My best argument for the non-existence of God

[Nature_s_Call]

CandidGamera: *Actually, it seems like you’re suggesting just that, about the reverse hypothesis - the inability of believers to negate the hypothesis that God does not exist doesn’t make IT true, either. *

This hurt my brain as much as this thread did

CandidGamera: A thing is only lost until you find it.

Even a search party, looking for a lost child, would eventually give up the search.

I submit the following:

1. The “search for God” has being going on for so long
2. God has been reported “found” in many mutually exclusive ways.
3. It is an observed phenomenon that people (and groups of people) often manufacture explanations when the need for explanation is great but the actual explanation is elusive
4. It has not been observed that God in any of his/her/its forms actually exists

Given the above, I suggest that “Sagan’s Dragon” is just as real as “God” and the reason there are no religious texts devoted to Sagan’s Dragon is because it does not fill the need that “God” does. The most likely explanation for the existence of any God that we’ve named (please note the qualifier) is we made him/her/it up.

I’ll grant that God and Pluto-before-it-was-discoverd are similar in that lack of observation does not negate existence. Fine. But there were no Pluto worshippers before its discovery. May claim to “know” God, and this knowledge is specious.

[CandidGamera]

@Ex Machina

So you believe that we can imagine a thing with a quality without being capable of judging that quality?

Can you imagine a “happy girl” if you aren’t the judge of whether the girl is happy or not?

I think you just claim things aren’t logical when you don’t like the conclusion.

I think you have a complete lack of understanding with regard to establishing a logical argument. Since this seems inobvious to you, I will illustrate.

If people are said to be able to imagine a perfect being then it follows that they are the judges of what is perfect and imperfect.

This was your statement. Superficially, it looks like a classic “If A, then B.” structure. For it to hold, then, Condition A must actually cause Result B, and Condition A must be true.

Condition A : People are said to be able to imagine a perfect being.
Result B : People are the judges of what is perfect and imperfect.

Problem One : Your premise A is dubious. “are said to be able to”? What is this, hearsay? Strike it. Reword. “People can imagine a perfect being.” This is what you’re essentially saying, right?

Problem Two : No, we can’t. Perfection is a difficult attribute to pin down for us, even in the simplest cases. Take a perfect diamond. Do I mean that it is without internal flaws? Most probably. Do I mean its facets are cut completely uniformly? Well, maybe. It might be a perfect uncut diamond. I hand it to my buddy Ray, who grabs it a bit too tightly, and cuts his hand on the point, cursing a blue streak. “It’s too sharp!” he exclaims. Can I rebut him by saying it is, objectively, a perfect diamond? That therefore, it is precisely sharp enough?

Do I really need to explain to you that we tend to judge the quality of “perfection” as suits our own individual purposes? If I want an industrial cutting diamond, my perfect ideal will be different from that of the jeweler.

Some little bears like their porridge hot, and some like their porridge cold. Is there a porridge to satisfy everyone? Maybe, but none of us are likely to know its characteristics. We can only conceptualize at the barest level - “a porridge everyone likes and enjoys.” Which is different from “imagining” the thing - we’re only scratching the surface of its properties.

Applying the idea to an unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient being - subjective perfection just doesn’t really seem like what we’re shooting for, here, does it?

[CandidGamera]

@Nature's Call

CandidGamera: *Actually, it seems like you’re suggesting just that, about the reverse hypothesis - the inability of believers to negate the hypothesis that God does not exist doesn’t make IT true, either. *

This hurt my brain as much as this thread did

My grammar’s solid. You popped off the quote as if it were wisdom, then proceeded to make an argument of the exact same kind as the quote decried.

Even a search party, looking for a lost child, would eventually give up the search.

Doesn’t mean it’s not there.

I submit the following:

1. The “search for God” has being going on for so long
2. God has been reported “found” in many mutually exclusive ways.
3. It is an observed phenomenon that people (and groups of people) often manufacture explanations when the need for explanation is great but the actual explanation is elusive
4. It has not been observed that God in any of his/her/its forms actually exists

None of which is inconsistent with God’s existence…

Given the above, I suggest that “Sagan’s Dragon” is just as real as “God” and the reason there are no religious texts devoted to Sagan’s Dragon is because it does not fill the need that “God” does. The most likely explanation for the existence of any God that we’ve named (please note the qualifier) is we made him/her/it up.

I disagree that it is “most likely” . “Equally likely”, I’ll grant.

I’ll grant that God and Pluto-before-it-was-discoverd are similar in that lack of observation does not negate existence. Fine. But there were no Pluto worshippers before its discovery. May claim to “know” God, and this knowledge is specious.

Well, to nit-pick, Pluto is a physical object, whereas God, in most religions, is not.

[Crotalus]

@Ex Machina

The OP is still there for everyone to see. Everyone is free to judge what it is.

It sure is. They sure are.

Now, again, stop nitpicking and argue for or against the proposition that people in a god-world would explain god’s nature and worldly events in the same way as a nongod-world.

There’s nothing to argue, based on your OP, as magellan01 pointed out a while ago. People have explained the nature of god in every way imaginable. God does or does not exist. All, or all but one, of the explanations is wrong.

[Ex_Machina]

@CandidGamera

I think you have a complete lack of understanding with regard to establishing a logical argument. Since this seems inobvious to you, I will illustrate.

Condition A : People are said to be able to imagine a perfect being.
Result B : People are the judges of what is perfect and imperfect.

Problem One : Your premise A is dubious. “are said to be able to”? What is this, hearsay? Strike it. Reword. “People can imagine a perfect being.” This is what you’re essentially saying, right?

You don’t have permission to change my words. I said exactly what I meant.

According to St Anselm, Spinoza, and others, the ontological proof of God is premised on the belief that we can conceive of a perfect being. I personally don’t believe that I can conceive of a perfect being. Therefore my statement that “people are said to be able to imagine a perfect being” is fine.

And it follows that if people are the judges of the perfection or imperfection of a being then they are the judges of perfection and imperfection regarding those beings.

How can you object to something which is probably tautological?

[Dob]

4. It has not been observed that God in any of his/her/its forms actually exists

Really what you are saying is that nothing YOU have seen leads you to believe God exists. For the other few billion of us on the planet we have observed that God exists and we believe it.

When you make a statement like you did above you are trying to invalidate the personal experiences of a billions of people. You are saying that we have observed nothing, felt nothing, believe in a nothing, and that is not a way to have debate.

Now, to say that nothing attributed to God cannot be explained scientifically therefore…etc…etc… You are saying the same thing as above, just not in a rude way.

[Ex_Machina]

@Tim Staab

There’s nothing to argue

You’re starting to sound like a Monty Python skit.

[magellan01]

Tim Staab,

A suggestion: seek debates more rooted in logic. I’ve just posited to my cat:“I think there is a pink elephant in the bedroom. Now it is either their or not, what is your position?” It seems that I’ve stumped him. He looks at me with this eager look, like there’s a little machina inside his tiny head that is trying to grasp the sense of the words, but just isn’t up to the task. Result, no answer. NONE!

If you don’t have a cat you could try a fish. Or a doorknob.

[Crotalus]

@Ex Machina

You don’t have permission to change my words. I said exactly what I meant.

According to St Anselm, Spinoza, and others, the ontological proof of God is premised on the belief that we can conceive of a perfect being. I personally don’t believe that I can conceive of a perfect being. Therefore my statement that “people are said to be able to imagine a perfect being” is fine.

And it follows that if people are the judges of the perfection or imperfection of a being then they are the judges of perfection and imperfection regarding those beings.

How can you object to something which is probably tautological?

So what did St Anselm et al say? That we can conceive of a perfect being, judge the perfection of a being, or both? Despite your reference to tautology, conceiving of and judging are not the same thing. Believers can conceive of a perfect God (that is to say, conceive of a being with no flaws) without being qualified to judge that being’s perfection.

[Crotalus]

@Ex Machina

You’re starting to sound like a Monty Python skit.

No, I’m not.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

[Ex_Machina]

@Tim Staab

Believers can conceive of a perfect God (that is to say, conceive of a being with no flaws) without being qualified to judge that being’s perfection.

I don’t know how to respond to that.

It’s just self-fulfilling insanity.

It reminds me of the argument that everything is in God’s plan so everything is fine.

It’s just another theological deus ex machina.

[Crotalus]

@Ex Machina

I don’t know how to respond to that.

It’s just self-fulfilling insanity.

It reminds me of the argument that everything is in God’s plan so everything is fine.

It’s just another theological deus ex machina.

Sorry. Maybe an illustration would help. I can conceive, or grasp the concept of, a perfect gymnastics performance or a perfect dive from a ten meter diving platform. I’m not qualified to judge them. That’s all I was trying to say. Nothing deep or cosmic, or insane for that matter.

[CandidGamera]

@Ex Machina

You don’t have permission to change my words. I said exactly what I meant.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you meant exactly what you said, you run into problem three. Namely, you absolute “B” does not follow from your subjective “A”. People are SAID to be able to do something, therefore they ARE something? Nope. Nada. Nicht. Nein. Nyet. Doesn’t happen.

[rayh]

To add some fuel to the debate here are over three hurndred disproofs of god’s existence :-
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html

Of course to balance that we have over three hundred proofs of god’s existence
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[Nature_s_Call]

@Dob

Really what you are saying is that nothing YOU have seen leads you to believe God exists. For the other few billion of us on the planet we have observed that God exists and we believe it.

When you make a statement like you did above you are trying to invalidate the personal experiences of a billions of people. You are saying that we have observed nothing, felt nothing, believe in a nothing, and that is not a way to have debate.

Now, to say that nothing attributed to God cannot be explained scientifically therefore…etc…etc… You are saying the same thing as above, just not in a rude way.

It has not been observed that God in any of his/her/its forms actually exists

I did not intend to be rude. There is a distinction, though, between one who has witnessed the majesty of the heavens and said, “This is God’s handiwork,” and one who says, “God? Yeah I’ve literally seen him.”

Let me try it this way: I cannot and will not tread on one’s faith. There is nothing wrong with “The heavens declare the glory of God.” I buy that. There’s nothing I can say against "When I was at my lowest I felt ‘something’ get me through it, and I call that something ‘God’ " I find both thoughts uplifting, and I respect anyone who makes such statements.

You’ve pointed out my point 4) but what have you to say to point 3)? Statements as the above are conclusion of God, not observations of God. It has been observed, though, that people do “leap to conclusions” incorrectly when the truth is elusive.

[jimpatro]

**Dob[/B

When you make a statement like you did above you are trying to invalidate the personal experiences of a billions of people.

But like it or not, you all may actually be wrong.

[Nature_s_Call]

CandidGamera: My grammar’s solid. You popped off the quote as if it were wisdom, then proceeded to make an argument of the exact same kind as the quote decried.

Your grammar is solid - as was the grammar in many of the posts in the link. I was only trying to add a touch of humour. I meant no offense.
CandidGamera: Well, to nit-pick, Pluto is a physical object, whereas God, in most religions, is not.

If by ‘not physical’ you mean ‘has no effect on the physical world’ then the debate is meaningless. The point where the non-physical moves anything in the physical would be indistinguishable from a physical object - and it is this phenomenon (by whatever words one uses to describe it) that is the real subject of debate.

There is no doubt the concept of God exists.
There is no doubt people feel moved, comforted, dedicated to this concept.
There is no doubt that God “might” exist.
There is no doubt that many people “need” God.
There is no doubt that at least some of the descriptions of God are manufactured to fill this need.
There is no doubt that one can “grow up” with a belief that’s not true.
I submit it’s highly probable that some of these manufactured descriptions have flourished and evolved to the point where they have adherents that were not privy to the original manufacturing.
With the host of decriptions of God out there, how can one “know” which - if any - is NOT manufactured?

You rightly say “to give up the search” doesn’t mean “it’s not there to be found.” But don’t ignore the implicit “it’s not found yet.” The mere possibility of the existence of God is as meaningful as the possibility of life on other planets.

If I say to you, “I have met a Martian and his name is Frexliton. He wants us to live in this manner.” You have every right to disbelieve me. If it goes no further than this, then who’s right? who’s wrong? It doesn’t matter. If, though, I say “Come on over and meet Frexy” now we’re closer to the point of this debate. You show up and you can’t see him (he’s invisible) you can’t paint him (he’s incorporeal) etc. In the end, if your introduction to Frexy is indistinguishable from not having met him (ouch, there goes my brain again) then what’s the point of the claim that I’ve met a Martian?

Personally, I happen to believe that there is something more than meets the eye in this universe of ours. If the question under debate is the mere theoritical possibility of God existing: I agree, it’s possible - maybe even probable. But that is not an interesting debate.

To put it bluntly: To say “You can’t disprove God’s existence” cannot be used as the basis of an argument that “God’s name is Jehovah. He created the world and everything in it. He loves you and he wants us to behave this way.” It is this type of claim that is under debate. This claim has not been proven - and must be proven - before on can plant the flag of “truth” into the claim.

[CandidGamera]

@Nature's Call

If by ‘not physical’ you mean ‘has no effect on the physical world’ then the debate is meaningless. The point where the non-physical moves anything in the physical would be indistinguishable from a physical object - and it is this phenomenon (by whatever words one uses to describe it) that is the real subject of debate.

I mean “not physical” in that if you search the sky with a telescope, there isn’t a big old guy with a beard that will wave at you and wink. Let’s reframe this using your Pluto example. Pluto exerts a very small influence on the orbit of Neptune, if memory serves. That is it’s physical effect on the universe. And yet, if in 1600 you had proposed that there was a ninth planet in the solar system, you’d have been regarded as insane - as they hadn’t even seen number 8 yet.

Does Pluto influence our solar system? Yes. And eventually, as our methodology became more sophisticated, as our knowledge of the local universe became more indepth, someone was able to mathematically suggest it was out there - and then, lo and behold, it was seen.

Just because we observe no influence from a being or object does not mean it exerts no influence, nor does it mean that the being or object is nonexistant. It might mean we just don’t know the proper way to look.

To put it bluntly: To say “You can’t disprove God’s existence” cannot be used as the basis of an argument that “God’s name is Jehovah. He created the world and everything in it. He loves you and he wants us to behave this way.” It is this type of claim that is under debate. This claim has not been proven - and must be proven - before on can plant the flag of “truth” into the claim.

So, given God’s existence, why assume the Judeo-Christian model? That’d be a whole different thread.

[magellan01]

@CandidGamera

I mean “not physical” in that if you search the sky with a telescope, there isn’t a big old guy with a beard that will wave at you and wink. Let’s reframe this using your Pluto example. Pluto exerts a very small influence on the orbit of Neptune, if memory serves. That is it’s physical effect on the universe. And yet, if in 1600 you had proposed that there was a ninth planet in the solar system, you’d have been regarded as insane - as they hadn’t even seen number 8 yet.

Does Pluto influence our solar system? Yes. And eventually, as our methodology became more sophisticated, as our knowledge of the local universe became more indepth, someone was able to mathematically suggest it was out there - and then, lo and behold, it was seen.

Just because we observe no influence from a being or object does not mean it exerts no influence, nor does it mean that the being or object is nonexistant. It might mean we just don’t know the proper way to look.

So, given God’s existence, why assume the Judeo-Christian model? That’d be a whole different thread.

Well said.

[Nature_s_Call]

CandidGamera: Let’s reframe this using your Pluto example. Pluto exerts a very small influence on the orbit of Neptune, if memory serves.

(actually it was Hampshire’s example)

“That effect on Neptune is not because of Pluto’s gravitational influence. It’s the hand of God. I say so. Now prove I’m wrong.” Does it add anything at all to the debate to insist that the hand-of-god theory cannot be disproven?

CandidGamera: So, given God’s existence, why assume the Judeo-Christian model? That’d be a whole different thread.

Insert model of choice. Again, if your argument ends with “God might exist because no once can prove he/she/it does not” then you and I agree. Unless I misjudge, though, you are arguing something more. What is the name of your God? Can you introduce me?