“God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

[paarsurrey1]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

[shnarkle]

I could be wrong here, but the claim, "God does not exist" is being dismissed, is it not?

Absolutely not.

Look again. Here's what the OP states:

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

They are dismissing the statement "God does NOT exist" without evidence. So we have the claim that God doesn't exist, and we can dismiss it as there is no evidence presented to support it. There can't be any evidence to support the claim. There simply is no referent for this term "God". You can't prove a negative.

the evidence is right here, the universe. What's missing is any evidence for its cause, and it being designed.

And yet I don't see how one can meaningfully state that there is no cause for this effect. How does one claim that there is no evidence of design in what exists? All life on this planet seems designed to function here. Sea life is designed to live under water. Plant life is designed to grow in the ground, birds seem designed to fly. Eyes are designed to see, etc.

it seems that if there is no evidence, then the claim "God does not exist" can quite easily be dismissed. By the same token, the claim "God does exist" can also be dismissed without evidence.

I would only add that if God is the origin of existence, then God can't exist unless existence itself somehow incorporates it's own origin into itself. If that is the case, then God not only exists, but this existence permeates the entire universe. If God isn't incorporated into existence, then God can't exist. Now one can show that there are things that don't exist such as square circles, the square root of 2, etc. So there is such a thing as non existence. It isn't a thing and it doesn't exist, but in our dualistic thinking it serves as a counterbalance to existence. In that sense, it does exist, and originates at the same time as existence, or perhaps may even be the origin of existence.

God then becomes a term that is synonymous with origin, source, etc. This isn't to say that the origin or source of existence are things like round squares, and the square root of 2, but just to point out that non existence is a logical counterbalance to existence. In other words, you can't have one without the other.

[ThePainefulTruth]

And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50.

You mistakenly believe that, given two choices, A and B, they are equally likely. This is not the case. I cannot see how we can apply any numerical vaue to the probability in the case of God's existence.

It's no mistake. We have two choices, two propositions, with no evidence for either, and THAT's what makes it 50/50--unless you know some evidence of which I'm unaware. None of the many revealed gods or the absurd pink unicorns etc. come with any credible evidence beyond pure hearsay.

[ThePainefulTruth]

I could be wrong here, but the claim, "God does not exist" is being dismissed, is it not?

Absolutely not.

Look again. Here's what the OP states:

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

Sorry for the confusion, I'm merely defending what I've said.

the evidence is right here, the universe. What's missing is any evidence for its cause, and it being designed.

And yet I don't see how one can meaningfully state that there is no cause for this effect. How does one claim that there is no evidence of design in what exists? All life on this planet seems designed to function here. Sea life is designed to live under water. Plant life is designed to grow in the ground, birds seem designed to fly. Eyes are designed to see, etc.

Just because life evolved, that doesn't mean the universe was designed to spawn it, nor does it mean it wasn't.

it seems that if there is no evidence, then the claim "God does not exist" can quite easily be dismissed. By the same token, the claim "God does exist" can also be dismissed without evidence.

Yet we have the universe....with no hint of an explanation for a cause. What you're saying is that because we have no evidence for how it came into being, then we can dismiss the only two possibilities out-of-hand.

I would only add that if God is the origin of existence, then God can't exist unless existence itself somehow incorporates it's own origin into itself.

By what reasoning is that the case? What you're saying is that an omnipotent God couldn't hide from the beings that evolved from It's creation.

God then becomes a term that is synonymous with origin, source, etc. This isn't to say that the origin or source of existence are things like round squares, and the square root of 2, but just to point out that non existence is a logical counterbalance to existence. In other words, you can't have one without the other.

So existence requires non-existence? That's taking duality and symmetry to an irrational extreme, not to mention the magic of numerology, and that 9 has a whole number square root, 3--which in turn does not have one.

[shnarkle]

the evidence is right here, the universe. What's missing is any evidence for its cause, and it being designed.

And yet I don't see how one can meaningfully state that there is no cause for this effect. How does one claim that there is no evidence of design in what exists? All life on this planet seems designed to function here. Sea life is designed to live under water. Plant life is designed to grow in the ground, birds seem designed to fly. Eyes are designed to see, etc.

Just because life evolved, that doesn't mean the universe was designed to spawn it, nor does it mean it wasn't.

I didn't say anything about evolution, nor did I presume that just because we see design, this suggests this is or isn't its purpose.

it seems that if there is no evidence, then the claim "God does not exist" can quite easily be dismissed. By the same token, the claim "God does exist" can also be dismissed without evidence.

Yet we have the universe....with no hint of an explanation for a cause.

We have all sorts of explanations. There is no shortage of opinions on the subject, but this is beside the point. We don't need an explanation to point out that everything has a cause; including the universe.

What you're saying is that because we have no evidence for how it came into being, then we can dismiss the only two possibilities out-of-hand.

Where did I say that?

I would only add that if God is the origin of existence, then God can't exist unless existence itself somehow incorporates it's own origin into itself.

By what reasoning is that the case?

Basic logic. The origin of anything can't be what it is. It's the difference between being and becoming. The zygote has its origin in the combination of the seed and the egg. It then grows into an infant, then a child, then an adult. The origin of the adult is not the adult. On some level the child is father to the adult, and somewhere there is that memory which still exists in the adult.

What you're saying is that an omnipotent God couldn't hide from the beings that evolved from It's creation.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

God then becomes a term that is synonymous with origin, source, etc. This isn't to say that the origin or source of existence are things like round squares, and the square root of 2, but just to point out that non existence is a logical counterbalance to existence. In other words, you can't have one without the other.

So existence requires non-existence?

Yep, pray tell, how can nothing not exist? Does non existence exist, or doesn't it? To say that it does exist is a violation of the law of non contradiction, therefore it can't exist. Therefore non existence is required otherwise there would be such a thing as nothing. Instead when we look at an empty container we see that it contains nothing. If it wasn't required, we wouldn't have the term. The term wouldn't exist.

That's taking duality and symmetry to an irrational extreme,

Why?

9 has a whole number square root, 3--which in turn does not have one.

So what? You're making my point for me.

[TSGracchus]

ThePainefulTruth: �The Big Bang isn't a hypothesis, it's the initiation for which we have zero evidence as to its cause. And "I don't know" is exactly correct. Both possibilities, deism and spontaneous creation, must be hyphenated with agnosticism to be reasonable, and neither can be reasonably dismissed or accepted.�

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of an observation, fact or phenomenon. A theory is a body of hypotheses and facts facts that is well supported by evidence and makes testable predictions. The hypothesis, (perhaps a theory), of the Big Bang is such an explanation, which has made predictions that have been verified.

ThePainefulTruth: �The argument ad absurdum, whereby you argue against something by changing it's name to an obvious absurdity. See pink unicorn below.�

Not quite! A formally correct argument that leads to a contradiction or absurd conclusion demonstrates that one or more of the premises on which the argument is base is erroneous. That is the method of Reductio ad Absurdum. It is a valid form of argument. It has been used, for instance, in proving that the square root of two is irrational.

ThePainefulTruth: �You switched arguments midstream by arguing against the straw man, revealed, man-made gods for which there is only hearsay, and most of that is absurd. Arguing against revealed gods is the most common false argument used by unreasoning atheists. Atheists, like everyone else, can't be reasonable and irrational the same breath.�

Well, of course, one can't argue against an undefined proposition, so I tried to point out the inconsistencies present in two of the more common ideas of “God�. Do you require further clarification?:�

ThePainefulTruth: �Only humans have full self-awareness and thus the free will to choose between doing good and evil. Gods invented by men to justify their evils is no argument against a non-interactive deist God.�

Most humans are not fully self-aware by any means. There is some reason to believe that they can't be.
And, as Tolstoy pointed out in the second epilogue to War and Peace, the more you understand about the circumstances of nature and nurture, the more evident it becomes that “free-will� is a fiction, a misunderstanding arising from a lack of knowledge. Hint: As a premise, 'free will" leads to reductio ad absurdum.

[Replying to post 59 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: �There are two reasonable positions on the existence of God, given the existence of the universe, and no evidence for what initiated it via the Big Bang: agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism.�

There are explanations for the existence of the universe. A universe of maximum entropy is a universe in its most probable state. But, as a consequence of periodic probabilities a less-probable, universe of less than maximum entropy, can arise spontaneously from such a state. In fact, this is inevitable based on the mathematics.

paarsurrey1: What am I missing here? The evidence, right?

ThePainefulTruth: �No, the evidence is right here, the universe. What's missing is any evidence for its cause, and it being designed.�

That is correct: There is no evidence that it was designed.

ThePainefulTruth: �But I have to keep reminding myself that we can't use a lack of evidence, as evidence--the idea of God winking at me notwithstanding.�

Actually the lack of evidence, where evidence should be expected, is evidence. Thus, one would expect to find evidence of a Noachian flood, if it had happened. Such evidence has not be found. Thus, we are justified in dismissing such an event until evidence is presented.

Just so, "God" explains to much to constitute an explanation. It makes no predictions, and in fact, precludes prediction. Depending on the definition of "God" it may lead to absurdity.[/color]

[ThePainefulTruth]

Actually the lack of evidence, where evidence should be expected, is evidence. Thus, one would expect to find evidence of a Noachian flood, if it had happened. Such evidence has not be found. Thus, we are justified in dismissing such an event until evidence is presented.

Lack of evidence for the flood isn't the same as lack of evidence for the cause of the flood. And actually there is evidence for what caused the flood, actually the "floods", over thousands of years--which is to say that it wasn't exactly as described in the Bible. Did you know that 8000 years ago, sea level was 400' higher than it is today. Same principle with Sodom, which has been found, though it was actually destroyed by a meteor, not God.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 66 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: �Lack of evidence for the flood isn't the same as lack of evidence for the cause of the flood.�

“Cause and effect� are not separable. They are one phenomenon, and that is not separable from the one reality.

ThePainefulTruth: � And actually there is evidence for what caused the flood, actually the "floods", over thousands of years--which is to say that it wasn't exactly as described in the Bible.�

If it wasn't exactly as described in the Bible, what makes you think it was the same flood? For instance the Biblical flood can be traced to a story form lower Sumeria, where the confluent Tigris and Euphrates flood the delta. Until the last centuries the inhabitants of the region would take all their possessions, including livestock on board tethered reed boats to wait out the inundation.

That could lead very naturally to a grandfather's "stretcher", an exaggeration to impress the impatient kiddies with how lucky they were to be confined for only a few weeks and not a whole year. That is certainly all speculation, but at least explains the story without requiring an impossible inundation.

ThePainefulTruth: �Did you know that 8000 years ago, sea level was 400' higher than it is today.�

Actually, about 15 thousand years ago, it was about 120 meters lower than today, rose steadily, and has dropped perhaps 10 meters in the last 5 or 6 thousand years. Now of course it is rising again. Some have proposed the the flooding of the Black Sea, which happened about 9400 years ago as the source of the Noachian flood myth, but that event raised the level of the pre-existing fresh water lake about only about 10 meters.

ThePainefulTruth: �Same principle with Sodom, which has been found, though it was actually destroyed by a meteor, not God.�

It would seem that several different sites have been linked to these mythical cities, and several guesses put forward as to what destroyed them, if indeed they ever really existed. It's a bit off topic but there is more to be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Or then again, it may just have been a cautionary tale about hospitality and a libelous propaganda dig at the Moabites, enemies of the Hebrews, descended from Lot and his daughters.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 66 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: �Lack of evidence for the flood isn't the same as lack of evidence for the cause of the flood.�

“Cause and effect� are not separable. They are one phenomenon, and that is not separable from the one reality.

So the universe exists, and because that's not separable from its cause, you then know what the cause is. Well?

ThePainefulTruth: � And actually there is evidence for what caused the flood, actually the "floods", over thousands of years--which is to say that it wasn't exactly as described in the Bible.�

If it wasn't exactly as described in the Bible, what makes you think it was the same flood? For instance the Biblical flood can be traced to a story form lower Sumeria, where the confluent Tigris and Euphrates flood the delta. Until the last centuries the inhabitants of the region would take all their possessions, including livestock on board tethered reed boats to wait out the inundation.

That could lead very naturally to a grandfather's "stretcher", an exaggeration to impress the impatient kiddies with how lucky they were to be confined for only a few weeks and not a whole year. That is certainly all speculation, but at least explains the story without requiring an impossible inundation.

There are many flood myths from around the world.

ThePainefulTruth: �Did you know that 8000 years ago, sea level was 400' higher than it is today.�

Actually, about 15 thousand years ago, it was about 120 meters lower than today, rose steadily, and has dropped perhaps 10 meters in the last 5 or 6 thousand years. Now of course it is rising again. Some have proposed the the flooding of the Black Sea, which happened about 9400 years ago as the source of the Noachian flood myth, but that event raised the level of the pre-existing fresh water lake about only about 10 meters.

Sorry, I misspoke, and unlike many, I admit it. Change 400' higher to lower and my statement is correct. And I think the biblical flood myth, as well as the Garden of Eden allegory are centered on the Persian Gulf. It would have been incredibly fertile being watered by the combined Tigress and Euphrates rivers--until sea level rose and flooded it all.

ThePainefulTruth: �Same principle with Sodom, which has been found, though it was actually destroyed by a meteor, not God.�

It would seem that several different sites have been linked to these mythical cities, and several guesses put forward as to what destroyed them, if indeed they ever really existed. It's a bit off topic but there is more to be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Or then again, it may just have been a cautionary tale about hospitality and a libelous propaganda dig at the Moabites, enemies of the Hebrews, descended from Lot and his daughters.

Religious nuts are all the time labeling natural events as God's punishment, especially before science became better at explaining them instead of just picking something to blame it on, like homosexuality. The destruction of the Cities of the Plain is no exception.

[marco]

And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50.

You mistakenly believe that, given two choices, A and B, they are equally likely. This is not the case. I cannot see how we can apply any numerical vaue to the probability in the case of God's existence.

It's no mistake. We have two choices, two propositions, with no evidence for either, and THAT's what makes it 50/50--unless you know some evidence of which I'm unaware. None of the many revealed gods or the absurd pink unicorns etc. come with any credible evidence beyond pure hearsay.

As I said, you have mistakenly supposed that when we have two choices we can just ascribe equal probabilities. We say one has probability p and the other has probability 1 -p. That's as far as our zero information takes us. We cannot put a value on p.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 68 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: �So the universe exists, and because that's not separable from its cause, you then know what the cause is. Well?�

There are a couple of approaches to the explanation. Start with some basic math: In any infinite string of random digits, there are just as many digits in a string composed of every second or third digit. For instance, there are just as many even integers as there are integers. Thus, in every random infinite string of real numbers every real number is inevitable. Thus, in every infinite chaos there are inevitable regions of order.

As a corollary, in every field of quantum probabilities, the most probable state is that of maximum entropy, but in an infinite field of quantum probabilities there will exist an infinite number of states of minimum or less than maximum entropy decaying toward maximum entropy. That is the quantum formulation of the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, in a state of infinite disorder, states of order are inevitable. No cause is necessary. The universe is causelessly necessary.

Do you require clarification of these concepts?

ThePainefulTruth: �There are many flood myths from around the world.�

People do have to live where they have access to fresh water, and preferably, flowing water. They are therefore subject to floods and flood myths.

ThePainefulTruth: �Sorry, I misspoke, and unlike many, I admit it. Change 400' higher to lower and my statement is correct. And I think the biblical flood myth, as well as the Garden of Eden allegory are centered on the Persian Gulf. It would have been incredibly fertile being watered by the combined Tigress and Euphrates rivers--until sea level rose and flooded it all.�

But that 100 meter rise took place over several thousand years. It was not a sudden, catastrophic inundation.