Why can’t we prove there isn’t a god?

194 posts / 0 new
Last post
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.

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.

Sheldon's picture
Kafei "At the height of the

Kafei "At the height of the "complete" mystical experience people describe a brilliant inner light.."

I can describe a unicorn, and the description would broadly match other people's description, especially if we keep it vague and simple, this doesn't make unicorns real in any objective way. Even if people claim they've ridden them through an enchanted forest.

Woo woo, and we're still waiting (unsurprisingly) for you to link any peer reviewed research that remotely evidences anything "inaccessible to the intellect." So far all we've had are the same YouTube videos making the same claims.

Nothing on any news network with the banner headline "God evidenced by scientific research," now why is that I wonder.

Nothing scientifically valid can be inaccessible to the intellect, I'd have thought it axiomatic that this is a risible oxymoron.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Doesn't matter how many times we point out the flaws in his argument (and research) he will just respond with "oh the science" and link to Youtube videos. Quite as insane as any other one trick pony theist we get here.

This "overdose on drugs and meet god" line is just so funny I am amazed at the seriousness it is taken. Even the actual research does not bear it out...sheesh. I fucking despair.

Terraphon's picture
All of the various god claims

All of the various god claims are, by their nature, unfalsifiable.

Because they are unfalsifieable, they can not be proven wrong...for the same reason, they can not be taken seriously.

Sheldon's picture
@ Terraphon, no one can prove

@ Terraphon, no one can prove Zeus doesn't exist, or invisible unicorns, the inference seems lost on theists who come here and use argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, as if they are spreading 4 aces in a game of poker. You have to see the irony.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I agree that no one can prove God does not exists. But I think some here are trying to.
It goes both ways.
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true." https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Sheldon's picture
"I agree that no one can

"I agree that no one can prove God does not exists. But I think some here are trying to."

No they're not, all Nyarl has done is point out to you that a deity defined in a way that is falsifiable can by definition be falsified. He has even shown as simply as is possible that this is true, with an example of the traditional claims for a Christian deity. The ubiquitous presence of suffering for example, directly contradicts the Christian and Muslim claim for the existence of a perfectly merciful deity. The fact there exist things that cannot be known directly contradicts the claim for an omniscient deity, albeit setting aside the usual desperate rationlslisations apologists use, like your woeful and hilarious use of the "omniscient lite" rationalisation above.

Cognostic's picture
* I have been to the

* I have been to the Acropolis. Zeus was not there. No one I spoke to had seen him. There were no signs or evidence for his existence. I can certainly assert that there appears to be as much evidence for Zeus as there is for the Christian version of God. (NONE).

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.