I Am Absolutely Certain that 'God' Does Not Exist
Offline ...Since it's been argued by some that the above is a philosophically 'weak' position, I just felt like pointing-out a few things:
- 'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined. It has the same likelyhood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'. This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be abitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.
- God in the traditional sense of the word cannot exist. Yahweh violates several physical laws, and the books describing him and his actions are entirely erroneous. They were myths to explain things for which we had no previous explanation; now that we do have said explanations, these texts can and should be treated as fiction.
- God has been carried forward on the back of the afore-mentioned myths. These myths have been scientifically disproven; more reasonable theists have then had to invent new myths, based on areas of human understanding that are still fuzzy. But it's still the same old God - we've just tried prettying it up. The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).
Theists? Care to rebuke these statements? Or at least define 'God' for me?
(...And Christians/Catholics? Care to explain how crackers = Jesus? Or justify how putting a nail through Jesus = bad, but eating and digesting Jesus = good? )
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Kay Cat wrote:the problem is using the word universal, which by definition means everything. by including everything you run into the fallacy that everything is aware, which simply isn't the case.Okay. I am using the term to mean that all sentient beings share in a universal consciousness.
This kind of moral relativism is precisely why atheists such as myself are angry at theists such as yourself. Your willful disregard for accepted definitions of words is a threat this world can live without. I don't deal kindly with threats to universal existence. consider yourself warned.
Moral relativism? Please explain.
Why don't you pull a made up definition out of your arse? It's obvious that's something you're good at.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
- Login to post comments
Offline , BMcD (Kevin, you too!). People who claim strong Atheism do have justification and seek and hold proofs against the existence of various gods. (Strong) Atheism is not just "faith in a different unprovable meme" it is a completely valid position, even the most logical position, to hold toward certain god-concepts. You are right that a positive claim, like that of Strong Atheism, requires proof. That proof exists. No one can claim to be a Strong Atheist toward every god-concept and be on solid ground intellectually and Kevin would be incorrect if he was talking about every one, falsibility aside. Maintaing Weak Atheism toward every god-concept, however, would also be just as wrong. For most god-concepts the very possibility of the existence of the god is logically impossible.
I totally agree. There are many god-concepts that we can accept the stronger position against. Against the greater, generic 'god', though, until we find a way to nail 'em all, we can't. :/
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline BMcD: ...You know what falsifiability is, right? Like, you've read Popper's work?
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Kay Cat wrote:This kind of moral relativism is precisely why atheists such as myself are angry at theists such as yourself. Your willful disregard for accepted definitions of words is a threat this world can live without. I don't deal kindly with threats to universal existence. consider yourself warned.Moral relativism? Please explain.
Why don't you pull a made up definition out of your arse? It's obvious that's something you're good at.
Perhaps you should enroll in a stress-management class. This will provide you with techniques to work out your emotional issues.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley, if you are going to continue putting an Equals sign ( = ) between your idea of "universal conscience" and "God", then you need to go back to your God-proff thread, and answer my post there.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline Kay Cat wrote:Paisley wrote:Kay Cat wrote:This kind of moral relativism is precisely why atheists such as myself are angry at theists such as yourself. Your willful disregard for accepted definitions of words is a threat this world can live without. I don't deal kindly with threats to universal existence. consider yourself warned.Moral relativism? Please explain.
Why don't you pull a made up definition out of your arse? It's obvious that's something you're good at.
Perhaps you should enroll in a stress-management class. This will provide you with techniques to work out your emotional issues.
hah... yet another theist variant of "You don't agree with me, so you must be sick, get back on your meds"
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Perhaps you should enroll in a stress-management class. This will provide you with techniques to work out your emotional issues.hah... yet another theist variant of "You don't agree with me, so you must be sick, get back on your meds"
I believe you were the one who characterized yourself as the "angry atheist."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Kay Cat wrote:Paisley wrote:Perhaps you should enroll in a stress-management class. This will provide you with techniques to work out your emotional issues.hah... yet another theist variant of "You don't agree with me, so you must be sick, get back on your meds"
I believe you were the one who characterized yourself as the "angry atheist."
That's not the issue and you know it. What are you trying to hide? Do you have an idea that you don't want people to know you have, and are thus attacking said people in order to hide that little secret?
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
- Login to post comments
Offline .... and the angry "story atheist Jesus" .... my message or the highway ! 
- Login to post comments
Offline 'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined. It has the same likelyhood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'. This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be abitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.
First of all, i am not a theist. But saying that there is no way it could possibly exist without any proof in my opinion is not valid. Something may not be likely but you could be wrong. God by definition is omnipotent, omniscient, etc but we have different "subjective" ideas about god. I agree that it cannot be defined in strict manner but that doesnt mean it is a stupid concept as a whole.
- God in the traditional sense of the word cannot exist. Yahweh violates several physical laws, and the books describing him and his actions are entirely erroneous. They were myths to explain things for which we had no previous explanation; now that we do have said explanations, these texts can and should be treated as fiction.
Physical laws can be violated, for example; thermodynamics and causality. But who says what "holy book" say about god is true?
- God has been carried forward on the back of the afore-mentioned myths. These myths have been scientifically disproven; more reasonable theists have then had to invent new myths, based on areas of human understanding that are still fuzzy. But it's still the same old God - we've just tried prettying it up. The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).
I thought you said this whole "god concept" is illogical, yet you failed to attack deistic god. Am i correct? Also, in order for some of your arguments to stand "properly", you first have to prove that holy books are indeed god's "work".
A witty saying proves nothing. -- Voltaire(1694-1778)
- Login to post comments
Offline BMcD: ...You know what falsifiability is, right? Like, you've read Popper's work?
Yeah, I know what falsifiability is, but I'm not really sure how it's relevant, since either direction of claiming certainty in this one runs into the same problem. We can't put 'there is no God' to an actual test any more than we can put the 'Azathoth' god-concept to one.
Edit to clarify: Also note that I'm saying we can accept the strong position, ie: happily acknowledge that the odds of it being wrong are vanishingly small, not assert the strong position, ie: claim it is necessary that it is true, and that only in limited case.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline Yeah, I know what falsifiability is
...So you know what falsifiability is, but you fail to see how it would be relevant in evaluating something that isn't even testable?
Well, gotta call bullshit on you here.
Please, explain in your own words:
What is falsifiability?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Yeah, I know what falsifiability is...So you know what falsifiability is, but you fail to see how it would be relevant in evaluating something that isn't even testable?
Well, gotta call bullshit on you here.
Please, explain in your own words:
What is falsifiability?
In my own words? It's the quality of being able to be tested and shown false. It doesn't mean the test needs to be something we can expect to be able to run, in and of itself, but there has to be a way to test the concept empirically.
And no, what I said was I fail to see how it would be relevant in choosing between two untestable premises. "No form of deity exists" is just as untestable as "Yahweh exists, but he's hiding from you dirty atheists".
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline Loki's Wager
I contend that Loki’s wager is not a logical fallacy
From wikipedia - "Loki’s wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed."
Paraphrasing it says “The claim that if X has no definition it cannot be discussed is wrong”
If nothing is known about X what can be discussed?
The only thing that can be discussed about X is whether X has a definition and that is not discussing X, that is discussing whether X has a coherent definition.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline Kevin R Brown wrote:- 'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined. It has the same likelihood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'. This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be arbitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.Argument from incredulity , Loki's Wager ; Argument from improbability ; Bald assertion.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy committed by theists in arguing for a god. Brown is arguing that there is no god. You’ve made a fallacy fallacy. The 'argument from improbability’ and the ‘argument from incredulity’ are the same fallacy.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
...Zero celsius? You wuss!
We're enjoying a balmy 20 above right now, but in another couple of months we'll be back to the ol' below 30 days. I so hate you Aussies.
Well, to be honest, no - I don't want to simply leave it at that. But my position is simply one of being stuck in the mud. I'm no good at math (it literally gives me a headache to try and read equations of any real length or complexity; my brain is totally disinterested), I know nothing about physics, and layman explanations for quantum states simply don't exist (I doubt they can; it's very complex and difficult to grasp subject matter).
I simply don't see how the discussion can develop from here.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Kevin " I simply don't see how the discussion can develop from here." ////
Go go science philosophy .... QM the study of the small and relating it to the study of the large, cosmology etc. Go Eloise.
I also know jack about math .... or anything much.
Dad and mom said "I was god, as everything is god, and religion is mostly wrong thinking." Felt right then, still feels right, so I pass it on ..... Try it out, "you are god"
Atheism Books.
That's true, but at the same time, consider this: You're taking a position that makes an active claim, a claim you can't actually prove. That the subject matter isn't even testable is what makes the entire thing not a valid topic of scientific inquiry, but that's something we've already gone over. Something else to consider is this:
By making a claim that you cannot prove, and claiming you don't need to prove it, you're both reinforcing the 'atheism is a religion. It's just faith in a different unprovable view' meme, and giving ammo to the Llamas of the world: 'If you don't have to prove your claim of certainty, I don't have to claim mine!'
So why do that, when the whole thing's pointless anyway? We don't need certainty. We have all that we need already:
"Science cannot find any compelling reason for believing in the existence of God. There are more than enough problems to worry about in this world without imagining up a giant sky-fairy to cause us more headaches."
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
By the way, what happens if someone chokes to death on the cracker? What if someone steals the wine and gets drunk on it? Are they like automatically a priest for taking in so much of Jesus?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
In the first case, I think they're a martyr. In the second, I think they're a vampire.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
But if they choke could Jesus be charged with manslaughter? And why would drinking a huge ammount rather than a sip be vampirism (I've heard of priests getting drunk on the wine - though not what they consecrated already - just using some to get drunk instead of for the eucharist.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
He could be, but they'd have to find him to arrest him... though I *suppose* they could put some hosts on trial.
And the large amount would be indicative of vampirism because obviously, he must have some compulsion to drink it, and it's blood now, not wine.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Does anyone else think it's fucked up how extreme the alcohol laws in the US are (no other nation has a drinking age as high as 21) but there's no problem with small children drinking wine for this barbaric ceremony?
To me, even symbolicly eating someone's flesh and drinking their blood is barbaric, but since they believe it actually IS Jesus' flesh and blood, that's fucking disgusting. They believe that are actually engaging in cannibalism and vampirism. Pretty fucked up.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Well, that's only because laws can't trump the First Amendment. If they could, I'm sure they would.
Nah. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic that thinks you could get JesusDNA off of either wafer or wine. It's a metaphysical thing... the transubstantiation makes them "spiritually" his flesh/blood. But even most Catholics, I think (having been one) tend to view it less as 'let me eat my god!' and more as a symbolic re-enactment, and so vicarious participation in, the Last Supper, and sharing bread and drink with Christ. Like I said, it's almost funny, the way religious apathy and lip service take Paul's obscenity and almost manage to turn it back into the simple communal meal it was before he twisted it with his 'this is my body, this is my blood' bullshit.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Argument from incredulity, Loki's Wager; Argument from improbability; Bald assertion.
Just because we don't know of any way in which it could exist doesn't mean it can't. Loki's Wager is the fallacy that argues that if we can't define something we can't talk about it. Just because we can't define god doesn't mean god doesn't exist. The alternative is that we can't define god because we don't know enough about god. Asserting that god is unlikely is based on what exactly? How did you calculate the likelyhood of god?
Bald assertion. Argument from ignorance; argumentum ad hominem/red herring. Bald assertion.
God in the traditional sense of the word actually CAN exist, unless you can prove that he can't I know I can't. Yahweh does violate physical laws...so what? What do we know about physical laws expect that they don't seem to violate themselves that we've seen, and we can't violate them. just because the book describing him and his actions is erroneous doesn't mean the god it attempts to describe doesn't exist, it could just mean that it describes an existing god erroneously. The assertion that they were only myths to explain things with no previous explanation is circular reasoning, the assertion only works if we accept the conclusion you're trying to support that god doesn't exist because the stories about him were only written to explain things we couldn't explain. this is the likely explanation, but it isn't the only possible one. You're assuming without proving that they weren't written to record things that happened that god actually did. The tets should be treated as historical documents, which they aren't. People don't analyze Homer's works the same way they analyze the bible, and they should. Actually many scholars now do, but still many don't and the practice is frowned upon by christian scholars, mainly because the results aren't what they want to hear.
Bald assertion. Red Herring.
Here you continue with the unproven assumption that the bible was only recording myths not things a god actually did. You follow up by arguing that science has disproven the myths, science has disproven some of the myths, but who is to say that they weren't inaccurately recorded? Noah's Flood wasn't a flood that flooded the entire earth, but there was a flood in the region of early man that could have been caused by a god which could have later been recorded as the global flood. You're again assuming that if the bible isn't 100% accurate it must be 0% accurate. You've given no reason why this is a good assumption. Just because the bible isn't 100% historically accurate how do you know that the bible isn't still correct in asserting the existence of god? Possibly some of the included books were tampered with by man? Esspecially the early ones, we just don't know. Keep in mind I propose these as hypothetical alternatives to your unproven assumptions. The burden of proof is still on you because I'm not asserting anything as actually being the case. Feel free to disprove any of my hypothetical alternatives if you can. Keep in mind, though, that you still won't have proven your point. If you forget that you're making the same logical error as creationists, who assume that they can prove creation by disproving evolution. It doesn't work like that.
Argument from incredulity? Nope, I didn't say it was just too amazing for me to believe. I said the concept has no definition.
Loki's wager? Nope, I didn't say we couldn't talk about it.
Argument from improbability? Certainly. This isn't a logical fallacy, by the way.
Bald assertion? No. Note that this would be internally inconsistent with the above accusation. 'God' isn't a defined concept; it's an amorphic one, with the goal posts continually shifting, and little to no consensus as to whom or what god actually is / does.
The fact that the concept is not defined means that it is completely unfalsifiable. See: the scientific method. An unfalsifiable concept is unfactual. I did not 'calculate' anything; this is rudimentary philosophy.
Bald assertion? No.
The God of the Holy Bible created the Earth in six days, 6,000 years ago. This is unfactual. The God had a firmament over the Earth. This is unfactual. The God put the Earth on pillars. This is unfactual. The God formed every piece of life on Earth all at once. This is unfactual. The God drowned all the Earth. This is unfactual.
Etc, etc, etc...
Argument from ignroance? No.
Ad Hominem? No. I'd have to at least have someone to insult before you could even imply such a thing.
Bald assertion...
Was there a reason you made this charge twice?
Bald assertion? No. I based my claims on evidence, and an ample amount of it. See: the above videos.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Please prove that universal consciousness does not exist.
You dumb fucking retarded moron! How many times do we need to tell you that it's impossible to prove a negative. It's up to you to prove it exists.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Evidently, you did not read the OP. The author of this thread is making the bold assertion that God absolutely does not exist. That being said, the burden is on him to prove that infinite consciousness (God thus defined) does not exist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley, you really do need to talk to your doctor about getting your medicine adjusted. Belief in inanimate objects being aware of their existence is not a good thing to believe in.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
He said Yahweh does not exist. Which is true - because by definition the Judeo-Christian god cannot exist - for the same reason a married bachelor or square circle cannot exist. Infinite consciusness would require infinite space, infinite energy and infinite time, anyway.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Evidence: Biological science has demonstrated that consciousness is an emergent phenomena resulting from physical neural activity. The universe does not have a nueral network. The universe having a consciousness does not fit our empirically derived model.
Evidence: No proposal for any God concept currently hypothesized holds any water. Perhaps we will find some in the future; until then, it is correct to say that God does not fit the current model of the universe.
Evidence: 'Univeral consciousness' is an unfalsifiable concept; it is so vaguely defined that it cannot be properly tested.
So? where's the counter-evidence, Paisley?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Sorry as always, as I most always giggle when the "god" word is mentioned.
For me the definition for god is WTF? and requires no evidence. Yet science studies WTF and so uses evidence to rationally understand it. Consciousness is not more of a mystery than matter, energy, time etc.
Atheism Books.
Agreed. "Inanimate objects" do not have conscious-awareness by definition.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
the problem is using the word universal, which by definition means everything. by including everything you run into the fallacy that everything is aware, which simply isn't the case.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
, BMcD (Kevin, you too!). People who claim strong Atheism do have justification and seek and hold proofs against the existence of various gods. (Strong) Atheism is not just "faith in a different unprovable meme" it is a completely valid position, even the most logical position, to hold toward certain god-concepts. You are right that a positive claim, like that of Strong Atheism, requires proof. That proof exists. No one can claim to be a Strong Atheist toward every god-concept and be on solid ground intellectually and Kevin would be incorrect if he was talking about every one, falsibility aside. Maintaing Weak Atheism toward every god-concept, however, would also be just as wrong. For most god-concepts the very possibility of the existence of the god is logically impossible.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Okay. I am using the term to mean that all sentient beings share in a universal consciousness.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This kind of moral relativism is precisely why atheists such as myself are angry at theists such as yourself. Your willful disregard for accepted definitions of words is a threat this world can live without. I don't deal kindly with threats to universal existence. consider yourself warned.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Moral relativism? Please explain.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead