No Proof is NO PROOF for Inexistence of God.

reply to post by eight bits


if a being can control my thinking then it will be easy to just make me believe, isnt that said to happen in demonic possession?
Lets go back and start from start, why would a being claim that?
If it wants something material then its definitely not god.
If it wants worship then its upto it to prove the claim, its similar to the reply of many here to the OP.
.
You can easily create logically impossible to solve situation and ask me to solve it. The problem you put is equally a problem to theist and atheist. Its a problem of dealing with someone with different mode of existense while being completely blind.
I have an answer as a muslim but thats not objective but consistent with my belief.
God knows the supernatural beings and has His own under Him. If i am defenseless and believe in the real God then protecting me is easy for Him. Actually it runs deeper, if ignorantly i have a wrong belief even then i'l be protected.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


You should send me the cheat codes by U2U. I suspect I may have already found some, but I'd like to share yours as well.

reply to post by logical7


Let me simplify matters here.

If our lack of proof for the nonexistence of "God" disqualifies our argument, then your lack of proof for the existence of "God" should disqualify yours. Our argument is based on reasoning that has been tried and proven in every scientific study known to man. Yours is based on faith, something that is only used when there's a very good reason to lie to yourself. This reason is both subjective and purely emotional, something science tries to avoid because subjectivity and emotions tend to skew interpretation of the facts.

And this case is no different, obviously. That's our argument against your argument. We have more reason to not believe in your "God" than you have reason to believe in him. I could mention the 20 million deaths he caused and the Holocaust he allowed to happen, the fact that he's the father of "Satan" and refuses to kill him and the fact that he demands our soul in payment for eternal life even though he supposedly loves us, and I could mention that he judges us for turning out exactly as he planned and holds it against us until our dying day...And I could mention that we spend our whole lives fighting dictators only to freely surrender ourselves to the biggest one of all when we die.

But no. I won't mention any of that. Let's just say we have our reasons and you have yours. Personally, if I believed in your "God", I would kill myself just to ensure my damnation. It's a good thing I don't, eh?

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by reeferman

 

There are no faxes from heaven. A God would not need to write anything down.

do you see that you are defining God. Although you are right in a sense, i am not claiming Bible as my source.
You are doing what theists do when you define God. Why?
You define then you compare with scriptures and then reject, is that logical?
You jumped ahead of the topic, we are discussing 'does God exist' and you went ahead and started to define how He is or how He is not.

that is a weak attempt at side stepping the facts.

your contrived double negative statement is merely

a simple rewording of the same old tired song repeated for

thousands of years now.

Just because there is no proof does not mean thats proof God does not exist.

this is the age old faith angle, yet you contrive is it not.

reply to post by DetectiveT

You make a faulty leap of logic here. Who says that god has to be all powerful?

yes it is an assumption but logical. If i am searching for Creator then He should be 'Higher' than me, nobody can create something better than itself.
God should also not be lower than some other by that logic.
So He should be Highest, All Powerful etc.

reply to post by logical7


This is exactly why I don't label myself as anything, I'm not exactly an atheist and I'm not exactly an agnostic or Christian I just don't want to be labeled. Atheists are technically hostile towards theists, but only when theists claim something outrageous.

logical7

if a being can control my thinking then it will be easy to just make me believe, isnt that said to happen in demonic possession?

I was thinking specifically of the capabilities attributed to Jinn, but similar ideas surround demons. The Western image of "demonic possession," though, connotes something disabling, and the person "not being themselves." I was pointing to the possibility of a supernatural being misleading me about the performance of the fairly elementary tests you proposed, without disabling me in the process.

Lets go back and start from start, why would a being claim that?

While I think that's an excellent question, I am unsure that that was the start of our conversation. Anyway, I am a natural being, so I don't know why any supernatural being would bother with the likes of us. If we were worth bothering about, then would it be worth the being's trouble to bother about what we thought about it? I don't know. Would the being prefer us to have a "fair and balanced" opinion about it? I don't know that, either.

I think we're better off where the conversation really did begin, proofs of existence, and with a premise for the sake of discussion that some supernatural being(s) exist(s).

If it wants something material then its definitely not god.

I am unsure what you mean by wanting something material. A roomful of adults prostrating themselves in unison is a material thing. Or, to put it another way, if the being wants anything from me, then whatever that is needs to be material, because that's all I have to give.

The problem you put is equally a problem to theist and atheist.

Perhaps so, but I am neither, and I am talking with you, who is one and not the other, on the occasion of your announcing that you have some ideas about the nature of proof.

I have an answer as a muslim but thats not objective but consistent with my belief.

OK, that's fine. I know I'm talking with a particular person, and that like everybody else, you'll bring your own beliefs and perspective to the conversation.

If i am defenseless and believe in the real God then protecting me is easy for Him. Actually it runs deeper, if ignorantly i have a wrong belief even then i'l be protected.

That's nice to know. but we aren't discussing the consequences of a wrong belief (which differ from one religion to the next anyway). You were talking about proof, so I'm trying to get at forming a supported belief. I'll worry about the belief's consequences when I have a belief to worry about.

... and about something you wrote to another poster, that seemed to me relevant to my question of you,

If i am searching for Creator then He should be 'Higher' than me, nobody can create something better than itself.

There are lots of ways to be higher than any of us, and I don't see any reason at all why anybody's product couldn't be "better" than the producer. I also point out that only some gods are world-creators, whether individually or collectively. Zeus, for example, created no world, nor did he join with others to make any world, but he is surely a god if he exists.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If our lack of proof for the nonexistence of "God" disqualifies our argument, then your lack of proof for the existence of "God" should disqualify yours.

when did i say i lack proof? If you read the posts till now you wouldnt say this. Even in the OP i hinted otherwise.

Our argument is
based on reasoning that has been tried and proven in every scientific
study known to man.

you are contradicting yourself. You are saying you arguement has been proven?? Your arguement is 'God doesnt exist' right? Would you share the proof please.

Yours is based
on faith, something that is only used
when there's a very good reason to lie
to yourself. This reason is both
subjective and purely emotional

not really, i havnt based on it faith alone.
On the other hand you have to be inconsistent to hold you stand.
When you find a perfect wooden circle somewhere, you presume a positive assumption of a creator for it yet when you see a much more complicated universe the you assume it was by chance.
In short you say chance made the universe and a chance started life but after that chance stop creating intelligent things. It has never been observed that a complex intelligent design can appear by chance.
Even when archeologists find a piece of a stone spear-head they assume existence of homo sapiens(intelligent being)
science is based on observable reproducable facts.
If things are left to themselves then disorder always increases.
Origin of life defies this, almost mocks it.
To start itself life had to go against physics and keep going, that tiny 1st organism against raw forces of nature its almost impossible, but say it survived, from where it got the idea that it should reproduce or it will get extinct?
A lightening bolt zapped and it cleaved into two perfect organisms? Also arranging the DNA in inheritable sequences with codes to live, procreate and even die! Very scientific indeed!
I should put a lighting conductor on a truck and wait (far away) and let thunder bolts zap it again and again till it converts to Optimus Prime! How many zaps do you think would do the trick?

reply to post by SecretaryOfBacon


i also see labels as dividing. I have no problem in being called a christian if i get that label by following Christ's teachings although christians may object as i deny the creed, anyways, welcome to ATS

reply to post by eight bits

I was thinking specifically of the capabilities attributed to Jinn, but similar ideas surround demons. The Western image of "demonic possession," though, connotes something disabling, and the person "not being themselves." I was pointing to the possibility of a supernatural being misleading me about the performance of the fairly elementary tests you proposed, without disabling me in the process.

it is likely but as i said, i am only responsible for what i choose when aware. I accept my limitation. It appears like perfect mind control.

I am unsure what you mean by
wanting something material. A
roomful of adults prostrating
themselves in unison is a material
thing. Or, to put it another way, if the
being wants anything from me, then whatever that is needs to be material,
because that's all I have to give.

let me clarify, if it has material 'needs' say demands food.
Yes the supernatural beings can mislead people by showing visions and can take them away from the real God if there's one ofcourse. Otherwise they just play with us lower beings and have a laugh and thats just life!

reply to post by eight bits

Perhaps so, but I am neither, and I am talking with you, who is one and not the other, on the occasion of your announcing that you have some ideas about the nature of proof.

i dont have proof of 'Nature' of God. I said their are hints of 'existense'
we have discussed that its foolish to try to comprehend something thats beyond our own physical limits.

OK, that's fine. I know I'm talking with
a particular person, and that like
everybody else, you'll bring your own
beliefs and perspective to the
conversation.

i rather not bring them up but yes its difficult not to. Not easy to think from another artificially created perspective when my own contradicts it.

There are lots of ways to be higher
than any of us, and I don't see any
reason at all why anybody's product
couldn't be "better" than the
producer. I also point out that only
some gods are world-creators, whether individually or collectively.
Zeus, for example, created no world,
nor did he join with others to make
any world, but he is surely a god if he
exists.

yes. People actually worshipped their kings.
Can you explain how a 'created' can be greater than the 'creator' as a whole? I am talking about independent living creation, not a laptop or a giant crane. We can make AI too and it can turn into the fictional AI horror movie but thats again because we are not All knowing. If i mix chemical X and Y and get an explosion and a black face then i am not god. I have limited knowledge, in short the idea of God is ultimate perfection. Btw just an idea, cant be proved.
Mount Olympus was found empty, right. The point hangs on if Zeus exists. I know the 'idea of God' improvises as people progress. The fairytales are people's way to explain the 'idea of God' using available knowledge, it can be creative for sure but once it has been proven wrong then why bring it up?

reply to post by logical7

yes it is an assumption but logical. If i am searching for Creator then He should be 'Higher' than me,

It is not logical to assume you were created. If you believe me to be wrong, then prove it.

God should also not be lower than some other by that logic.
So He should be Highest, All Powerful etc.

In order for "God" to be all-powerful, he has to exist. And from what I have seen, even if he does exist, he's pretty damn pathetic. I've seen teenagers accomplish more than he's willing to do. I've seen teenagers save lives where he was unwilling to step in. Maybe he's trying to raise us to be independent. I wouldn't be surprised - if we are never weaned from the mother's tit, we will never learn to fly on our own wings.

logical7

it is likely but as i said, i am only responsible for what i choose when aware. I accept my limitation. It appears like perfect mind control.

I've been lied to successfully (at least until I found out afterwards... and I suspect other times when I never did find out for sure) by natural beings. There was no mind control; the liars just used their skill to create the appearance of something that wasn't so. I imagine that would be easier for a supernatural being, and could work without "mind control." That's why I wanted to avoid "demonic possession," because that does connote complete control for many people.

let me clarify, if it has material 'needs' say demands food.

I don't know that I could distinguish between "needing" food and recommending or participating in some ritual with food. Abraham had supernatural visitors who ate and drank at his tent. It didn't even come up whether they needed to. In Second Temple Judaism, God didn't eat the sacrifces, but they were food, and apparently he liked the smell, and the blood was most definitely "given" only to him.

we have discussed that its foolish to try to comprehend something thats beyond our own physical limits.

Yeah, but it's not foolish to try to figure out what the limits are, or in a thread about the prospect of proof, to examine how far we could get.

Can you explain how a 'created' can be greater than the 'creator' as a whole?

I've programmed a computer to do some things better than I can. I have a car that's faster than I am. If I put a computer in a car, I've got a robot. If the Church-Turing thesis is correct, the only reason why I can't program the computer to do everything I do is because I lack the cleverness.

There doesn't seem to be any principled reason why a creature couldn't do everything its creator does, and do at least one thing arguably better.

Mount Olympus was found empty, right. The point hangs on if Zeus exists.

He moved?

it can be creative for sure but once it has been proven wrong then why bring it up?

Because we're trying find tests that distinguish gods from other supernatural beings, and we have to start somewhere. If we can't navigate at least by something like "not quite so much like a leprechaun, and more like Zeus," then how do we ever get anywhere?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It is not logical to assume you were created. If you believe me to be wrong, then prove it.

i was created. I can give my opinion, its upto you to accept the proof or not.
1) i assume you believe that the basic purpose of a living cell is to live.
When a zygote is formed its just a group of cells, the 'moulding' actually happens by programmed cell death, apoptosis, simply put, the unfortunate cells that were between my fingers had to die so that i have seperated fingers. The programmed death is contradicting to the interest of those cells. Unless they either knew the bigger picture(not likely) or they were controlled/pre programmed by 'someone' who knew the bigger picture.
2) the same pattern can be observed in a colony of ants. A soldier ant will be ready to die to protect the hill. Either it sees the bigger picture of belonging to a system and does it's part of defence(again not likely) or 'someone' created it that way and it is a live automaton, a living robot, reacting to preset patterns & stimuli. What appears more likely to you?
Can an organised colony/system with all its individual part evolve without the individuals in it being aware of it? How the hell the 1st 'evolved' soldier ant knew that formic acid is an irritant.
3) similar question and much closer, your own stomach, how did the 1st Hydrochloric acid using digestive system 'evolved' and also knew it has to also produce mucus and other neturalizers to protect itself from the acid? And at the same time!! Because if not then the organism would have died before passing that amazing system.
So what do you say?

reply to post by logical7

when did i say i lack proof? If you read the posts till now you wouldnt say this. Even in the OP i hinted otherwise.

If it had been proven, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

you are contradicting yourself. You are saying you arguement has been proven?? Your arguement is 'God doesnt exist' right? Would you share the proof please.

Circumstantial evidence. For one, the general description of "God" complete contradicts his entire story. For another, the "God" mythos is based on an amalgamation of preceding religions. They just won't admit it. The ATS search function should be able to tell you more on the subject. You probably won't bother though. You're more interested in defending your beliefs than finding the truth.

When you find a perfect wooden circle somewhere, you presume a positive assumption of a creator for it yet when you see a much more complicated universe the you assume it was by chance.

I don't assume it was by chance, but I don't assume it was a god either. A spider designs a perfect web. Would you call that spider intelligent? A drop of water forms a perfect circular ripple. Would you call the water intelligent?

Even when archeologists find a piece of a stone spear-head they assume existence of homo sapiens(intelligent being)

And they usually find fossil evidence supporting their theory.

science is based on observable reproducable facts.
If things are left to themselves then disorder always increases.
Origin of life defies this, almost mocks it.

One reason I believe in a divine principle. But not a god.

A lightening bolt zapped and it cleaved into two perfect organisms? Also arranging the DNA in inheritable sequences with codes to live, procreate and even die! Very scientific indeed! I should put a lighting conductor on a truck and wait (far away) and let thunder bolts zap it again and again till it converts to Optimus Prime! How many zaps do you think would do the trick?

Have you ever taken a biology class? It doesn't sound like it.

reply to post by logical7

1) i assume you believe that the basic purpose of a living cell is to live.
When a zygote is formed its just a group of cells, the 'moulding' actually happens by programmed cell death, apoptosis, simply put, the unfortunate cells that were between my fingers had to die so that i have seperated fingers. The programmed death is contradicting to the interest of those cells. Unless they either knew the bigger picture(not likely) or they were controlled/pre programmed by 'someone' who knew the bigger picture.
2) the same pattern can be observed in a colony of ants. A soldier ant will be ready to die to protect the hill. Either it sees the bigger picture of belonging to a system and does it's part of defence(again not likely) or 'someone' created it that way and it is a live automaton, a living robot, reacting to preset patterns & stimuli. What appears more likely to you?
Can an organised colony/system with all its individual part evolve without the individuals in it being aware of it? How the hell the 1st 'evolved' soldier ant knew that formic acid is an irritant.
3) similar question and much closer, your own stomach, how did the 1st Hydrochloric acid using digestive system 'evolved' and also knew it has to also produce mucus and other neturalizers to protect itself from the acid? And at the same time!! Because if not then the organism would have died before passing that amazing system.
So what do you say?

Everything you posted up there is not proof of a god. It is proof that there is a code built into the very fabric of existence itself. This code does not require the existence of a god. It is a natural product of time/space. It is required for time/space to exist. Which means that as long as even the smallest semblance of time and space exists, this code exists in some small fashion. From there, it's a time bomb.

This is my belief. I will freely admit I have little evidence to support it. But I entertain the possibility because it excites me. I at least possess a rational viewpoint concerning its reality, unlike you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

In order for "God" to be all-powerful, he has to exist. And from what I have seen, even if he does exist, he's pretty damn pathetic. I've seen teenagers accomplish more than he's willing to do. I've seen teenagers save lives where he was unwilling to step in.

you are again defining God by how 'you' want Him to behave. If God obeys you then you would become the higher god. You think its good to help/save people, do good etc thats great then do it, maybe God wants to see who does it and who just sits and whines "why God doesnt help these people"=> "i would if i was god" =>"so i am better"=> "so God doesnt exist."
God can see all the factors that He has to consider.
A simple example.
A beautiful girl gets robbed on a gun point by a guy and you feel sorry for the girl and curse God for letting that happen and you go and help her.
Now if you knew the story of the robber that he had a sick wife and needed urgent money or she would have died.
So God saved a life and got you a possible date
just a simple example, it gets more complicated when you add more lives interacting with each other, so they say "dont judge too fast"

reply to post by logical7


I'm tired of arguing philosophy with you. You still haven't provided incontrovertible proof that "God" exists. Present your case or admit it's purely belief and get off the soap box.

reply to post by eight bits

Abraham had supernatural visitors who ate and drank at his tent.

no they dint. you point at incosistencies that i dont even believe in. However you are using any and all fairytales and scriptures when i stated that i am not planning to rule out each claim. If there is a God, He created all beings, i can reach a conclusion either in favour or otherwise by observing what i can observe not by ruling out claims of supernatural beings.

There doesn't seem to be any
principled reason why a creature
couldn't do everything its creator
does, and do at least one thing
arguably better.

then the 'created' stumbled upon some knowledge that the 'creator' dint have making the 'creator' a 'created' itself. If the created computer found patterns that a human couldnt, that makes humans also as created.

Because we're trying find tests that
distinguish gods from other
supernatural beings, and we have to
start somewhere.

thats not possible objectively "insufficient data!"

reply to post by logical7

thats not possible objectively "insufficient data!"

We've captured plenty of evidence of ghosts. It's a little sad that even ghosts are more substantial than your pet deity.