I think we can presume that if it could be proven God does not exist, it would have been done by now. And by that I mean a purely logical proof, not one based on physical observations. As has already been clearly stated in this thread, science cannot prove that something does not exist. It can only demonstrate a likelihood that it does not exist.
This is an excellent means of finding more properties to tack on to the definition of God. If an argument works here, then tack it on as an exclusion clause that is not allowed to be used in an argument against God, and have that be a definition of God.
The first question that comes to mind is whether anything can exist that is not able to be discerned in some way by another discerning being, given the proper conditions.
Can God, for example, decide to show God to people if God wills it so? Can God decide to give the impression of Gods existence to people if God wills it so? Can people detect the possibility of God if God is not able to be possibly discerned? If God is not able to be discerned, and yet people hypothesize the existence of God, is this a contradiction? Can people hypothesize the existence of a being that has not willed it’s discernability to be present, and equally has the properties of indiscernability at its disposal? If so, then people are able to have a thought that comes from nothing at all. This means that something can come from nothing at all. God, however, is not nothing at all… as that would be non-existence. Therefor, people are recieving a substance from an immaterial body that is not God, not bound by deterministic law, nor conscious in any way.
This allows for numerous scenarios. One, is that at any moment, this immaterial realm that is not God can give us the ability to discern God, as it’s not bound by material law, nor conscious law, or rather, a law of intent, such as the kind attributed to an existant immaterial being. At a minimum, one can through this means, disprove the stability of God being able to hold such a state of elusiveness via Gods intent. What’s happening here, is to attack the properties of God… so, maybe god is invisible, but is God always going to be invisible, does God always have to be invisible? So, far, this necessity is shown to be a contigency… this definition of God is a contingency. Understand? The steps from here on out are much easier, as one then places the definition squarely on the person doing the defining – the power transfers to us via this contingency mechanism.
9.) God controls every aspect of that which comes from nothing at all, such that anything emerging from nothing at all cannot disprove God, and by default, definitions 1-5.
Voyager, thank you.
10.) Faith is a valid and sound argument when declaring the existence of God. Faith is not valid nor sound when used in any means to effect a disproof of God.
Addition to definition 10.
Faith is undefined. If one attempts to define faith, by definition of God, this is immediate proof of God, and immediate refutation of any possible proposal of disproof of god.
Those 10 properties of God seem to be quite a task.
Who here would consider that God still exists if this being can be refuted? If you don’t or won’t, could you please add a definition of your own to the pot?
Apologies, one more add for the evening, and I’ll look forward to input. I think God can be refuted, so please help by supplying irrefutable properties as part of Gods’ definition!
When I said “If one attempts to define faith…”
What I meant was, “Only if people who intend to arrive at a refutation of God, or for whatever reason, happen upon a refutation of God by accident, attempt to define faith, then an immediate proof of God is present.”
I’m trying to convey that people who believe in God can use faith as an undefined term insomuch as it doesn’t allow God to be refuted. If, in defining faith, some sort of refutation emerges, then it is immediate proof for God. This is an excellent amendment to the already stated “Faith is a valid and sound argument when affirming the existence of God. Affirming the existence of God forces unconditional acceptance of properties 1-5. Faith is not a valid or sound argument when used in any means to effect a refutation of God.”.
I cannot think of a tighter trap than this one. I must admit that I’m not sure that I can get out of it at this point. If you know how to make it more difficult, please do so.
Yes.
Yes.
You would have to define “discerned”. I think “discernment” would be a matter of personal opinion or experience.
I can hypothesize anything I want. I can’t prove everything I hypothesize.
The thought doesn’t come from nothing. It comes from other people.
True and false. He is not “nothing”, but it remains to be seen by many whether he is just a concept or a future discovery.
Big leap. I don’t think I understand what you are saying. Define a “substance” that comes from an immaterial body?
You can tack on as many properties you want to the definition of G-d. You can even make him pink if you’d like. The only thing you can really be sure of is that he either does or doesn’t exist. Fifty/fifty chance of being right or wrong. You’re not going to come up with a workable answer on this one. Unless, you are something more than another SDMB poster. Shall we hypothesize on that?
[Lurker mode off]
I just rolled a random number of D6s and added the scores together. Now, you do the same.
There are two possible outcomes, you will either beat my score or you wont. Does that mean you have a 50% chance of beating my score ?
[Lurker mode on]
Hi. I’m a pantheist. I believe that the Divine, or God, inheres in all things. Further, I think that a monotheistic big-G GOD not only does not exist, but is also philosophically untenable.
First, if we take the pantheist line, whatever is Divine is synonymous with the original substance and now exists in a near-infinite number of modes by means of That Which Is. This granted, one may question what the purpose of the term “Divine” is if the Divine is synonymous with Reality; but I would hold that just as one light may be brighter than another yet both be light, the Divine can fulfill its purpose better in one mode than another, and thus be Divine to a higher degree (this also helps to explain the origin of evil, but I degree).
To the contrary, monotheism holds that there is one original God that created all things, that nevertheless is separate from His creation and not synonymous with it. To refute the concept of a monotheistic God, then, it is necessary only to refute this aspect of the belief, as any version of monotheism without this tenet is by definition not monotheism.
To repeat, the premise that we must refute is this:
God is existentially primary and anterior to, superior to, and separate from all His creation.
Arguments against this premise:
- Aquinas struggled with this one. We can see that 2 +2 = 4 must always be true, regardless of whether God exists or not. Further, God could not make 2 + 2 = 5 true. Hence, God is not ontologically superior to the rules of mathematics, nor did He “create” them.
This is not a problem for pantheism, as the Divine is synonymous with That Which Is, including number.
-
If we consider set theory, we can definite a set “All of Reality” and consider it to be equivalent to the set “the Divine,” nor is there any contradiction here. But if we consider monotheism, the set “All of Reality” must include both God and His creation, which set would greater in ontological magnitude than the set merely of “God,” which is supposed to be greatest.
-
As to whether God is separate from His spiritual and material creation, I would aver that there is no such thing as ontological “separateness,” merely separateness by mode. For if we say that God is separate from His creation (that is, God is not equivalent to His creation, nor is it a part of Him), it must follow that he is distinct from every single element of it. For it would be absurd to say that God includes this one mountain, but no other. Hence, God must be distinct from everything else in order to be considered God (according to monotheism). This is unlike a person, who need not be distinct from every element in order to be considered a person. Am I distinct from the air I breathe or the bacteria in my colon? Am I less me if your words are now in my head? No. Nor do we find any object or even mental concept in our experience that is distinct from any other ontologically, but merely by means of modality. In other words, the lines of poetry in my mind are distinct from this refrigerator only because I choose not to paint them onto the refrigerator, thus making them “part” of it.
So, looking at the required distinctness of God from any given thing, it is clear that this “distinctness” is not of a mode that we can conceptualize, as God is not made distinct from any given thing by means of distance, or color, or beauty, or any such thing; contrariwise, there is no danger (by definition) of God merging any of these things by approaching them.
Hence, one necessary concept of monotheism–the distinctness of God from His creation, without which pantheism would hold–is seen to have nothing in common with distinctness as typically conceived. Hence, it were just as true to say, “God has quality X,” as to say “God is distinct from His creation.” But since “Quality X” is undefined, it is a void concept, pertaining to nothing. Hence, God (as conceived monotheistically) cannot exist.
Q.E.D.
I don’t get this can’t prove a negative thing.
For all entities that we term God, if they existed, the world wouldn’t suck.
The world sucks.
Therefore, they don’t exist.
QED by problem of evil and M.T.
If you want to see how a philosopher thinks about God, and where definitions lead you, I suggest “How to Think about God” by Mortimer J. Adler, one of the great unappreciated philosophers of our time. From a religious point of view it is a dry thing, but from a philosophical point of view it is very clear, and you can at least pinpoint where you disagree with him very easily. No “faith” here.
Robert,
Yep, a crude weapon, but deadly.
Since you ask for some “definition” from religious point of view to build your case on, I can give you a translation of Al Qur’an, sura al-ichlaas (112):
qul huwa allahu ahadu :
Say: He is God as Only (= God the one and only God)
allahu assamadu :
God the permanent (= God the eternal and absolute)
lam yalid wa lam yulad :
He did not beget and is not begotten (= He has no offspring and is uncreated)
wa lam yakun lahu, kufuwan ahadun :
And not one is equal to Him (= there is no other like Him).
Good luck 
Salaam. A
why do people continue to say this? it’s simply not true. for instance:
P -> ~Q
P
:.
~Q
proof of a negative.
i think what you mean is you can’t by searching prove the lack of something’s existence, since it’s possible you just didn’t find it. but i wish people would stop saying you can’t prove a negative. because you can.
This is a piece of one of the ways I used to disprove god (I know a lot of ways. Really nice game to kill time):
-
Something without a meaning doesn’t exist.
Therefore, if the word god has no meaning, no god does exist.
(The same as 2, but with the meaning of god without a meaning defined equaling nothing being already defined as no thing; it’s postulating that there may be things we have no words for but no words may be allowed if we haven’t things for them.) -
Something meaning the same as something else is something else and nothing of it own.
Therefore, if the word god means the same as the universe, a loaf of bread, etc. god were the same, so no god does exist.
(That means, pantheism is pointless. They just call the universe god, no difference at all (except god does something, see 4); the postulate is, if there is one thing, one word shall be enough.) -
Something being defined with unique attributes having no effect on the universe doesn’t exist.
Therefore, if god means something, but does nothing, no god does exist.
(That means, we can say there is a god omniscent, benevolent etc., but as long as we don’t say he does miracles or created the world or interfering with mankind in any other way, he is not needed. Same valid for afterlife: fine if it’s there, but we don’t know. Seems somewhat similar to ockhams razor to me.) -
Something being defined as having a certain effect on the universe which is already covered by science does not exist.
Therefore, if god is supposed to do something, but science can explain it someday without god, no god does exist.
(That means, if you have a better explaination, defining better as it can explain other things as well, you will take it. Essentially, that’s ockhams razor, I think.)
Eindal,
Since my religion declares God to be
- The Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
- The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
- The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything that has ever been and shall ever be the Only Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
this means also that this Creator has caused everything science has discovered and proved to exist upto now (taking alo in account the relativeness of such proof) or shall discover in the future.
How do you proof that this Creator doesn’t exist.
Salaam. A
Eindal,
Since my religion declares God to be
- The Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
- The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
- The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything that has ever been and shall ever be the Only Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
this means also that this Creator has caused/created everything human made/developped science has discovered and proved to exist upto now (taking alo in account the relativeness of such proof) or shall discover in the future.
How do you proof that this Creator doesn’t exist.
Salaam. A
No. The laws of math do not require a universe to be true, therefore the set All That Is is larger than the universe. Hence, All That Is, or the Divine, is not equivalent to the universe.
But let’s call that a quibble with your counterargument. Pantheism is not superfluous as a belief set in that it not only states the obvious–What Is, is–but it also makes statements about What Is that might not be so obvious. For example, I believe that there is a fundamental sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) vector within What Is that can make modes of being more divine than others.
Which can lead to the question:
Is “God” - or what you understand as being the equivalent - supposed to be “conscious” ?
If so, prove it.
If not, prove it.
Salaam. A
Forgot to add:
If you can’t prove either of the two possibilities, is that a proof that there is no God ?
Salaam. A