinking. In fact, the only rational position one can take on such a thing is to withhold belief until evidence is presented.

How true.
Some find God in a storm or the wind others a still small voice.
But unless you are following a pillar of fire or smoke we don't have God except in a personal experience always shaped by our cultures and experiences.
I can't say God does not exist because I have not looked in every lunch box.
Yet I feel, sense or understand a sense of unity and connectiveness in all things like the infolding of the universe and all its awe. But this makes God contingent and I don't have a problem with that but it goes against many peoples pet views of God or how it has been handed down to them thru traditions and interpreted both in communities and personally. I tend to equate God with the singularity or the universe. There may well be more then one god for all I know if we are talking about an individual. Maybe the gods were from elsewhere. No one can know and the Bible or the Koran is only God's word for the believer that believes it is God's word. I tend to think God's word is God's reasoning. I don't see that in the bible or other sarced writings. It seems that if the theist that conceive God as being totaly other or outside of time and space then there is no way of knowing God. How can you know the unknown? Even YHWH seems more reasonable even if He seems to act unreasonable. I hardly think Jesus is God yet a God that extends our reach and calls us to be better more mature sympathetic humans together and as individuals is a useful model among other useful models.

[Cephus]

Some find God in a storm or the wind others a still small voice.

But that's the problem, no one "finds God", people "blame God" for events in their lives. God isn't in a storm or the wind, the storm and the wind simply exist. A person having the exact same experience in Iran would "find Allah", someone in India would "find Krishna". In reality, they aren't finding anything but their own imaginations.

[Cathar1950]

Some find God in a storm or the wind others a still small voice.

But that's the problem, no one "finds God", people "blame God" for events in their lives. God isn't in a storm or the wind, the storm and the wind simply exist. A person having the exact same experience in Iran would "find Allah", someone in India would "find Krishna". In reality, they aren't finding anything but their own imaginations.

That is what I was saying only I was more wordy.