A Possible Method for Disproving the Existence of Specific Gods

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
ThePragmatic's picture
@Valiya

@Valiya

Just a small point, while AlphaLogica is winding up for his reply...

"I search for it, and science can’t help me, and in fact gives up from the point where our universe ends."

That science has given up, is only your subjective interpretation. To say "we don't know" is the honest thing to do, since we actually don't know yet.

Valiya's picture
@ Pragmatic

@ Pragmatic

I thought I will quickly give my thoughts on this post before responding to your other one as that requires some thinking to be done.

You said: “That science has given up, is only your subjective interpretation. To say "we don't know" is the honest thing to do, since we actually don't know yet.”

It is not my subjective interpretation. When science says it can’t explain about evens prior to the big bang, it’s not some kind of a temporary ignorance which might get explained with more advancement in science and technology. It’s not like how evolutionary scientists look at the missing links saying that with more excavations more of these links will come to light. However, it is more of an axiomatic position like the ‘uncertainty principle’ i.e., you can never know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time (I don’t know if I have worded it properly, but I am sure you get the picture). This is a principle, and will not change with advancements in science. If this position has to change, the very principle has to change. Likewise, the scientific position that nothing at all can be known about events prior to the big bang is a principle. For it to change, that principle will have to change. And that would be call for a change in the fundamentals of science, perhaps in the very epistemology.

ThePragmatic's picture
@Valiya

@Valiya

It's still absolutely your subjective opinion on the matter, as you choose to phrase it as "giving up". I'm quite sure the the scientific community does not phrase it like that, or do you have any example source?

As you well know, new scientific hypothesis arise and scientific theories are revised in light of new evidence and so on. Just because it's not known now, and the current position perhaps is that 'it cannot be known' (if that even is the case, I suspect that depends on who you ask), it does not mean 'we have given up'.

That is just a wilfully belittling label on your part to further your position, if for nothing else to convince yourself. As in: you want science to have given up so you project that onto science.

Valiya's picture
Hi Pragmatic

Hi Pragmatic

I remembered reading something about it in Stephen Hawkin's Brief History of Time, and when i did a quick search, here is what i found.

Given below is what Stephen Hawkins has to say about the topic. And ironically, in this lecture he is trying to establish his atheistic ideas. However, the answer to your question can be found here. He says:

“Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.”

If you read the full lecture, you will understand that he is not saying this as some kind of a limitation imposed by the current level of technology, rather he is explaining that studying it would be impossible because all physical laws breakdown at this point.

For the full lecture check out:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

ThePragmatic's picture
Nowhere in the article does

@Valiya

Sorry, but nowhere in the article does he say "I give up" or "science gives up".
That is still your label, and a derogatory one.

When you read this lecture by Stephen Hawkins, you could just as well have reached the conclusion: "Okay, we don't know and we may never now.", then moved on to other questions.
Instead you search for answers that are precisely as beyond measuring as what was prior to the big bang:
Religious faith in a god.

Valiya's picture
@pragmatic

@pragmatic

I think it's quite unfair that you hang on to a phrase i used in a colloquial way, while the underlying meaning of what i said is the same as what modern science says. It's made amply clear by hawkin: “There is NO WAY one could measure what happened at them”. How much more emphatic can it get than that? It’s even stronger than ‘I give up’.

Then you said: “When you read this lecture by Stephen Hawkins, you could just as well have reached the conclusion: "Okay, we don't know and we may never now."

In this article his main argument rests on the premise of the universe not having boundaries. But that’s still a postulate only… does not meet the standards of a scientific theory. Why should I accept that, yet. And why should postulates keep me from inquiring into other areas.

ThePragmatic's picture
@Valiya

@Valiya

Sorry, my own crappy debating technique makes me laugh sometimes...
My intention was not to irritate or be unfair, but instead I had a purpose that aligns with the dialogue we are having further up in this same thread.

The purpose was to point out, that by using a descriptive phrase like "science can’t help me, and in fact gives up", you are attributing a 'negative mental state' to Science that just isn't there. In more poetic terms, you are 'painting a picture' that is deceptive, most of all to yourself.

You said:

"his main argument rests on the premise of the universe not having boundaries. But that’s still a postulate only… does not meet the standards of a scientific theory."

Then why would you submit his lecture as a source of proof of that science "have given up"?
Why would you even use that to justify to yourself that switching over to religions to find answers is adequate? You paint science in a light that enhances your wishes.

And this was my point:
By making small adjustments like this in your interpretation of the evidence you find, you affect your beliefs towards what you want to believe.

"And why should postulates keep me from inquiring into other areas."

Your absolutely right, they shouldn't!

To explain what I meant:
You have critique against how science can’t help you get answers beyond the beginning of the universe, motivating that with Hawkins saying "There is no way one could measure what happened at them [events before the Big Bang]"
But ironically, you instead accept the answers from religious faith for your axiom of "an intelligent agent", but these answers have the exact same problem: "There is no way one could measure what happened at them".

If you deem the answers from science useless, then the religious answers are equally useless.

Valiya's picture
@Pragmatic

@Pragmatic

I apologize for my rather loose usage of terms. I should have been more careful.

You said: “Then why would you submit his lecture as a source of proof of that science "have given up"?
Why would you even use that to justify to yourself that switching over to religions to find answers is adequate? You paint science in a light that enhances your wishes.”

Only his argument for the ‘borderless’ universe is a postulate… whereas the big bang theory is a theorem, and the all the scientists holding to it say that questions about the events prior to that event are baseless (probably not in exactly these words), because physical laws breakdown prior to it. This is part of the big bang theory.

You said: “But ironically, you instead accept the answers from religious faith for your axiom of "an intelligent agent", but these answers have the exact same problem: "There is no way one could measure what happened at them".

I have answered this in the reply to the other thread on top. I accept the religion claim only after accepting a paradigm shift in my epistemology. Using the same epistemology of science – I AGREE – I will never be able to resolve this question of “there is no way to measure them”. This limitation in the science is precisely my justification to turn in search of an alternate epistemology.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya - "In this article his

valiya - "In this article his main argument rests on the premise of the universe not having boundaries. But that’s still a postulate only"

It is not a postulate, it is a consequence of the FLRW metric, but thanks for playing!

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
valiya, you cannot generalize

valiya, you cannot generalize your opinion or anybody opinion for that matter as everybody's opinion.

Science has not given up, but clearly states that it does not know yet.
When the entire scientific community (100%) came up with mathematical formulas and scientific papers to prove that man could not possibly fly, they were proven wrong by 2 uneducated mechanics.(the Wright brothers)

So your argument of authority on a subject that no one "knows" about, is frankly ridiculous.
And just so you know, Stephen Hawkins is highly over rated and an incredibly arrogant and unscientific man for his accomplishments.
Stephen Hawkins or the scientific community IS NOT SCIENCE

Science is the way one does things(doubt, research, understanding, critique) and it heavily contradicts the way religion does things with dogma and faith.

BTW a miserable human being like me has already an idea of what was before the big bang.
Most probably SPACE, since i think that IF the "infinite universe hypothesis" is correct, then the big bang is not the beginning but a loop that keeps going for infinity.(expires in one place and starts in an other)
So you have multiple big bangs in different locations that are so far away from us and we are so microscopically small that we cannot see or detect them YET.
Thus what you have is a big bang with a life time, starting next to other big bangs which started at different points in time going around/orbit an even bigger and older big bang.
It goes on like that to infinitely big and infinitely small.

"Why should I accept that, yet. And why should postulates keep me from inquiring into other areas."
It should not, since that would not be science.

However if the other areas are proven to be unscientific and not producing the expected result, then you should not repeat the same mistake after trying it once.
EG:
If I pray to god that he fixes the mistake he did when he created hunger for the good of mankind and he does nothing then and not even dignify me with a reply, it means that prayer is a proven INEFFECTIVE method to contact god.

In other words Science is the way everybody lives, you can accept the result or choose to put your head in the sand and refuse to accept it(faith), in either case, results will always win in the end.

Science and doubt were always persecuted throughout history, but they prevailed anyway, and it is only a matter of time that your own children(generations) will realize the beauty of science since it is the best and fastest path to the truth.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jeff - "Science has not given

Jeff - "Science has not given up, but clearly states that it does not know yet.
When the entire scientific community (100%) came up with mathematical formulas and scientific papers to prove that man could not possibly fly, they were proven wrong by 2 uneducated mechanics.(the Wright brothers)"

Human flight took place more than 100 years before the Wright brothers....

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
valiya, you cannot generalize

Double post
And no matter what i do my reply goes not in the valia reply.
A bug maybe.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "so much specific

Valiya - "so much specific complexity"

Still waiting for you to give us the dimensions of specific complexity; been waiting for several months now.

science's picture
Very simply, the burden of

Very simply, the burden of "proof" lies with the person, or persons that are making the outrageous claim. If someone insists that someone, or something exists that is invisible ( i.e. " there is a monster in my closet!...God is in the room!!) then it is up to that person to supply the burden of proof, or be committed to the "rubber room!!"

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"I won't ask you to disprove

"I won't ask you to disprove the existence of God, but do you have any justifiable evidence against His existence that suggests that a divine being should not or cannot exist?"

Correct me if I am wrong:
You are asking if there is evidence that supports the idea of non-existence of something?

If so, logic can sometimes be evidence/proof for it depending on some well defined criteria.

Eg
A theistic god is Illogical, it contradicts logic itself.
One could say that this is proof that a theistic god cannot cannot logically exist.

Now the way you put the question could mean any type of god, in that case one needs to define that god and depending on the attributes this god has, one checks if they are logically possible.

ThePragmatic's picture
I would like to see the

I would like to see the Theists gather together within each of the respective religions and their respective denominations, and write down a detailed definition of their god.
Or would I? Hmm, that would probably create an explosion of thousands of new denominations...

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Better not, it might create

Better not, it might create an other crusade or inquisition to get rid of all the blasphemers.

Anonymous's picture
I have been "listening" to

I have been "listening" to Jeff, Pragmatic, CyberLN, Nyarlathter, and Reality debate the "truth" of Islam with Valiya. Intellectual arguments went back and forth and back and forth. What the doody piss.One argument was the discrepancy in the Koran whether God created the earth in 7 or 8 days and the Koran may not be clear about that. Valiva explained there really is a consistency and the doubters just didn't understand the text. "What difference does it make 7 or 8 days or whatever. Debating the inconsistency in the Koran is a mute point. Who gives a shit. Believing God created the earth in 7 or 8 days, Adam and Eve and the talking snake, and the rest of the miracles and bullshit is all you have to know. Your intellectual discussion about the "truth" of Islam is a waste of fucking time. If you leave the faith of Islam is not the penalty death. If you are a homosexual are you condemned to death and hell. If a wife commits adultery is her fate "death". I can go on and on and on and on about the immorality, stupidity, ignorance, and other fucking bullshit in the Koran. Do all of you want points in trying to convince the other with intellectual bullshit. What difference does it make. Ask the next homosexual who is thrown from a tall building to his death whether or not there is a inconsistency in the Koran or not. Ask the next Moslem that gives up his faith whether the Koran is inconsistent or not as he is stoned to death. It was sad for me to "watch" all of you dissect Islam and miss the whole point. It would be like "discussing" cancer and talking about the destructive cells, or malignant tissue or radiation treatment and not appreciating the pain, hurt, agony of the disease. So go on use all your brain cells and intellectually discuss something so profanely miserable(Islam). I am embarrassed for all of you. All you really need is empathy to understand the "horror" of Islam.

ThePragmatic's picture
What's your point?

What's your point fred,k/Kenny?
That debating in a debate forum is "a waste of fucking time"?

I would say that criticizing people for debating religion in a forum for debating religion is "a waste of fucking time".

Anonymous's picture
Pragmatic---Half face

Pragmatic---Half face charming, silly pain in my ass. My point Pragmatic---Your discussion with Valiya was page after page of the truth of the Koran. All your arguments dissected many different "points" of the truth of Islam. What fucking difference does it make who "wins" the debate. In fact no one wins because Valiva is stead fast in his delusion. Nothing, Nada, no scientific proof, no anything, nothing, will discourage Valiva from his illusion. But that isn't the "real" problem. The ridiculousness of Adam and eve and the talking snake or Noah's arc Donald trumps any "intellectual" discussion. No need to go on and on and on or go any further. But more than the absolute stupidity and ignorance of debating Noahs arc is the immorality of Islam. Very simple-forget you need to play professor or learned smart "debater". The penalty for leaving the faith(Islam) is DEATH. A woman who commits adultery will be stoned to DEATH. Homosexuals will be thrown from buildings and KILLED. The horror of beheading Christians, Jews, and different Moslems are disgusting. The depth of immorality, injustice, prejudice and "EVIL" of Islam knows no bounds.The intellectual discussion of whether the Koran is consistent or not is pathetic. It would be like discussing the validity of the economy of Nazi Germany and ignoring the "horror" of the holocaust. It would be like intellectually describing the malignant cells of Cancer or the amount of radiation to kill the disease, and not understanding empathy or pain, and depression or fear of Cancer. Pragmatic---belittle me if you want---Call me a troll--I don't give a shit. But you lose you passion and empathy when you try to have an intellectual discussion with a moron and miss the real "truth" about the hurtful, destructive, and "painful, deadly crimes of Islam. Your half a face isn't so much fun for me to make fun off anymore as I wonder where is you outrage and passion in the face of such injustice and cruelty of Islam.

science's picture
One of the problems is that

One of the problems is that if you ask a logical question, like "your God has never shown its presence, prove that He is there"...the theists will say " oh, God is ALL AROUND!! Just look at the beautiful flowers, and all the life, the animals, the sky, the clouds", etc....you get the idea. To a theist THAT is logical proof that there is a God...absolutely unimaginable!! Hey theists, I have a bridge I want to sell you...you will be rich, God is going to take care of you... just send me $1,000, and I'll see that God gets it!!!

AlphaLogica157's picture
So Fred, you think that

So Fred, you think that childish bashing is a more effective approach than intellectual argument, and yet you want to be taken seriously?

Anonymous's picture
Alphalogical--I feel sorry

Alphalogical--I feel sorry for you.. Very very very very sorry. You endless "intellectual" debate with Valiya was pointless. Everyone knows all the arguments that believe in God is stupid. We(this forum) repeat them all over and over and over again. There is nothing new (well almost) to add to all the reasons God is a myth and a delusion . Besides with all the pages and pages and pages of debate with Valiya even though endless reasons were argued to prove God(Islam) is a illusion- Valiya was steadfast and absolutely positive in his faith in Allah .But the intellectual discussion is void of empathy, and passion. The "horror" and evil of Islam is the only issue worth discussing. That alone is all you need to dispute the concept of a loving God...A evil God maybe. BEHAEADING of non believers---Stoning to DEATH(of woman) for adultery--- MURDERING of homosexuals---the DEHUMANIZING of women--KILLING of infidels for a trip to heaven and life in paradise with 72 virgins. Alphalogica---Do you want to be taken seriously in your intellectual debate that doesn't change Valiva's mind in his "faith" in Islam. Besides it is like arguing the statistics and causes or cures for cancer. Talk about radiation treatment or what stage the cancer is in -or malignancy- or chemotherapy. If you talk about cancer you can have an intellectual discussion about all the "statistics of the disease. But it is the sadness, pain, and death of cancer that has "meaning". It is empathy for the children who die of cancer that is significant to the real understanding of the horror of cancer. Debate all you want-intellectually- about the validity of Allah. But is the hurt, pain, death, killing, prejudice or evil of Islam and all the horror it brings is reason enough to reject Allah(unless he is an evil God. And besides "childish bashing"--What does that mean. It is true I belittle, ridicule, admonish ,criticize (to an extreme), laugh at, humiliate, Valiya and other morons who not only believe stupid things but ignore the 'horror" and evil of Islam and how it kills murders tortures destroys, innocent people. Alphalogical----Your name alphaLOGICAL is appropriate as you prefer logic to empathy. I feel sorry for you.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Fred I do not need or want

Fred I do not need or want your sympathy, but I offer my own to you. Viewing the futility of your approach reveals a lot about why you are so angry. If I had truly spent as much time as you filling the forums with vitriol and 'arguments' devoid of any substance I may be a little moody as well. The difference between you and I though, is a simple one, when I put forth an argument that is either ignored or rejected I take into consideration what has been either said or not said and then attempt fine tune or correct my points so as to provide an occasion for a productive conversation. This is what we would call acting like an adult, sure I may have had thousands of conversations with both Theists and Atheists that ultimately went nowhere, yet when the rare occasion occurs, and myself and my opposition reach a point of mutual understanding I feel the reward for my efforts returned ten fold. But, on the even more rare occasion, when the the Theist I am discussing with looks/writes to me and says:

"You know what, what you have said makes a lot of sense and I am beginning to doubt and question my faith in light of the arguments you have presented." (This is happened to me 8 times in my life)

The return and satisfaction for my efforts are rendered unto me one hundred fold. But what about all those times the conversation went nowhere? AT worst I have spent time practicing my writing, at best I am learning about the insights and understanding of those who profess belief in one religion or another, getting a first hand account of their experiences and justification for their belief, this alone would be more than enough but I am also granted the privilege making friends in the process, I have muslim friends in Pakistan who I write regularly, Christian friends in England, Hindu friends in India, To this day we disagree on many things from religion to politics, but I have learned far more from my disputes with those who I disagree with than those of whom I agree, there is only so much uncritical acceptance I can take before losing my mind, I would never deny myself the rewards of criticism I receive from honest intellectual discussions, merely having the chance to constantly reexamine my convictions is rewarding enough.

Yet it appears that all this is lost on you, and for that I truly feel sorry for you. If you cannot see the inherent value of honest disputation then you have a lot more to learn.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Nice reply and well put post.

Nice reply and well put post.

Not that it would help Fred but it does reflect the anti-theistic position and the reason why one keeps trying to appeal to reason and logic.

Anonymous's picture
Alphalogical and Jeff -first.

Alphalogical and Jeff -first. Jeff it is not a surprise you agree with Alphalogical . Your intellectual rhetoric is only surpassed by Deeprok Chopra. Often your in a "fog" of language bullshit. Although once and a while you even make sense. Jeff-your always so serious it seems you have no sense of humor. Except when you tell jokes and then your funny. I miss the picture of you in the space of the post. Your face --not a bad face- an alright face-- but so serious. Way too serious. Maybe you should have smiled but then that would not be you--so serious and all. Your profile also reveals a bunch of intellectual charade. It is amazing how many things you are proficient in. The list goes on and on. It is incredible that one human being(you) can know so much about so many things. It is not a surprise that you "try to appeal to logic and reason. Jeff like Mr.Spock (Star Trek)you can't show emotion. My arguments about reacting to the "horror" of Islam and all its horrible doctrine and other bullshit is at least as significant as intellectual arguments and logic. But then it takes someone with empathy to "feel" the terrible "horror" and pain and death to children and other human beings that Islam causes. It seems you lack empathy. Stick to the jokes. God Bless

AlphaLogica157's picture
@Fred

@Fred

"Alphalogical"

cannot even get my name correct.

"My arguments about reacting to the "horror" of Islam and all its horrible doctrine and other bullshit is at least as significant as intellectual arguments and logic. "

Appeals to moral outrage (also known as an Appeal to Emotion) are not logical at all, as it is in a fact a...wait for it...LOGICAL FALLACY.

"it is not a surprise that you "try to appeal to logic and reason. Jeff like Mr.Spock (Star Trek)you can't show emotion."

Ad Hominem, also another logical fallacy

Aside from waxing ad nasuem about Jeff's old profile pic I have addressed everything of 'substance' that you have provided and have demonstrated your logic to be wanting.

Anonymous's picture
Alphalogical--I have nothing

Alphalogical--I have nothing more to say to you as I tried and you just don't get it. You continue to use your name AlphaLOGICAL as an example of productive dialogue. I said before I feel sorry for you. I tried to express the "horror" and "pain" and "death" and torture and prejudice and beheadings as all you need to know about Islam. Nothing else matters. But you continue to want to be LOGICAL. I am as confused by your arguments as I am the creationists belief in Adam and Eve and the talking snake. Also you have no sense of humor as in your last post and others you failed to appreciate "satire". Like Jeff you are way to intellectual and logical and don't know how to laugh or show empathy for the torment and horror and pain of the human beings hurt and killed in the name of Islam. God Bless... Have a nice day.

Apollo's picture
Your method is not sound.

Your method is not sound.
Your method assumes that claims made in the Bible, are claims made by God. I think it is correct to say that Biblical claims are claims made by people who believe in God, so finding errors in the Bible, isn't finding error with God. The Bible is a set of small books written by people who were inspired by their belief in God. The Bible wasn't dictated by God to them.

Atheists have their own Bible, a set of writings that they like and that guides them in their thinking and life. The writings of Dawkins and others, for example are what I would call their bible. Supposing Dawkins made an error in one of his books, does that mean he does not exist? Or supposing a reader and follower of Dawkins made an error in interpreting Dawkins writings, does that mean the follower is a fraud, or worse, doesn't exist? Why couldn't it just mean its a person who was mistaken?

I have found ideas in Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker that to me are mistaken, but it doesn't follow that he is a fraud, or that he doesn't exist.

One way to test possible methods of trying to disprove God exists is to use the proposed method on your own beliefs,and see if the result makes sense to you.

Anonymous's picture
Apollo-BULLSHIT

Apollo-BULLSHIT

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.