Why can’t we prove there isn’t a god?

236 posts / 0 new
Last post
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?

Kafei's picture
I don't think one could have

I don't think one could have a direct experience of the so-called Absolute, unless there was an external reality that's "out there," because what happens at the height of these "complete" mystical experience is the complete break down of the subject-object dichotomy. The relationship between the organism and the external reality itself is transactional, and that is most readily recognized within the "complete" mystical experience. So, it makes no sense to ask the question, you see. Also, many people ask this question because they think God is something "out there" in the material world to be discovered or to be gauged scientifically, like Russell's teapot. All the great mystics and the yogis have said you don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look within. What is recognized is the Absolute or what Ken Wilber calls "Wholeness", recognized in various religions throughout various cultures, and times by various names.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Xenoview

@ Xenoview

"what evidence...outside your mind?" Looks like Kafei just answered in more than 300 words...."None"

For once he got it right.

Kafei's picture
I never said "none." I was

I never said "none." I was pointing out that it was an irrelevant question for the reasons I've pointed out.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

"I never said none"
True, you took 300 plus words to say it.

Sheldon's picture
"xenoview

"xenoview

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

@Kafei

So that overly verbose word salad response from you Kafei, to the question above, can be summed up as "none" then.

I do wish the superstious would learn the art of brevity.

Kafei's picture
Well, I never said "no." Let

Well, I never said "no." Let me ask, why do you think the question of "outside evidence" or why do you think evidence should be found external to the human mind? What is the relevance of that question?

Sheldon's picture
Kafei Well, I never said "no

Kafei Well, I never said "no."

Nice straw man since I never said you had, I just pointed out you posted yet another overly verbose word salad response that clearly could have been summed up more honestly as none, since you clearly can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.

KafeiLet me ask, why do you think the question of "outside evidence" or why do you think evidence should be found external to the human mind? What is the relevance of that question?

Please list a dozen things you believe besides the existence of a deity with zero objective evidence? Then give your reasons...

Kafei's picture
@SheldonNice straw man since

@Sheldon

Nice straw man since I never said you had, I just pointed out you posted yet another overly verbose word salad response that clearly could have been summed up more honestly as none, since you clearly can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.

Well, what I was attempting to describe in the other post with Old man shouts, post #307, is that none of this is word salad whatsoever. Also, the term 'deity' indicates the more shallow understanding of God, likewise what we're talking about is definitely not the supernatural as defined by atheists. These two things are totally irrelevant to this research. I explained this to Matt Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience in a call once, and I also wrote in a reddit post that this research does involve a more sophisticated understanding of the divine à la the Perennial philosophy.

Please list a dozen things you believe besides the existence of a deity with zero objective evidence? Then give your reasons...

I don't believe in anything without sufficient evidence.

David Killens's picture
@Kafei

@Kafei

"Well, what I was attempting to describe in the other post with Old man shouts, post #307, is that none of this is word salad whatsoever. Also, the term 'deity' indicates the more shallow understanding of God, likewise what we're talking about is definitely not the supernatural as defined by atheists. These two things are totally irrelevant to this research. I explain this to Matt Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience in a call once, and I also wrote in a reddit post that this research does involve a more sophisticated understanding of the divine à la the Perennial philosophy."

P)lease understand that this response does not move anyone closer to any understanding or the truth. Overall, it describes what is NOT, instead of what a deity, or god, or supreme creator may be.

When one consumes over five lines of text and no one is closer to any understanding, yes, that is word salad.

Einstein was able to summarize his theory of relativity in less words. You are beginning to remind me of this .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CGyASDjE-U

Sheldon's picture
Kafei "none of this is word

Kafei "none of this is word salad whatsoever. "

Yes it most certainly is, and if you can demonstrate no objective evidence, then when someone asks you if you can,, then the honest answer is no, you did not give an honest answer.

Kafei " the term 'deity' indicates the more shallow understanding of God, "

More dishonest word salad, open a dictionary please, as everyone's patience is exhausted with your BS. Deity and god are synonymous in all dictionary definitions, please don't waste my time with dishonest semantics. If you have a personal definition of the deity you believe exists then define it accurately, and demonstrate the best evidence you have for it, and if that is YouTube videos about hallucinations then we're done.

Kafei "likewise what we're talking about is definitely not the supernatural as defined by atheists."

More dishonest semantics, again the word has a commonly understood definition, this has nothing whatsoever to do with atheists or atheism, your dishonesty is not a good sign.

Kafei "I don't believe in anything without sufficient evidence."

Do you think no one will notice you have left out the word objective from my question? Lets try it again shall we:-

"Please list a dozen things you believe besides the existence of a deity with zero objective evidence? Then give your reasons."

Now if there are none then unless you can demonstrate objective evidence for a deity then your bias is manifest. So please, don't dodge or misrepresent the question again, either give a candid answer or accept that like all the other theists who come here, you have a blind belief you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for, no different to believing in Thor, or Zeus.

Kafei's picture
@Sheldon There's different

@Sheldon There's different concepts and understandings of God, there simply isn't one concept. Not recognizing this fact doesn't mean anyone who suggests otherwise is speaking "word salad." I maintain someone accusing me of "word salad" only reveals that the content I speak on has went over their heads. The "deity" is the most naïve conception of God, period. Atheists who reject God based on the understanding that God is a deity is basing their atheism on the most childish notion of God, and completely overlooking other understandings of God such as Spinoza's which is panentheistic in description (not to be confused as pantheism) and also at the core of the Perennial philosophy.

Sheldon's picture
Atheism is the lack or

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, if you can't even learn a simple dictionary definition then the irony of you claiming to have made arguments that go over anyone's head is manifest. Though of course by definition your woo woo word salad would go over my head, since it is meaningless nonsense, and I lack the ability to understand what has no meaning. .

Now one more time, please link some peer reviewed research, not YouTube videos or Wikipedia as neither are peer reviewed sources, that objectively evidence any deity. No more bullshit semantics, we all know what deity means, so your dishonest semantics will cut no ice. Atheism by definition would hold no concept of any deity, it's moronically dishonest to claim otherwise.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity, pantheistic or otherwise?

Kafei's picture
@Sheldon Atheism by

@Sheldon

Atheism by definition would hold no concept of any deity, it's moronically dishonest to claim otherwise.

If atheists have no concept of a deity, then they're not atheist. How can you be an atheist, if you don't even know what you're rejecting. You've got to have reasons to justify your atheism. Otherwise, the only person making absolutely no sense here is only yourself.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity, pantheistic or otherwise?

The evidence I've been citing throughout this thread which is consistent with the Perennial philosophy, and God is defined
within this particular context.

Cognostic's picture
@Kafei: RE: "I don't think

@Kafei: RE: "I don't think." WOW! This site is really good for you. At least you are recognizing your wholeness is severely lacking. As for the great Yogis and Religious Mystics, give me a thousand dollars and I will feed you a bunch of bullshit too.

noreason's picture
@ kafei, I would say yes and

@ kafei, I would say yes and no. "out there" and "in here" are both correct if this thing exists. That "dichotomy only exists if one doesn't understand whats going on around them to me. Technically there is no "out there" and "in here" as separate parts or locations past communication reasons.

I don't know much about yogi's, but I would bet they say something like ' ... start from within ..." more then they say it is inside. I am more of an engineering mind set so I change that mystic speak into something I understand. I change it it to "start with what you know. start with the best knowns we have."

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:

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - You are defining B as

Jo - 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.

I couldn't agree more. I specifically crafted those postulates to be irrational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Great; perhaps you could satisfy my curiosity: why did you tell us it wasn't valid in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/e Let me make it a little simpler:
1) Does the god described by my postulates exist?
2) [assuming you answer no to question #1] How do you know (given only my irrational argument) the god I described (with those postulates) does not exist?

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

"Great; perhaps you could satisfy my curiosity: why did you tell us it wasn't valid in the first place."
Because I made a rookie mistake of using the word invalid in a general sense, and not as you would in formal logic.

"/e Let me make it a little simpler:
1) Does the god described by my postulates exist?
2) [assuming you answer no to question #1] How do you know (given only my irrational argument) the god I described (with those postulates) does not exist?"

Let me qualify my answer by adding, if I understand you correctly.
The God you described would be logically inconsistent and so could not exist.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - ...if I understand you

Jo - ...if I understand you correctly...The God you described would be logically inconsistent and so could not exist.

I couldn't agree more; you've demonstrated that the deity described by me does not exist, based on my claims (postulates) about that deity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's compare that to a previous statement of yours:

Jo - Proving some claims about God are false, does not prove God does not exist.

It seems you have just done what you previously told us could not be done.

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

What does all of this really indicate?
Does it show that God does not exists?
How does an unsound argument provide evidence for anything?
Was what you created just a sophism?

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

How many times are you going to ask this same question and ignore the answer?

The claim an all knowing deity exists is incompatible with objective empirical fact.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - What does all of this

Jo - What does all of this really indicate?

Again, it isn't that complicated. You told us something couldn't be done; then you just went ahead and did it. A think a better question is: what does that indicate about you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - Does it show that God does not exists?

No, largely because that was not the purpose. The purpose was to demonstrate how [/e]ridiculous your claim was ("Proving some claims about God are false, does not prove God does not exist.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - Was what you created just a sophism?

Fuck you. I was not deceptive; I was extremely clear---on more than one occasion---that my postulates were garbage. I will not be held accountable for your failure to listen.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "B.god is all knowing

Jo "B.god is all knowing

You are defining B as knowing something which cannot be known."

B is claiming there is nothing that cannot be known by a deity, it's a traditional theistic claim. You don't get to lie, and claim atheists are imposing this definition themselves, as this is quite simply untrue.

Jo "That is not sound or rational. How can anyone know something that is not knowable? "

quod erat demonstrandum, thus this traditional christian claim is irrational, you're simply repeating Nyarl's point back it him and don't seem aware of the irony. The fact the argument is logically unsound is not being disputed. the traditional christian claim that an all knowing deity exists is at odds with known scientific facts, again as Nyarl has pointed out. It is theists and religious apologists who make this claim for an all knowing deity, not atheists.

I'm not sure why you're missing this point, is it deliberate?

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I can't answer for all theist throughout time.
But I can say that you are misunderstanding the omniscient attribute of God.
You are saying that in order to know everything you have to know what cannot be known. That is an irrational requirement.

Sheldon's picture
"You are saying that in order

"You are saying that in order to know everything you have to know what cannot be known. That is an irrational requirement."

No I'm not, I'm pointing out, as has Nyarl, that knowing everything logically negates the possibility that there exists anything that cannot be know. Omniscience is in the dictionary, I suggest you look it up as it's you who's misunderstood its meaning.

Again you seem determined to miss this point. Though it took you a long time to get around to risible and woeful apologetics of "omniscient lite" which always makes me laugh. So thanks for that.

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.