# On God, His/Her/Its Nonexistence, and Bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240 "2005-04-26T20:31:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/41 "2005-04-27T11:56:14Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Maybe there’s an invisible gorilla there. Maybe you’re hallucinating the absence of a gorilla, and we’re hallucinating the absence of a gorilla on the photograph. > Now, one can give arguments one way or the other, but I say proof is impossible. Absolutely true, if you take the idea of “proof” to its ultimate. But I’m a pragmatist - if a proof is good enough to be useful, it has meaning. If it’s not useful, then it’s wanking. I have no proof that gravity won’t reverse direction, but if someone wants to score rhetorical points off me about it then they bloody well better be anchoring themselves to the ground full time. Otherwise they are implicitly accepting my pragmatic standards of proof in their actions while denying them verbally. If you’re going to claim the existence of invisible gorillas in the streets around us, then you should live your life as if such gorillas existed, i.e. take anti-invisible-gorilla precautions, carry a big gun and spraypaint, own a dog trained to sniff out invisible gorillas. If you don’t behave in this way, then you are accepting the evidence of your experience (that there are no invisible gorillas) while demanding that others do not do so (you can’t prove there aren’t, so ha!) People who make these kinds of arguments are at least inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/42 "2005-04-27T13:55:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As a response to the request for proof, Liberal will trot out his. No, actually, that wouldn’t have happened. He did not offer a definition of God suitable for ontological examination. In fact, I’m not sure that it’s suitable for any sort of analytical examination. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/43 "2005-04-27T13:56:29Z")
**Rift** , you say it is possible to present a proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God. You also mention that you believe there is no God, so you must believe that a proof of the existence of god is impossible. I see no other way for you to prove your assertion, then, but to prove the nonexistence of God yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/44 "2005-04-27T13:57:09Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > First, let us pop this myth, along with the old “You can’t prove a negative” canard. I can _disprove_ the gorilla standing behind me, _ie._ prove that there is **not** a gorilla behind me, by turning around and looking. I could _disprove_ it, prove it **isn’t** , to all of _you_ by photographing the space behind me. > > One _can_ disprove things and prove negatives **if their existence is contingent on observable properties**. Gorillas have the property of _optical reflectivity_ thus allowing their _disproof_, the proof of their _absence_, in a given optical region. > > The phrase we are searching for here is that _One cannot disprove the existence/prove the nonexistence of something **with no observable properties** _. > > Just thought I’d clear that up. Thank you! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/45 "2005-04-27T14:31:33Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > In the interests of salvaging _something_ out of this thread, let’s take the question down to its bare minimum: Is it possible to conclusively prove (by which I mean whatever sense of the word you feel allows you to best answer the question), one way or the other, that some superhuman intelligence/agency actively created the Universe? No I don’t think you can prove or disprove the existance of God. My concept of God has changed over the years as I have continuied studying and searched for understanding. I’ve let go of certain ideas about God and the nature of God. I don’t accept the stories of the Bible as literal so I don’t wonder why God isn’t doing some tricks for **Voyager** Just as a point of interest, their is an idea being kicked around that God did not create the Universe, WE did. When seperation from God was concieved so was the Universe. God didn’t cast us out because we were naughty. We chose seperation , and now, as we can see in this thread and eleswhere, are haveing some trouble finding our way back. Interesting ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/46 "2005-04-27T14:44:41Z")
**Spatial** , good post. Several valid points made. Don’t forget the argument (which I support over the others, BTW) that the existance of a god cannot be proven because the concept of god is nothing more than product, packaged and sold by religions. An analysis of organized religions over time shows this to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/47 "2005-04-27T14:46:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Have a look a [this recent post of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6083994&postcount=6), **Rift**. If you think _it’s_ bullshit, I’d be interested in your specific criticisms of it. > > You seem to be elevating science to the position of being the _only_ valid [epistemology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) and merely suppressing any suggestion to the contrary with a bellow of “bullshit!” Now, I have my own reasons for arriving at a working conclusion that only the [physical](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/) exists, but I am also perfectly well aware that I can only ever _argue_ this position, write or speak sentences _in support of_ this position: I can never **prove** it, since there will always be reasonable doubt that, actually, I’m \*wrong[/. I enjoyed the post you linked to. The question of life springing from non life has always been a major question for me since adolescense many moons ago. What is your take on dreams? Its a common occurance but it’s always amazed me that while our physical bodies are at rest something within us, our mind and/or our subconscious, can create a world in which we interact with others in pleasent or not so pleasent ways. It has always seemed unlikely to me that phenomenon and wherever it comes from, goes to the grave with my physical body. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/48 "2005-04-27T15:03:04Z")
**Hoodoo** , if I had one you would have seen it already. What I do have, and what follows here, is the collection of conclusions that leads me to personally think that there is no god. The reason I also think that there is a proof of this is that I believe nothing is beyond the purview of reason. Anyway: - First, by reading in detail the main works of George Herbert Mead, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber, and Herbert Spencer, you can assemble the conclusion that any idea anyone on this planet has ever had about anything that could be called “god” is a social construction. I have outlined how this happens in earlier posts. - Second, Ockham’s Razor. Given that the Universe obeys a coherent mathematical model, even if us lowly humans can’t figure out what that model is, you don’t need a god. - Third, there is no such thing as omnipotence. Now, I realize that physical laws as we know them aren’t conclusively “proven” in the highfalutin sense of the word, but I think we can all agree that your average tabletop conservation of energy scenario is correct. That said, it is categorically impossible to make the ball go any higher than it was when you dropped it without putting more energy into the system. Which means that no agency, intelligent or otherwise, can ever do absolutely anything. Just to make sure I’m clear, if someone came up to me and said “I’m omnipotent,” I’d respond, “Ok. Drop this ball from 2 meters and make it bounce up to 3 meters _without adding any more energy_,” and then he couldn’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/49 "2005-04-27T15:04:48Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > **Spatial** , good post. Several valid points made. > > Don’t forget the argument (which I support over the others, BTW) that the existance of a god cannot be proven because the concept of god is nothing more than product, packaged and sold by religions. An analysis of organized religions over time shows this to be the case. Certainly there are aspects of belief in God that are social. It seems to me thats why people cling so hard to doctrine that doesn’t make any sense. {such as God wrote the Bible} They want to remain a part of their religous “family” so they justify things they don’t really unedrstand and say, well , I just accept that on faith. It’s hard for some to concieve that thousands of people holding a certain belief might be incorrect. Especially since the belief has been accepted for generations. I call that traditions instead of truth. You are correct that certain people and religions trade financially on God. I can’t agree with the “nothing more” There are thousands of individuals like myself who believe but don’t belong to any organized religion. No one is selling me anything. I choose to believe because of personnel experiences. My beliefs are my own and evolving. I follow no specific relgious discipline and I don’t believe any religion has it “right” They’re just trying to figure it out the same as me. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/50 "2005-04-27T15:14:09Z")
**SentientMeat** , I remember reading that post when that thread got started and agreeing with just about everything you said. My only addition would be to say that if the supernatural ever **did** enter the natural realm, it would have to obey its laws. “Yes,” you might say, “but being in Spain doesn’t mean I’m Spanish!” True, but being in Spain does mean you obey Spanish law. It is my personal contention (and I will admit to being a bit of a positivist here) that if there is something we would call supernatural, it would have to be that which is _defined_ as being beyond the purview of reason, and thus not subject to observation by controlled tests. That would mean we could never conclusively point to any evidence and say “that’s the supernatural,” so as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/51 "2005-04-27T15:20:58Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > Thank you! 🙂 Any time, firend. I know I could trust you to cover _my_ back if you saw anyone build the “strong atheists are _certain_ of God’s nonexistence” strawman. > [@cosmo](#): > > What is your take on dreams? We have memories and the cognitive ability to combine and permute those memories (_ie._ “imagination”) - this is the basis of dreams. Also note that dreams are only _a bit like_ wakefulness, rather sketchy in the details. The reason we cannot read or feel like running properly is because the brain cannot _itself_ create that vast amount of sensory data which the physical world provides so easily, such as thousands of ink-shapes on a page or the precise output of every nerve in your legs, skeleton and the inner ear upon each footstep’s impact with the ground. We tend experience only what the brain is tuned to _remember or output_, such as faces, spatial orientations and “raw” emotions from our amygdala and temporal lobes. As for the crazy narrative of dreams, I find Daniel Dennett’s [party game analogy](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98976&page=1) quite compelling, wherein the brain’s hypothesis-confirmation mechanism behaves more randomly on its own than when immersed in the sensory jungle. > [@Rift](#): > > It is my personal contention … so as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist. Oh, mine too, friend. But when addressing those who don’t share our worldview, I suggest you watch where you’re aiming those “bullshit!”s. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/52 "2005-04-27T15:51:24Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The word “proof” does indeed have more than one sub-entry in the dictionary. Ignoring its logical/mathematical, alcohol content or resistance related sub-entries, its usage in criminal justice and scientific falsifiablity _does_ allow us to “prove that there isn’t a gorilla behind me”. If you argue that the possibility of hallucinations or simulations require us to remove this from our dictionaries well, OK, but a heck of a lot of other entries must follow it. OK, let’s skip the semantics. How exactly do you disprove the existence of something? Not a gorilla behind you, but gorillas _in general_. What’s the method you use? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/53 "2005-04-27T15:56:44Z")
I didn’t say I _could_ disprove gorillas in general. That’s why I specified the gorilla _behind_ me. That is the very heart of _falsification_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/54 "2005-04-27T15:59:34Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > OK, let’s skip the semantics. How exactly do you disprove the existence of something? Not a gorilla behind you, but gorillas _in general_. What’s the method you use? Reductio ad absurdum, a method used since Aristotle. See [5.3 here](http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/120/Chapter5.pdf) (PDF). Assume your premise is false. Derive an inference that contradicts it. That proves that the your premise is true. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/55 "2005-04-27T16:08:59Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I didn’t say I _could_ disprove gorillas in general. Then what exactly _are_ you saying? What is the meaningful difference between your position and “it’s impossible to conclusively disprove something’s existence”, which is my position? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/56 "2005-04-27T16:17:52Z")
**Rift** , you claim that God’s nonexistence can be proven, and admit that you can’t do it. Is your claim to be taken on faith? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/57 "2005-04-27T16:18:52Z")
What’s the problem with disproving something’s existence? Depending on how your word it, one thing’s nonexistence might be harder to prove than another. But then other things are trivially easy. For example, I can easily disprove the existence of a contradiction — _any_ contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/58 "2005-04-27T16:20:04Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > One can disprove things and prove negatives **if their existence is contingent on observable properties**. Gorillas have the property of optical reflectivity thus allowing their disproof, the proof of their absence, in a given optical region. > > The phrase we are searching for here is that One cannot disprove the existence/prove the nonexistence of something **with no observable properties**. Mr. **Meat** has the essence of my position right here. It is my claim that if the Universe has a creator, this will necessitate observable properties. My guess as to what those would be is some inherent unexplainability about the beginning of the Universe (assuming it even has a beginning). Once cosmologists, and I’m confident they will do this, either explain the beginning or demonstrate there isn’t one, _poof_ goes the creator. **Hoodoo** , I said I can’t do it _yet_. It’s just a matter of obtaining a critical mass of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/59 "2005-04-27T16:29:24Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > We have memories and the cognitive ability to combine and permute those memories (_ie._ “imagination”) - this is the basis of dreams. Also note that dreams are only _a bit like_ wakefulness, rather sketchy in the details. The reason we cannot read or feel like running properly is because the brain cannot _itself_ create that vast amount of sensory data which the physical world provides so easily, such as thousands of ink-shapes on a page or the precise output of every nerve in your legs, skeleton and the inner ear upon each footstep’s impact with the ground. We tend experience only what the brain is tuned to _remember or output_, such as faces, spatial orientations and “raw” emotions from our amygdala and temporal lobes. > As for the crazy narrative of dreams, I find Daniel Dennett’s [party game analogy](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98976&page=1) quite compelling, wherein the brain’s hypothesis-confirmation mechanism behaves more randomly on its own than when immersed in the sensory jungle. > . Interesting. I’m not sure I agree or understand what you mean by memories. It has often seemed to me that dreams are a tool of the mind to try and make something in the subconcious come to the conscious. Many I’ve never unerstood or even spent time wonedring about but some seemed obviouosly aimed at waking me up to something I wasn’t acknowledging. That intrigues me in a the spiritual sense because the spiritual journey is often called an awakening, to the truth that allows us to make more conscious choices nstead of ignoreing unconscious motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/60 "2005-04-27T16:29:28Z")
God has to be treated as an intangible. We’re unable to see him right now, so he has to be treated as a concept until our methods of observation improve. Proving God exists therefore relies on the force of the body that believes him to be true. If enough people believe, and can attest to his existence enough to cajole non-believers into buying the concept, then he exists. Much like when the settlers during US Colonial times were trying to convince the Indians that they owned the land because the white men in government said so. Guns tended to back up their statements rather well. God exists on paper, just like any other fictional character. The difference is, he’s got a really rabid fan following. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240.md?page=4)