It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to disprove a god: a lesson in logic.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
This argument comes up over and over again, and I feel as though most are now simply just parroting the responses without realizing just how it is possible to disprove a god.

When something is Infallible it becomes unable to be proven false (obviously). So if I were to say that there were magical, invisible unicorns that still exist today, but cannot be detected by current or future technology, that would be an example of an infallible claim. No one can prove there isn't magical, invisible unicorns.

However, the argument that there is such a creature that exists becomes meaningless, because infallible claims hold no weight in an argument. There's nothing that we can do to prove they exist, there is nothing we can do to prove they don't exist, and the concept is entirely interchangeable with every other infallible claim and they all hold the same validity as each other infallible claim.

This is one of the main reasons why Agnostics and Atheists exist.

So, when a person says "there is a god" there is no way we can disprove that, there is no way we can prove that, and the claim holds no weight because it's an infallible claim.

So how can we disprove a god?

When a person ascribes details, stories, actions, events, and traits to a god, then that particular god becomes falsifiable because those things all directly interfere with history, biology, geology, astronomy and so forth. Thus, all that is needed to disprove those details is objective observation, experimentation, and the discovery of something that contradicts the claimed details of that god.

When details are ascribed to gods, they are taken out of the 'unfalsifiable realm' and suddenly are characterised and tangible, effecting the universe and nature around us.

This single action is one of Religions greatest downfalls, because nearly all religions give attributes to the god(s) they worship.

So, when the Aztecs religion claims a global flood occurred, by stating:

During the era of the fourth sun, the Sun of Water, the people grew very wicked and ignored the worship of the gods. The gods became angry and Tlaloc, the god of rains, announced that he was going to destroy the world with a flood. However, Tlaloc was fond of a devout couple, Tata and Nena, and he warned them of the flood. He instructed them to hollow out a great log and take two ears of corn-one for each of them-and eat nothing more.

We can disprove this by showing that there is no mass extinction of any life during the time they describe the global flood to occur. There is no sedimentary displacement during that time either. There is no fossil record of everything on earth suddenly dying at that time. So on and so forth.

The absence of infallible claims allows us to critically analyze the claims being made. So as more of their stories and attributes are debunked, the less credibility that religion has to offering truthfulness to their respective content, and the easier and easier it becomes to falsify that particular god.

Once we can disprove a particular god, and the stories within the religion that focuses on that existence of that god, we get to a point when your exercise of faith has merely become the exercise of your will to reject reality and embrace ignorance.

In the end, a notion of a god can be impossible to disprove, and very possible to disprove, depending on how one describes a particular god,

Thanks for reading
edit on 15/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
In this case I have to ask, do we really know a correlating time frame for the 4th sun of the Aztecs?

There are definitely mass extinction events in the fossil record like the giant mammals here in N. America.

I agree with much you say, but is there a calendar year associated with the Aztecs 4th sun? I get that they are an AD culture, but their myth could be ascribed to far older epochs, the giant mammals extinction isn't even that far into our past.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not saying I disagree, but someone could probably make a similar argument for gravity, for example.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I fully agree that religion is false, but I personally am of the belief they were wrong and it was a recounting of the same world flood myth shared by other cultures.

I like the 'If god was omnipotent, could it create a stone too heavy for it to lift?' but that only really stumps the Abrahamic religions.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
In this case I have to ask, do we really know a correlating time frame for the 4th sun of the Aztecs?


There is no case of a global flood since Homo sapiens existed, nor is there any evidence to suggest a flood ever occurred globally, even before homo sapiens came to be.

The relative ages of mountains goes against a global flood claim. No evidence of a flood in ice core series goes against a global flood claim. Polar ice caps aren't possible in a global flood claim. There is no traces on the sea floors of a global flood, which goes against a global flood claim. There is no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating, which goes against a global flood claim.

It matters not when any particular religion or culture proclaims there to have been a global flood, because regardless of the time frame, all the evidence proves otherwise.


originally posted by: BlueJacket
There are definitely mass extinction events in the fossil record like the giant mammals here in N. America.


Yes, most definitely correct. The issue is that that particular extinction didn't occur over night, very few mass extinctions did occur in a very small time frame, and when they do occur the fossil record, and other observations, back up the concept.

The flood story does not hold such evidence.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhysicsAdept
a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not saying I disagree, but someone could probably make a similar argument for gravity, for example.


I would greatly like to hear the details of that argument if you have the time



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh Ghost, dont be such a tease. Shame on you for such baiting



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Gravity is an illusion. We believe it exists therefore it does. All that truly exists is energy. You're welcome


Orating is easy.

Ironically, I think your OP lacks logos.
edit on 15-1-2016 by rukia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Prior to the end of the last Ice age ocean levels were about 400 ft. below what they are now.

Since the end of Glaciation they have risen. If one does not take the timeline offered by Conservative Christianity as to when global floods did occur. It is actually very simple to understand that flood legends are in fact related to the end of the most recent Ice age that was about 14,000 years ago.

In general people do stay close to water and in such a case many would have died because of that tendency. Flood myths in general suggest that the flood event was a violent one. In which case it is conceivable that when the last ice age ended it was a violent event.


edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Well I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this field, so I can only go so into depth but gravity is an interesting concept because, well we can measure the rate at which things fall (~9.81 m/s on Earth), and we know all things fall on Earth, so this must be the outcome of some type of (for lack of a better word) force. However, we cannot see it, we can not take out a special microscope and zoom in really far to detect gravity, nor can we experience it with any of our senses. But, the math works out nicely if we have it, so we assume that gravity is a thing.

There's a relative isomorphism between these two concepts (gravity and God). Certainly an abstract connection, but using your logic we cannot really take gravity seriously hahaha



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PhysicsAdept

Gravity Is currently acknowledged as a Theory because we do not know everything about how in reality Gravity interacts with everything. The same applies to Theism vs. Atheism and given we do not know everything there is not evidence to support either position as absolute.

We simply do not know which as has been often related is the first part of wisdom.




edit on 15-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
How to disprove a god: a lesson in logic.

Here's a lesson in logic;
It is not possible to 'prove' that some'thing' doesn't exist, because everything exists!
That is why it has been historically impossible to prove the non-existence of some'thing'!
Despite your.... 'creative logic', the 'fact' remains!


So, when a person says "there is a god" there is no way we can disprove that, there is no way we can prove that, and the claim holds no weight because it's an infallible claim.

Fail!
You are confused by the term 'falsification' (though you neglected to use it), it appears that is what you were groping for.
There is that which is 'unfalsifiable'; Reality, for one, and thus, Truth, which is ALL inclusive! The One Universe is unfalsifiable as is unconditional Love!
your little 'touchstone' is only a conditional, local artifact, and far from Universal!

No, it is not possible to 'prove' that some'thing' doesn't exist!
Sorry about that blow to the ego, but, you put it out Here!


This single action is one of Religions greatest downfalls, because nearly all religions give attributes to the god(s) they worship.

Ever give any thought to what the term 'Omni-' actually means?
I thought not...
It means One!
ALL INCLUSIVE!
That means that ALL 'qualities' and 'traits' and 'eyes' and 'thoughts' and 'buttholes' and 'dreams' and 'rocks' and 'you' and everything else in existence, and that is everything, are features of the One Reality/Self/God!!
All eyes are 'God's' (Our) eyes!
One Universal Consciousness!

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

Everything Exists!
Everything is Real!
Everything is Truth!
Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive!
'One'!
That which is perceived exists!
That which exists is perceived!
Not a thing exists that is not perceived!
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist!
(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
All inclusive!!!

There is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality!
And we are all unique Perspectives (Souls) of it (Us), every moment of Universal existence!!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)






edit on 15-1-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: Ghost147

I fully agree that religion is false, but I personally am of the belief they were wrong and it was a recounting of the same world flood myth shared by other cultures.

I like the 'If god was omnipotent, could it create a stone too heavy for it to lift?' but that only really stumps the Abrahamic religions.

Sorry, it doesn't stump educated folks, capable of original critical thought!

Here, please, educate yourself;

Can God Make a Rock So Big He Cannot Lift It?

apologeticjunkie.blogspot.com...


This is one of my favorite questions that comes up from time to time. Indeed, many atheists and skeptics have posed this question in an attempt to stump Christians and somehow disprove the omnipotence (and existence) of God. Maybe you've been there. What is so ironic about a question of this type is that rather than prove any sort of deficiency in the character or nature of God, this question actually shows a lack of clear thinking and logic on the part of the skeptic! In other words, the question itself is flawed and fallacious in several ways and, unfortunately, the person raising the question has not taken the time to truly think this problem through.

Problem #1: this question commits the fallacy known as a loaded question. Imagine if I were to ask you, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" If you answer yes, that means you were beating your spouse but you have since stopped. And if you answer no, that means you're still beating them! Either way you answer the question, you automatically concede that you beat your spouse! This is a no win situation because the question itself starts with a false assumption and is therefore a "loaded" question. Likewise, the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot life it?" also starts with a false assumption, i.e., that God is not omnipotent. If you answer "Yes" to the question, that means that God is not omnipotent since He can make the rock but isn't powerful enough to lift it. But if you answer "No," that also means that God is not omnipotent since He couldn't make a rock so big He cannot lift it! In other words, the question itself is dishonest, a pseudo-question, since it begs the question by assuming God is not omnipotent.

Problem #2: this question commits a categorical fallacy. The question itself is incoherent and meaningless. Suppose I were to ask you, "What does the color blue smell like?" or "How much does the number seven weigh?" These are category mistakes because colors don't smell and numbers don't weigh anything. They are logical impossibilities. In the same manner, asking the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" is essentially to ask "Can God's power defeat His own power?" This is nonsensical and a category error since the question is being incorrectly applied. Greg Koukl has stated, "The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase 'stronger than' can only be used when two subjects are in view...Since God is only one...it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself."

Problem #3: this question commits a straw man fallacy. The goal of the skeptic who asks this question is to somehow undermine the Christian concept of an omnipotent God. It is thought that if it can be shown there are some things God cannot do, this would prove that God could not be omnipotent and thus could not exist as Christians have traditionally portrayed Him. However, this line of reasoning is attacking a distorted concept of Biblical omnipotence and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

So what does it mean then that God is omnipotent? Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. There are actually quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot make squared circles. He cannot make a one-ended stick. He cannot sin. He cannot improve His morality. So God is limited in a sense. But not one of these "limitations" has to do with power, rather, they are logical contradictions. Also, notice that His "limitations" are not due to any defects in His character or power but rather they are the result of His perfection and rational nature! As Norman Geisler has stated, "He is only 'limited' by His unlimited perfection." To say that God is omnipotent then is to say that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do what is impossible but only that He can do whatever is actually possible.

Conclusion: So what then is the answer? Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it? My comments above put aside, I still like the way one particular 7-year-old responded: "I can't give you a smart answer to a dumb question."

*************************************************

The old "willing or able" diatribe asked countless times here by those who never search it and somehow always think they are original! Chris Tiegreen answers you this way..."He is both willing and able! The problem is not with God's power and it's not with his love, it is with our faith. When God doesn't resolve a situation to our liking, especially in which the suffering is great, we are tempted to accuse Him of either impotence or negligence. Jesus' response tells us to look within...unanswered prayer is a call to come closer, look deeper, know God better, and seek His will further. It's a call to be transformed as a disciple and to be conformed to the image of Christ. By such the Father separates those who desire to test Him from those who desire to know Him."



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
Here's a lesson in logic;
It is not possible to 'prove' that some'thing' doesn't exist, because everything exists!
That is why it has been historically impossible to prove the non-existence of some'thing'!
Despite your.... 'creative logic', the 'fact' remains!


Everything exists...? Please explain.

Does my example of invisible unicorns that are undetectable by current and future technology exist?

If I destroy, say, a piece of paper by burning it, does that piece of paper still exist? (the atoms do, but it is no longer a piece of paper).

I don't understand your logic.


originally posted by: namelesss
Ever give any thought to what the term 'Omni-' actually means?


Yes.


originally posted by: namelesss
I thought not...


For someone so focused on your perceived size of my ego in the OP, you certainly jump to conclusions in a very overly-certain way.


originally posted by: namelesss
It means One!


Actually, it's a Latin term referring to "all" or "every".

'Unum' is the word for 'one'


originally posted by: namelesss
ALL INCLUSIVE!


There you go, you got it now.


originally posted by: namelesss
Everything Exists!


Logical fallacy


originally posted by: namelesss
Everything is Real!


Logical fallacy


originally posted by: namelesss
Everything is Truth!
Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive!
'One'!
That which is perceived exists!
That which exists is perceived!
Not a thing exists that is not perceived!
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist!
(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
All inclusive!!!


Logical fallacy.


originally posted by: namelesss
There is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality!


Actually, reality can be perceived at an individualistic, subjective level. What is reality to an ant isn't necessarily what is reality to a human (and also individuals).



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: rukia


Gravity is an illusion. We believe it exists therefore it does.


Ahaaa, an intelligent answer, finally. I was just going to give up on this thread, thanks.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh Ghost, dont be such a tease. Shame on you for such baiting





originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Ghost147

Gravity is an illusion. We believe it exists therefore it does. All that truly exists is energy.


Perhaps the word for gravity technically is meaningless without the values we place on it (much like the paper we use for currency), however, Gravity still exists regardless if humanity is here or not.

It is evident that it exists because it effects all objects, even when we have not been there to view it. We can see this objectively by pattern recognition, light, and almost anything else in the universe.



originally posted by: PhysicsAdept
a reply to: Ghost147

Well I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this field, so I can only go so into depth


That's alright, I'm not expecting a physicists to drop by (although that would certainly be helpful). No judgements here


originally posted by: PhysicsAdept
a reply to: Ghost147
...gravity is an interesting concept because, well we can measure the rate at which things fall (~9.81 m/s on Earth), and we know all things fall on Earth, so this must be the outcome of some type of (for lack of a better word) force.


Correct


originally posted by: PhysicsAdept
a reply to: Ghost147
However, we cannot see it, we can not take out a special microscope and zoom in really far to detect gravity, nor can we experience it with any of our senses. But, the math works out nicely if we have it, so we assume that gravity is a thing.


Yes and no.

Firstly, Subjective observation is extremely inaccurate at depicting what is really happening. As you stated, we have no real way of detecting it at a personal, biological level other than the observation that things falls.

Objective observation, however, allows us to know it exists. It is evident that it does exist in all things that have mass, and we can test and confirm it's existence through various means (as you also have mentioned).

The fact that we can test it objectively means that we know it exists. Our explanation of it's functionality is what is falsifiable, as has been proven in the past because we've often changed how we describe the functionality of gravity (the Theory of Relativity)


originally posted by: PhysicsAdept
a reply to: Ghost147
There's a relative isomorphism between these two concepts (gravity and God). Certainly an abstract connection, but using your logic we cannot really take gravity seriously hahaha


This is what is inaccurate.

With Gravity, as you have stated, we can test it.

With God, we cannot test it.

Our theory of relativity is our explanation of how Gravity functions. It's falsifiable because the theory contains information in it that can be proven wrong if further observations show that that information is invalid.

Religious description of a god is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because it makes specific claims that can be tested in the natural world (in many cases). A discovery that a particular description of a trait, event, action, creation, or story is false, through further observations, thus invalidates that particular view of a god.

A non religious claim that there is a generic god (with no traits) is unfalsifiable. So nothing can prove it or disprove it.

As you can see, our theory concerning gravity is not unfalsifiable.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Since the end of Glaciation they have risen. If one does not take the timeline offered by Conservative Christianity as to when global floods did occur. It is actually very simple to understand that flood legends are in fact related to the end of the most recent Ice age that was about 14,000 years ago.


Interesting concept.

However, I'm not sure if you are implying that the globe flooded, or that there was simply flooding occurring, just not at a global scale. Could you elaborate?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In general people do stay close to water and in such a case many would have died because of that tendency. Flood myths in general suggest that the flood event was a violent one. In which case it is conceivable that when the last ice age ended it was a violent event.


The end of an ice age does not trigger a massive flood instantaneously. Rising water levels occur over several years. It would not be as violent as you claim.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I think therefore I am.

The above statement proves god exists.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cinrad
I think therefore I am.

The above statement proves god exists.


That would depend on what you believe god to be



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

So your beef is not with god but certain beliefs about god?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join