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?"

[harvey1]

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.

Well, of course, if we wanted to we could say that the laws of physics are really a consequence of Ptolemaic influences which science has still over looked. However, the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) requires that we seek a minimum explanation for the laws with as little overhead as possible. The argument against "Bob" is that the principle of parsimony is violated. However, there are very good arguments as I've mentioned for a theistic interpretation of the universe. Now, could those arguments apply equally for the existence of Zeus or "Bob," I suppose they could. However, we're back to Ptolemy science if take that kind of step. The principle of parsimony requires us to seek a minimum teleological view to explain this evidence, and that's why a general argument for God is justified.

[harvey1]

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

Generally I agree. However, the Copernican principle is very, very uncertain, and therefore cannot be used to establish any truths or proofs.

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".

Well, I think they do, but those are discussions that we've had that I'm mostly waiting to hear back from you on.

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.

How about:

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"

[QED]

The principle of parsimony requires us to seek a minimum teleological view to explain this evidence, and that's why a general argument for God is justified.

Teleological arguments (arguments from design) are arguments relating the order in the universe to the existence of God.

The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man.

I am quite simply arguing that it is more parsimonious if we consider that we are tuned to the universe rather than that the universe is tuned to us.

[wgreen]

Hi folks,

I am late to this discussion, so ignore me if I am wrong, but I did not see this issue addressed in previous posts.

The burden of proof does indeed lie with the atheist. There is a universal intuitive sense of deity evidence in mankind. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:19-21:

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. "

The universal occurrence of religion is a consequence of the remnants of man's knowledge of God.

Every man has this inward sense of God, though it is distorted and suppressed because of his hostility toward God.

So, the burden of proof is on the atheist, because we all start in the positive position: God exists.


Sincerely,

Bill Green

[QED]

The burden of proof does indeed lie with the atheist. There is a universal intuitive sense of deity evidence in mankind.

I would strongly disagree that any "universal intuition" places the burden on those who do not share the intuition. This seems like an absurd statement. I would expect any reasonable person to conclude that the burden of proof should rest with those having an intuition.

The universal occurrence of religion is a consequence of the remnants of man's knowledge of God.

Knowledge or hunch?

Every man has this inward sense of God, though it is distorted and suppressed because of his hostility toward God.

How is it possible to be hostile towards something which one is quite convinced doesn't exist?

So, the burden of proof is on the atheist, because we all start in the positive position: God exists.

How do you support this extraordinary claim that we all start in the positive position? I myself must be one of the "all" you mention. How can you speak so assuredly of my position?

I think maybe there is a veil of incredulity that prevents some people from understanding the atheistic frame of mind. I would say that Harvey stands on the same side of the veil as the atheist, but there are many people who simply look upon the lush green world as direct evidence for God -- assuming that this is the only possible way that lush green worlds can come into existence. This much is very evident from the numerous discussions I've had on these forums. From this perspective the theistic mind could only then view the atheist as an apostate who is necessarily "shuting off" the evidence right in front of him that God exists.

Understanding that there are alternative explanations is what justifies an atheistic worldview. Given that these naturalistic explanations keep us in the material realm, the burden of proof rightly rests upon those appealing to the influence of the supernatural.

[harvey1]

I would say that Harvey stands on the same side of the veil as the atheist.

Yuck... I just threw up a little, just in my mouth...

[harvey1]

I am quite simply arguing that it is more parsimonious if we consider that we are tuned to the universe rather than that the universe is tuned to us.

All better now...

Actually, I don't even think about those issues all that much. I'm mainly concerned about two issues: a) the phenomena, b) and the most parsimonious explanation for the cause of the phenomena. I could give a rat's behind as to the state of my delusion since I consider signs of that with regard to the parsimonious state of my explanation. For example, I really do consider someone attributing the universe to a (meta)universe as just another hypothesis: one that we should seriously consider. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this was not a realistic possibility, but I did seriously consider it. And, I would consider it again if I saw a reasonable response to the issues concerning this idea as a brute fact.

So, I really don't think tune vs. non-tuned is relevant. The universe could be made by me in the future, I don't care. If that's what the facts suggest, then I would be perfectly willing to accept them. Hume or no Hume.

[QED]

For example, I really do consider someone attributing the universe to a (meta)universe as just another hypothesis: one that we should seriously consider. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this was not a realistic possibility, but I did seriously consider it. And, I would consider it again if I saw a reasonable response to the issues concerning this idea as a brute fact.

Where should we continue this discussion then? Because the sort of reasoning that I've seen (e.g. Lee Smolin's) makes it seem perfectly realistic. I'm not sure if we've got an open topic that's suitable or not.

And I think your puking reaction is a bit OTT considering that all I was stating is the fact that you embrace the principles of evolution albeit as a tool in the hand God.

[harvey1]

Where should we continue this discussion then? Because the sort of reasoning that I've seen (e.g. Lee Smolin's) makes it seem perfectly realistic. I'm not sure if we've got an open topic that's suitable or not.

I think it belongs on the brute fact thread. That's what we're discussing whenever we say that some state of affairs is justified as a cause for the universe.

And I think your puking reaction is a bit OTT considering that all I was stating is the fact that you embrace the principles of evolution albeit as a tool in the hand God.

I thought you were attributing to me the view that our default position should be a "no God" position. That would not be the case at all. I believe like Bill that the default position is a belief in God (although, for slightly different reasons than his argument).

[McCulloch]

The burden of proof does indeed lie with the atheist. There is a universal intuitive sense of deity evidence in mankind. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:19-21: "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. "

I hope that you have some other authority than Paul.

The universal occurrence of religion is a consequence of the remnants of man's knowledge of God. Every man has this inward sense of God, though it is distorted and suppressed because of his hostility toward God. So, the burden of proof is on the atheist, because we all start in the positive position: God exists.

How is that? I do not know of anyone who knows about God until someone teaches him about it. Was it your parents or was it a Sunday school teacher who taught you?