Why can’t we prove there isn’t a god?
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
It is not "omniscience lite". The word is not in the Bible.
Here is a definition.
"The capacity to know everything that there is to know." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Omniscience
The Bible describes God as knowing the end form the beginning. Has perfect knowledge. His understanding has no limits.
If I ask you if you are still lying, does that prove anything? If you say no, than you admit to past lies. If you say yes, you are admitting to lying. If yo say you did not lie, we know everyone has, so that is obliviously a lie. Does my little paradox prove you are a liar? No, it only indicates I created a paradox. Just as the omniscient paradox doesn't indicate anything about God, just that someone created a paradox. It is essentially just a trick.
Tricks do not equal evidence.
Since I made no such claim, that is rather silly straw man argument.
the state of knowing everything.
thus the claim a being exists that knows everything is logically incompatible with there being anything that it cannot know.
Firstly there is no objective evidence a deity exists, so this is just a bare claim, but we have already established this claim is logically erroneous, see Nyarl's example.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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
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.
If as you claim, no one is trying to prove God does not exists, than what are they trying to prove? What is the purpose of yours, and other atheists posts on this forum?
When you say "The fact there exist things that cannot be known directly contradicts the claim for an omniscient deity." What else can you mean other than he does not exists?
I already answered this in my post above, you have simply ignored my answer, so here it is again,all Nyarl has done is point out to you that a deity defined in a way that is falsifiable can by definition be falsified."
It's meaning is self evident, and it cannot be simplified. I'm not sure what you insist on trying to twist it into what you would like it to mean, but it has been explained now several times, as simply as it can be explained.
"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".
Does that include claims that God does not exists? Does it include all claims that atheists make about God?
It is the believers job to prove a god or gods exist, not the Atheist proving no god exist. All Atheist say is they have a lack of belief in any gods because theist have failed to prove a god is real.
* 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).
A Christian would say you would be able to physically see Zeus if he was there, apparently if you saw him in his true form it would be so glorious you would die instantly. God on the hand is completely non-physical, invisible and everywhere at once so there's nothing to see. Well I suppose you could physically see Jesus and he's one of the Trinity of God but not the entirety of God you've got the Father/Old Testament part of God and the Holy Spirit which is, I have no idea tbh, but it's metaphorically depicted as a white dove. When Jesus was baptised by John the Baptised by John the Baptist the Holy Spirit came down onto him in the form of a white dove and that's when he gained his...supernatural powers...he always had from birth anyway? Ugh, they kind of just made it up as they went along.
Theist: “God exists!”
Atheist: “No Way!!!”
Ba da ching!
@Rat Spit Re: YHWH "joke"
Aw, damn, Rattty! That was horrible. Boooooo...! But I still couldn't help but laugh at it, you sorry such-n-such. Shit... LOL...
Just occasionally you make me laugh....this was one of those times.
Captain Cat however, continues to regard you with suspicion.
@Old Man; Tin Man
I aim to please. You guys make me laugh quite often. Usually it’s a “bafaw”. And usually it depends on how “vigorously” either of you is chopping down a theist. And usually you’re not even intending to make a joke. It’s just funny how “vigorously” you guys chop down theists. But; Tin Man - you’re sarcasm is much appreciated. And Old Man - you’re shouting is much appreciated.
I would sum all this up like this:
Come down from your arrogance. Yours, like ours (theists)' is just a bet. We cannot prove God exists and you cannot prove God does not exist. You just deny there is one, but you could be wrong. You look for scientific evidence that there is one but you do not supply scientific evidence that there isn't one. That's all there is to it. Plus, you never went deep enough into true religion to have the authority that the subject requires. Good luck to you.
That's pretty rich coming from you.
Firstly atheism is not a denial of the existence of any deity, and this has been explained enough times now so that your repeated use is the worst kind of rank dishonesty. Secondly no one has to disprove a claim in order to disbelieve it, and again this has been explained to you repeatedly, so again this is rank dishonesty on your part. You don't believe on almost as many deities as atheists, so where's your proof they all don't exist, or is this just a gamble on your part? You can't use one standard for your deity, and a different one for all the others.
Again this is argumentum ad ignorantiam, a common logical fallacy. Again you dishonesty in rehashing this without acknowledging this fact when it has been explained multiples times is very dishonest of you. I don't believe any deity exists because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for one, I don't need to disprove something just because you choose to believe it exists without being able to evidence it's existence.
No that's not "all there is to it" at all, as usual you are woefully ill-informed, and this claim is another common logical fallacy, called an appeal to authority fallacy.
"What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Sheldon: I don't believe any deity exists
Exactly as I said. You keep changing the cards on the table, that's typical and that's why I normally do not hook up to your arguments but just post mine irrespective.
No it's not what you said at all, you said atheists "deny the existence of any deity" and that is not the definition of atheism. So you have ignored my post entirely,, posted another lie to misrepresent what I said, and made a false accusation about me that you don't even pretend to evidence. pretty typical fare from you, try again. Try addressing the fact your post I'd responded to was using logically fallacious arguments for instance, if you had any integrity you'd not simply breeze past that fact. You also completely ignored my question, quelle surprise:-
"What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
I have a lack of belief in any gods.
You have a belief in a god, but you have failed to prove it's real.
When you make a claim that a god is real, you have to prove it.
Well you don't believe in the Mormon God, or Hare Krishna or Allah the Muslim version of your God, or Zeus, or Amon Ra or Wakan Tanka. So you're already 99% of the way to full on atheism. Back in the day people believed thousands of gods but with Christianity that's been whittled down to one (sometimes three). So if you're interested in being helped to go a little a bit further in the God free direction you've come to the right place here.
I think you promised to leave twice. Did the second promise somehow negate the first one so that neither is valid?
I'm just trying to understand how the rejection of logical reasoning works, and your perfection in this method intrigues me.