Why can’t we prove there isn’t a god?

200 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kafei's picture
Yes, and I did mention it was

Yes, and I did mention it was a quote from Terence. You're still going to get hung up over an exchange that happened over 4 years ago or are you going to address the modern research I've cited that no one here has addressed yet. They've misjudged it, they've misconstrued it, they've insisted that the Oxford English Dictionary is a better source to understand what this research is about instead of addressing how these terms are defined in the research, etc., but they've yet to properly address the science that's been done.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Yes, and I did mention it was

Yes, and I did mention it was a quote from Terence.

Only after you were busted for plagiarism; that is not how plagiarism works, it can't be undone later.

Also, even if you had cited McKenna (you didn't) as the author; you altered his quote. You altered the part where he talked about personally knowing Tim Leary, presumably to hide the fact that the words were not your own (no one would have believed that you knew Tim Leary). Guess what: that is also plagiarism.

It seems you are one crooked dude.

Kafei's picture
Not really. I did, after all,

Not really. I did, after all, attribute the quote to Terence McKenna. If anyone here is a crooked dude, I might point out yourself. Instead of dealing with what I've been trying to redirect people's attention to, the science relative to these topics, you want to deflect on a nothing burger that happened over 4 years ago. You want to talk about a crooked dude? Get a mirror or why don't you try addressing the science I've cited?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Kafei - ...why don't you try

Kafei - ...why don't you try addressing the science I've cited?

Last time I tried that, the peer reviewed material (you linked) did not contain or support the conclusions you claimed it did (another red flag that you are dealing with a crackpot). Why should I try again?

Kafei's picture
@NyarLast time I tried that,

@Nyar

Last time I tried that, the peer reviewed material (you linked) did not contain or support the conclusions you claimed it did (another red flag that you are dealing with a crackpot). Why should I try again?

That's funny, because I'm not saying anything other than what's been established by the research. Therefore, it's far more likely that you thought you pointed out something that I had said that wasn't supported by the research.

xenoview's picture
@Theist(God believers)

@Theist(God believers)
I have yet to see any of you give objective evidence that any god is real. How do you know that any god is real? All you have are your holy texts, written by humans. Humans who made up the gods they worship.

Kafei's picture
Could you begin by initially

Could you begin by initially describing what you mean by God? Perhaps we can start there. I'm a theist, by the way.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
A god or gods that created life and the universe. What is your description of a god?

Kafei's picture
Very different from the

Very different from the vantage point of Perennialism (The Perennial philosophy). In fact, phrases such as "God or Gods" is already a red flag from the Perennialist view, because a person using this phrase "God or Gods" is a good sign that they've been indoctrinated with a very naïve conception of the divine. We're definitely not discussing your grandma's God here, and within the Perennialist view, there are no multiple Gods. So "God and Gods" is meaningless. If you'd like a better conception of how God is understood within the context of the Perennial philosophy, I recommend my response here to Einy at post #173 at the freethoughtblogs thread for The Atheist Experience.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
For god and gods being meaningless, you sure use it a lot in you reply to Einy. Did your god create you or did your parents have sex to make you?

Kafei's picture
Well, what I meant there was

Well, what I meant there was it was meaningless to imply more than one God according to the Perennial philosophy. If you're thinking of a God that is separate from its creation, that intervenes, then obviously that's not what I'm talking about. The Spinozan God that Einstein referenced is quite synonymous with how the divine is expressed at the core of the Perennial philosophy. I take it you didn't bother going through the links.

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 07/09/2019 - 10:45

Tue, 07/09/2019 - 10:45
@Kafei "What is your description of a god?"

Kafei "Very different from the vantage point of Perennialism (The Perennial philosophy). In fact, phrases such as "God or Gods" is already a red flag from the Perennialist view, because a person using this phrase "God or Gods" is a good sign that they've been indoctrinated with a very naïve conception of the divine. We're definitely not discussing your grandma's God here, and within the Perennialist view, there are no multiple Gods. So "God and Gods" is meaningless. If you'd like a better conception of how God is understood within the context of the Perennial philosophy, I recommend my response here to Einy at post #173 at the freethoughtblogs thread for The Atheist Experience."

Dishonest evasion a lot? I see no pretence you are describing a deity in there. Oh and telling atheists that the phrase deity or deities is meaningless is like telling a vegetarian they shouldn't eat meat. You really do post a lot of woo woo nonsense I'm afraid.

Define your deity accurately, and demonstrate some objective evidence for it, else all you are doing is gushing over the naked Emperor's new clothes, whilst sneering at the little boy who's pointing and laughing at the naked Emperor.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
Your silence on the god description, speaks loudly of your lack of a description of god.

Kafei's picture
Well, the Christian mystics

Well, the Christian mystics did say that Theoria (direct vision of God) does silence humanity. You didn't give me an opportunity to respond, but it's up there, and take as much as time as you'd like reviewing the links. A haste response from you now would only reveal that you've not gone through those links. So, please, take as much time as you'd like to respond.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
If you have a vision of god, what does god look like? Why did god failed to reveal itself to me when I was a devout christian?

Kafei's picture
@xenoviewIf you have a vision

@xenoview

If you have a vision of god, what does god look like?

At the height of the "complete" mystical experience people describe a brilliant inner light which has been referred to the Tabor light or uncreated light in Christian mysticism. The quakers have described it as "The Light upon the Candle Stick." I don't know if you've ever witnessed that example of a topological isomorphism where the doughnut is morphed into the coffee cup, and vice versa, but at every point of the transformation, the volume is kept intact. Well, a "complete" mystical experience is sort of like that, there is an impression of all time in all places collapsing into a single moment. And what that looks like is not very easily described, but what many people describe is something quite akin to a mandalic pattern that forms behind close eyeds, these images pay no justice, but many people describe very kaleidoscopic-like mandelbrot-type fractals of the julia set. And this is riddled as well throughout art history. You can find it in the Mayan calendar, you can find it in the Tibetan mandalas, you can find these patterns throughout the stained glass in religious cathedrals, the Celtic “Triquetra” mandalas, they're riddled throughout all forms of religious art.

Why did god failed to reveal itself to me when I was a devout christian?

Well, for the early Christian mystics, they engaged these mystical states or Theoria by cultivating spiritual disciplines and techniques aimed at eliciting the Beatific vision. Did you ever practice quietism or hesychasm or anything like that? If not, then that would be one explanation as to why you never had these experiences despite your devout belief.

xenoview's picture
@Kalei

@Kalei
So all god is, is a light in your mind? So you are saying I didn't practice the right form of Christianity? No, I didn't practice any forms of mysticism when I was a christian.
I had visions of a pagan goddess when I was a pagan. She had blonde hair, green eyes, and tan skin.

Kafei's picture
@xenoviewSo all god is, is a

@xenoview

So all god is, is a light in your mind?

No, that's not necessarily the implication. The mandala or light is all-inclusive, it's representative of all things. There is a collapse of the subject-object duality that we all experience in our everyday waking sober consciousness. This subject-object duality is completely dissolved in this experience, and so there is a sense of merging with the Totality of existence itself. It's more of a panentheistic description of the divine (not to be confused with pantheism).

So you are saying I didn't practice the right form of Christianity?

Yes, there's a reason they call it "Orthodox Christianity." Orthodox meaning "right view" or "correct view." That is the source of all Christian sects, even the ones that went astray after the East and West Schism a.k.a. The Great Schism of 1054 that culminated in the Hesychast controversy.

No, I didn't practice any forms of mysticism when I was a christian.

Well, then that would explain your lack of mystical experience.

I had visions of a pagan goddess when I was a pagan. She had blonde hair, green eyes, and tan skin.

That sounds quite akin to the archetypal/visionary states spoken about that are related, but they are not the same as what these professionals are referring to as the unitive or "complete" mystical experience.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
How do the orthodox know they have the right or correct view of christianity?
Why can't god just appear as the goddess did to me?

Kafei's picture
@xenoviewHow do the orthodox

@xenoview

How do the orthodox know they have the right or correct view of christianity?

It holds roots and ties in the Original Roman Catholic church. This is how religion was practiced at its very nascency. Symeon the New Theologian made Theoria his principle teaching as it had been in the very roots of Christianity.

Why can't god just appear as the goddess did to me?

Unfortunately doesn't work that way.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
If god can't reveal itself, then god must not be real.
I came to realize that the vision of the goddess was a dream, and nothing more. You vision of light is not a god revealing itself to you.
Your christian belief is just made up by humans to control humans.

Kafei's picture
@xenoviewIf god can't reveal

@xenoview

If god can't reveal itself, then god must not be real.

God can.

I came to realize that the vision of the goddess was a dream, and nothing more.

Perhaps it was a dream, especially if it happened while you were asleep.

You vision of light is not a god revealing itself to you.
Your christian belief is just made up by humans to control humans.

I'm not a Christian, and this inner light has been the only fashion the divine has been revealed in man or woman. It's never happened in any other fashion.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
So you are an eastern religion follower? Which one do you follow?
Do you believe that there is only on god for every religion?
Do you meditate with candles?

Kafei's picture
So you are an eastern

@xenoview

So you are an eastern religion follower? Which one do you follow?

I'm a Perennialist, that is to say I'm an adherent of the Perennial philosophy.

Do you believe that there is only on god for every religion?

Yes, there is one divine source shared by all the major religions according to the Perennial philosophy.

Do you meditate with candles?

I do meditate, and I don't use candles.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
How do you know there is only one divine source or god?

Kafei's picture
Because it's possible to have

Because it's possible to have a direct experience of such divine source. Once it occurs, then it becomes quite obvious that there cannot be multiple gods.

xenoview's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei
Outside of your mind, what evidence do you have there is a god?

LostLocke's picture
Then the other part of that

Then the other part of that would be, which god?
Using the term "God" to me is a cop out. The descriptions of various gods would say they can not just be different versions of the same being.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Jo [moved to end of thread

@Jo [moved to end of thread to reset nesting level]

Jo - Please explain why D has anything to do with A, B, and C?

I already laid that out. Do you really want to have a conversation about the group defined by the swap operation acting on symmetric particles? I gave you a dumbed down version, more than once already; if you want more, that is where this is headed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - Wouldn't an example that doesn't require such a high a level of knowledge in math or physics would be better?

Absolutely, that is why I tried using a simpler example, TWICE:

Nyarlathotep - If I tell you I have a dog has 7 heads, and you have a proof that no dog has more than 3 heads; that proof is also a proof that the dog I described does not exist.

Nyarlathotep - I tell you the god Azathoth has property A. You have a proof that nothing has property A. Your proof is a proof that Azathoth (at least as described by me), does not exist.

But both times you complained that you wanted more. It seems to be a re-occurring theme that you ask for more detail, then complain when you get it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - I choose D to reject.

Great! But perhaps you should ask yourself why you rejected the only postulate that is an empirical fact?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
/e PS:

Jo - If one or more of your postulates are wrong, than your argument is invalid.

Nyarlathotep - The validity of an argument does not depend on its premises/postulates being true.

Will you be retracting your ludicrous statement about the validity of arguments any time soon? Or will you be following the more common path of the theist who come here and just continue to double down on your clearly false, Dunning-Kruger effect inspired statements?

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

I confess, repent and retract my ludicrous statement about the validity of arguments.
Your argument IS valid.

However, I feel it necessary to inform you that your argument is not sound.
A. god exists
B. god is all knowing
C. god is all powerful
D. cannot be known which photon is which

I am taking you word for D being something that is not possible for it to exist, and God not to know which is which.

You are defining B as knowing something which cannot be known. That is not sound or rational. How can anyone know something that is not knowable? That is a contradiction and so is not sound and not true.

Here are some references:

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content.
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Soundness is an important property of a logical system, because in a system that is not sound, one can prove things that do not actually follow. For example, one could potentially prove a logical fallacy to be valid in that system.
http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/terms/soundness.php:

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.