This thread is for anyone who wants proof that a god can be conclusively proven to not exist. I want this as tight as possible, so if anyone sees a problem with my reasoning, please let me know.

Some notes: if I succeed, this argument can be used as a blanket rebuttal that any entity matching this description cannot exist. If I fail, I did not make my case. That does not mean things matching this description therefore exist; it means I screwed up and made a flawed argument.

DEFINITIONS

- Omniscience means holding all possible knowledge about all possible subjects; an omniscient entity knows the correct answer to any question.

- Omnipotence means able to perform any act; this speaks strictly to ability to act, not desire to take an action.

PREMISES

Assume the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence are possible.

P1: An entity can be omniscient: call this OS.

P2: An entity can be omnipotent: call this OP.

P3: An entity can be concurrently both omniscient and omnipotent: call this (OS ^ OP).

ANALYSIS

If an omniscient entity exists, it knows everything. However, if it knows everything, it is impossible for this entity to learn. Additionally, it cannot alter its conclusions in light of new information, nor ever feel surprised. Omniscience necessarily precludes this entity from performing some possible actions. Therefore an omniscient entity is precluded from being omnipotent: (OS -> ~OP).

Seems to me that existence as a whole is uncaused. Even if we accept the big bang starting as some quantum event in some substrate, that substrate had to have some form of existence. And then we descend into infinite regress. So I can't escape the conclusion that on some level, existence is uncaused.

If not, then at  some point, something "appeared" out of nothing. And if something can appear out of nothing, ANYTHING can appear out of nothing. If the appearance of things from nothing is limited by some underlying laws, then those laws are yet another layer of structure and they must exist before the appearance of something from nothing. Nothing means now laws or anything. From a truely null state, anything can happen.

Hey Everybody!

So as that little tag on my name tells you, I am a theist (not sure how it got there, but thanks!)

Anyway, I wanted to ask, atheists specifically, a question concerning the idea of a "water-tight" argument for the existence of God. A point was made to me today by a dear friend when he said, "God did not give us a water-tight case for His existence, He gave us Jesus Christ, who is the water-tight case for the existence of God. Think about it, no one has ever been able to say, 'Jesus should have said ____." Neither has anyone been able to look at any of Jesus Christ's actions and say, "He shouldn't have done that."

But this brought up an interesting question (in my heart, at least), namely - is there anything that you, as an atheist,  see when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

  I suppose when people start responding I'll follow up with my other questions, so thanks in advance!

Sincerely,

- skeptnick

Here is a quote from Helen Keller that I find to be one of the more fascinating, and relevant to the subject of consciousness, things ever written by a human being.

"Before my teacher came to me, I didn't know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught, or that I lived or acted or desired. I had neither will not intellect. I was carried along to objects and acts by a certain blind impetus. I can remember all this, not because I knew that it was so, but because I have tactual memory. It enables me to remember that I never contracted my forehead in the act of thinking. I never viewed anything beforehand or chose it. I also recall tactually the fact that never in a start of the body or a heart-beat did I feel that I loved or cared for anything. My inner life, then, was a blank without past, present, or future, without hope or anticipation"

My question, to those who believe in the existence of a human soul or some form of dualism, is how can you reconcile the existence of a soul as the seat of consciousness with the lack of self awareness experienced by Helen Keller in her early childhood? It seems to me that if there indeed was a soul and it inhabited her body, she should have had, at the minimum, a sense of self even without the external input of sight and hearing.  

First off, I'm an atheist. With that said, I have a friend who I debate the existence of God(or anything supernatural for that matter) quite frequently. What he always seems to resort to in the end is a very simple yet clearly wrongheaded response, which I will lay out as clearly as I can.

 He claims that due to our "poor" sensory organs which do not necessarily represent a clear reality, all things are equally probable.  He goes on to say then that all the God's in the history of mankind are equally probable, along with any other situation that may seem ludicrious to anyone else. ( A Matrix Scenario is one he brings up frequently) Basically, he keeps claims that nothing can be known for sure because we are a primitive creature whose senses are not reliable.

I mention to him that our given senses of perception, along with our thoughts, are all we have to go by, and that by using our powers of observation and the senses we have been given is the only way we've made progress and arrived as the conclusions of modern science. He agrees, but states again that nothing is known for sure, and all things remain equally probable.

If anyone could help me further this discussion I would appreciate it, for I do believe that their are greater or "absolute" truths. Cheers.

Just as many have misconceptions about physics many have misconceptions about the character of God and the meaning of scripture.

Even for those that hold the Bible to be (at least in part) fiction an effort should be made to understand the book before valid assertions can be made about its characters and meaning. Just as assertions in science require scientific evidence, assertions regarding the Bible should have Biblical evidence. Just as a less educated individual may believe there is evidence in physics to support a stance but be in error so may an individual believe there is evidence from the Bible to support a stance and be in error.

I've seen recent posts which repeat age old questions about the character of God as understood by Bible believers. Such questions as "if God is so good why does He let babies be born deformed" and "if God is so powerful why doesn't he intervene when there are accidents", etc. Generally these questions are not asked by an open minded individual in search for truth, but rather by one that has come to a conclusion and is attempting to bring others to the same conclusion.

What is meant by the Golden Rule? How is it a meaningful moral guidline? 

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

It appears to state one should attribute their desires to others and act accordingly, but this is frought with obvious problems. If one has a rape fantasy, for instance, it is obvious that this does not mean they should rape others. The statement removes the desires of others from the moral equation.

So we can't be that specific. We have to go to a more general statement and say that what we actually want others to do unto us is the general 'those things we want done unto us', so we can interpret it as saying do unto others as they want done unto them . So we get "Do unto others as they desire you to do unto them." But here we are simply adopting the moral code of others which leads us to other undesirable circumstances such as being morally obliged to harm people who might, for whatever reason, want to be harmed. This requires that we completely neglect any personal sense of right and wrong. 

I could perhaps see "Do not do unto others as they wish you not to do unto them" as an acceptable moral guidline, but this is a wholly different statement than the original Golden Rule.

Anyway, why is the Golden Rule, which is an obviously flawed moral statement, regarded by many as a sound moral philosophy?       

    Ok I just got off with a few e-mails with a few friends regarding the age of the universe, evolution, and how much distance earth has lost orbit (the last one I really laughed at every one's answers)

    So starting off......age of the universe by scientific standards which outweight the biblical version because well, there is evidence behind it....biblical no evidence at all for 6000 years other than it says so. Now I had have to give the answer that a few others gave, 6000 years, less than 1.7 billion, more than 20 billion and less than 100 million years....correct scientific answer....closer to 13.7 billion years. 

     Next the earth decaying orbit and how much.....the theists stated 1 inch per year.....which after a millions of years puts it past pluto, apparently it is in a scientific book, can someone give me this book please (incorrect distance) , the agnostic.....stated that at that distance from pluto it would take 1.7 billion years, 1000 years older than the universe. My answer, well the universe  is first off 13.7 billion, the earth is 4.5 billion.  Now some conversion, 4.5 billion years at one inch a year is 4.5 billion inches, convert that to feet it's 375 million feet, convert that to kilometers it's 114300 kilometers, and for you US guys that's 71022.727 miles. Which puts it far less than half the distance between the earth and the moon. 

Well, after much deliberation I am decided to forsake my aliegance to the atheist faith and have taken up sanctuary in my childhood home known as the roman catholic church.  What a great feeling washed over me as I was finally able to settle on a faith system that can provide me with all the wonderful things that make life worth livng.  I instantly feel happier, and more intune with my fellow catholics and now wish to pass on the message of my lord.  

Finally, I do not need to worry about going to hell, because I now have reaffirmed my belief in the one true god and put my faith and love in him and the holy mother.  I do not worry about living a meaningless existance as you atheists do, nor do I need to waste my precious moments on earth prior to going to heaven, or, in the case of all you atheists, agnostis, christians, and others, HELL.

I would like to invite all of you, as god's children, to put your faith in the message delivered by the vatican.  Look upon the good they are doing in the world in great countries like Canada and Africa.  Listen to the pope, heed his message, and embrace the message of your God.  Follow me, and I will help you along your journey! Join me brothers and sisters and I will do my best to show you the true way to salvation! 

Are there any cases where holding an unprovable belief allows for something not otherwise possible? I'm not talking about unproven, but unprovable. Are unprovable claims ever objectively positive? If they are not, why hold them?

Unprovable claims cannot help add to the sum total of human knowledge. They cannot be used as a starting point for proving something else. An unprovable supposition can be reached logically, but there it stops, a logical cul-de-sac. If a claim is untestable and unfalsifiable, is there any point in making it other than as a rhetorical tool in bad argumentation?

To take Sam Harris' example: right now, I have an even number of cells in my body. It's definitely falsifiable, since we can design an experiment to test the claim (count all the cells in my body), but it's untestable (for obvious reasons) and therefore unprovable.

Can anyone give me examples of unprovable beliefs that are objectively a "good thing"?

In short, if a belief is unprovable, why hold it?