How to disprove a god: a lesson in logic.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How to prove God, basic common sense.
the world will hate you because of me. Mathew 10 22

So your proof is because 'it's obvious', but you have no actual substancial evidence, despite it being 'obvious' and 'basic common sense'.

And then more of your proof that the christian god is real is by using the scripture in the christian bible?

That's like defining a word by using the word itself as a definition. Sorry, but that is not proof.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
It was written long before this thread was

And there are other religions that are older than Christianity.

Age does not determine validity.

originally posted by: theMediator
There is no way logic can disprove God.

The only logical path is Agnostism, everything else requires faith.

Could you elaborate on your conclusion?

Can you show how the content within the OP is inaccurate?

Your argument has very little context to it.

a reply to: Ghost147

Ill have to take your word, im not a science guy. So you are certain that what you said is true, and to what degree?

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Ghost147

Ill have to take your word, im not a science guy. So you are certain that what you said is true, and to what degree?

Don't take my word for it. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt my word if I have not shown to have any reputable background on the subject.

Science doesn't work with 'truths'. It's a common misconception to believe so, however, science works with statistical values and 'best evidence so far'. Far too often are people off-put by science because they tend to come from a background (such as religion) where everything is based on truths and absolutes, but when scientific information changes over time, they view that as invalid, when in fact it was a false preconceived conception that science ever dealt with truths and absolutism to begin with.

In science, a hypothesis or a theory has to be falsifiable to even be scientific in the first place. The reason it has to be falsifiable is because an unfalsifiable claim holds no context to anything because it cannot prove anything and it cannot disprove anything. Falsifiability is essentially the acknowledgement that we cannot possibly ever know everything, and there for cannot be 100% certain about anything (there can always be something we don't know that can prove our current information wrong).

That being said, the scientific hypotheses and theories and laws are based on our observations, and we can test, retest, and cross evaluate other observations to confirm the observations we're making, and come to a reasonable conclusion that suggests how that phenomenon witnessed in the observation functions.

So, science doesn't say "this is how it is", but rather, "The evidence we have suggests that this phenomenon functions this way, subject to change and become more accurate upon further discoveries"

Another key point to focus on is the difference between a fact and a theory (or hypothesis). A fact is the phenomenon in question. For instance, Gravity is a fact. It exists, we know it exists because when you jump up, you fall back down. A theory is our current best description on how that phenomenon functions. So there is both a fact that Gravity exists, and a theory in which describes how it functions to the best of our current understanding.

Now, back to the post you're responding to.

My citation is linked at the bottom of the post, but we don't need to actually go there and simply believe what they say as well. The great thing about science is that anyone can replicate the experiments that the citation used in order to come to the conclusions they did, or by producing new experiments to confirm or disprove what the citation's conclusions are.

The conclusions in the citation aren't just a matter of opinion, but the result of tens, if not hundreds or thousands of experiments that were then compiled together and evaluated to come to the conclusions being made.

a reply to: Ghost147

I found this.....

10,000 years ago, at a time when humans recorded historical events by telling mythical stories that got passed from one generation to the next, huge parts of the North American continent were deluged by massive walls of water. They were, as geologist David R. Montgomery writes in this month's Discover magazine, "Biblical-type floods." Huge regions of the Pacific Northwest, called the "scablands" were chewed up by flash floods that were more like tsunamis. And it was all caused by the melting of the glaciers from the last ice age. As the walls of ice damming lakes melted away, the waters would rush out across the land.

Source

I can use the OPs exact same argument against evolution and he could do othing about it
Evolution is not observable outside of flies that turn into flies.

The big difference is that I think it's great the OP and all others have their own faiths, not my job to brow beat their beliefs like a crazy Imam who hates everyone not aligned to his belief

My point wasn't the age of the words it was the accuracy, read it how you will

I know how silly cIrcular reasoning is, kinda like dating rocks by fossils in the rocks and
Dating fossils by the rocks they are in
Deja vu

Mr mediator is right, agnosticism does not require a faith, almost a true scientific reasoning.
The issue needs to be tested, till its tested we can't come up with a conclusion.

Anything outside of testable is theory, belief, faith.

I find threads like this akin to
Westbrook church people holding up placards, though those people don't hide behind the anonymity of the Internet

Wesboro placards say, I hate you because you don't believe what I tell you to
Just like this thread doe

Sadly people can't see it

Stalin, Mao, pol pot all true atheists, not a Scotsman amongst them

a reply to: Kashai

Thanks for posting information. It's best to use the article's link to the article it's referring to for future reference.

Here's the article that your citation is getting it's information from: Link

And here is an image within that article that shows the size of the flood that they are referring to and where it extended to (The dark grey is the flood)


Link for full sized image

Quite a shortfall of a global flood, but a flood none-the-less.

Take note that I do not find the stories of a 'great flood' in the various religions of the world all to be false. I fully accept that a large enough flood could occur that would wipe out a small area.

However, I do reject the idea of a global flood, because there simply is no evidence at all to suggest there was one, and we have evidence that actually counters the claim of a global flood.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I can use the OPs exact same argument against evolution and he could do othing about it
Evolution is not observable outside of flies that turn into flies.

Actually, it is, and I've already explained how it is through a number of different threads of ATS over the years.

If you want more information about the topic, please go to my other thread on that very topic

Evolution is defined as changes in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. We can easily observe this. The issue you're suggesting is unobservable is through time and time alone, not with the actual processes within Evolution.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The big difference is that I think it's great the OP and all others have their own faiths, not my job to brow beat their beliefs like a crazy Imam who hates everyone not aligned to his belief

On the contrary. I fully embrace criticism on any personal belief I have, or any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law I accept as factual.

Please, be as critical as you can be. The more valid evidence we have, the more accurate we can make our claims.

If you are able to disprove a particular scientific theory, by all means do so. When you achieve this I will be more than willing to accept the new and improved conclusion on the matter that you've helped form.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
My point wasn't the age of the words it was the accuracy, read it how you will

Then why bring up age at all?

If the bible is as accurate as you claim it to be, then you must have evidence to show it's accuracy. Do you not?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Mr mediator is right, agnosticism does not require a faith, almost a true scientific reasoning.
The issue needs to be tested, till its tested we can't come up with a conclusion.

You're mistaking the word 'conclusion' with absolute certainty. I do not claim to be absolutely certain that no gods exist. I fully accept that I do not know everything and thus cannot come to such an absolute claim.

However, what we do currently know about the universe doesn't even remotely suggest that there is a god. So it's safe to conclude that there likely isn't any gods.

Agnosticism is atheism, by the way, they too don't believe in a god, but they also claim that there is no possible way to know if one does or does not exist.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Anything outside of testable is theory, belief, faith.

Unless of course you're referring to a scientific theory, which is not the same as the word 'theory' you're describing.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I find threads like this akin to Westbrook church people holding up placards, though those people don't hide behind the anonymity of the Internet

I'm sorry I wasn't able to trigger your brain to produce a mentality that allows critical thinking then. You've dramatically misjudged the content within this thread.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Wesboro placards say, I hate you because you don't believe what I tell you to
Just like this thread doesp

feel free to quote the lines in which I stated this or suggested this. Or are you just coming to your own conclusion with no substantiation to those conclusions?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Sadly people can't see it

Perhaps if you explain how you've come to that conclusion, we would see it?

a reply to: Ghost147

thank you for the reply!

Did not expect such an answer to be honest. If you find it attractive, you should maybe spend some time to study something related any try some meditation. Than maybe you could realize why some religions have gods and angels while some do not. It may seem that they contradict each other at first, but at least for me and many other spiritual folks this does not seem to be the case.

It is like rivers and the oceans kind of thing. All rivers sooner or later leads to ocean. Similarly the end goal is the same or "enlightened" people are made in all various religions but with same attributes which manifests in such people, like endless compassion and unconditional love and wisdom.

They used different paths but ended up with the same result. This would mean then that THE point is maybe not in the religions, gods and angels but somewhere else and a lot of people are missing it due to being too dogmatic or not interested enough in other religions to realize this simple truth.

One needs just to find his own best river, but not matter what one chooses, you cannot get elsewhere but the ocean at the end, only the length or time to get there is different.

With such high level of intellect you display in the posts on ats this would be a piece of cake if you would genuinely give it a chance in my opinion : )

Sorry for off the thread post, I will stop derailing now...carry on ... : )

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147

thank you for the reply!

Did not expect such an answer to be honest.

You're very welcome. I try to make it a goal to respond to every post and concept within those posts that are directed to me.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
If you find it attractive, you should maybe spend some time to study something related any try some meditation.

I would like to try meditation, although I'm afraid I do not know where to start, and I'm quite skeptical that any source will have valid information. Even though I see nothing wrong with meditation, and I believe many people have achieved what is known as 'enlightenment', I still believe that many people who are very avid about meditation are simply just insane.

I find it difficult to decipher what is factual and what is crazy in things like that.

Kind of like how I believe in Ghosts, and I believe that some particular people are able to 'experience' them more easily, but I'm not about to go and trust every single person who claims to be able to 'experience' them. If that makes sense.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
Than maybe you could realize why some religions have gods and angels while some do not. It may seem that they contradict each other at first, but at least for me and many other spiritual folks this does not seem to be the case.

I don't see any contradiction in a religion that has gods or a religion that doesn't have gods. What I find to be contradictory is specific details that are applied by some religions on how the universe was formed and functions, alongside the description of the gods that go along with those claims, and what we can observe in the universe around us.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
They used different paths but ended up with the same result.

I'm not quite sure the same result is really the same result at all. Similar, possibly, but the same, no. Nevertheless, the mass of a population that believes in anything does not equate to validity of that belief. The whole world can believe that something is the way it is, when it really isn't at all. Population does not create validity.

a reply to: Ghost147

In effect such an event would have resulted in substantive damage and enough to the people of the time.

To define the event as a global flood.

A substantive percentage of the planet was flooded, related to places where humans would live. The Link in context does present that the effects of decline related to Glaciation during the end of the last Ice Age, ended abruptly.

An effect that was apparent throughout the world.

Offered is that this Ice Age ended violently in support of what is often related to as the "Flood Myth", in relation to a Tribal Perspective upon what the world is.

In so much as this is correct it seems simple to relate this event to what is described in Ancient Text as a, "Global Flood".

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In effect such an event would have resulted in substantive damage and enough to the people of the time.

To define the event as a global flood.

I don't doubt this at all; in fact, I already acknowledged this in the very post you're responding to.

That, of course, does not give any validity to a literal global flood.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
A substantive percentage of the planet was flooded

No. Not even remotely substantial.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
, related to places where humans would live.

Also not correct. Most humans, at that time, didn't live in north america either. Furthermore, the bible wasn't written until at least 8,500 years after those floods: Traditionally, Christians and Jews dated the earliest biblical writings to the time of Moses, which might have been in the mid- to late second millennium B.C.E. (circa 1500–1200 B.C.E.). Not only that, but the date in which the bible claims the Earth was formed occurs after those floods.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Offered is that this Ice Age ended violently in support of what is often related to as the "Flood Myth", in relation to a Tribal Perspective upon what the world is.

The argument isn't "were there any floods that anyone could have percieved to be global, even though they were of small specific areas?", the argument is "There was a literal global flood where every single thing was under water", this does not occur.

a reply to: Ghost147

The age of the earth has been a topic of debate among Christians over the last two centuries. Several Christian ministries promote the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, which they say comes from the Bible. In reality, the Bible makes no claim as to the age of the earth, although it does establish a minimum age. This page examines some of the history of the controversy—what the Bible actually says and does not say—and the scientific evidence surrounding the age of the earth.

Source

Actually and in general the flood event actually related to when the Earth was created. The Story of Noah is related to Genesis in the Holy Bible and so related to Earths creation.

People of that time period certainly could have related to such an event as a violent flood due to an ending Ice age.

And given what is presented Archeologically the last Ice Age ended violently.

List of Flood Myths World Wide

in reality how many people/humans did in actuality exist 10,000 years ago? Fish would be considered "staple" in relation to diet and protein.

Less that a Million and in all probability living really near shorelines that today are actually about 400ft below water in comparison to conditions 10,000 years ago.

In effect data related to the topic disputes what you consider a Logical Conclusion.

No offense, I just didn't see where you disproved God. Logic to me is just a concept of man's way of protecting themselves from the fear of the unknown. What's not logical to the human mind can be a very scary thing.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Actually and in general the flood event actually related to when the Earth was created. The Story of Noah is related to Genesis in the Holy Bible and so related to Earths creation.

I agree that the bible says no such things. However, many Christians believe this number to be factual. Regardless of that issue, there has still been no evidence to show an actual, literal global flood.

originally posted by: Kashai
People of that time period certainly could have related to such an event as a violent flood due to an ending Ice age.

I have already agreed to this. I have already explained that a perception or hyperbolic description of a large-scale flood does not translate to a global flood, making the term 'global flood' inaccurate. You seem to agree, again, so why are you arguing this point still?

originally posted by: Kashai
in reality how many people/humans did in actuality exist 10,000 years ago? Fish would be considered "staple" in relation to diet and protein.

Less that a Million and in all probability living really near shorelines that today are actually about 400ft below water in comparison to conditions 10,000 years ago.

In effect data related to the topic disputes what you consider a Logical Conclusion.

Why are you still arguing this point?!??! I have already agreed that flood myths are likely based off of a witness of a larger flood. Key word is "larger" not "global".

originally posted by: jca2012
No offense, I just didn't see where you disproved God.

Could you be more specific by explaining how the logic I used was invalid?

originally posted by: jca2012
Logic to me is just a concept of man's way of protecting themselves from the fear of the unknown.

I think the word you're thinking of is 'Skepticism', not 'logic'. I do not profess knowledge of everything, and I certainly don't fear the unknown. In fact, I've always found the unknown fascinating, and that is evident by the level at which I research a variety of topics (and by the description under my user name, and by the state of my 'mood' also within my avatar information)

Logic is simply reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. It isn't merely the making up of an excuse in order to run from a topic, but rather a form of evaluation of a particular topic.

originally posted by: jca2012
What's not logical to the human mind can be a very scary thing.

For having such deep, certain comments, you sure explain very little and ad no context/content to your claims.

With a population of humans less than 1 million and in relation to the ease of catching fish; it makes sense that most would have lived in areas that today are 400ft below sea level. Given a violent end to the last Ice Age and in relation to human majorities most, could very well have been wiped out. To such cultures and in reality such an event could have been interpreted and subsequently documented as a world wide event.

Again you seem to be engaged in fantasy as to how given the conditions, in interpretation. Of who the world could be defined to less than 1 million humans that lived 10,000 years ago. In comparison to present day conditions where the analysis of a world flood would be subject to satellite data.

originally posted by: Ghost147

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?

Sure!
(Can you name/show me something that 'doesn't exist'? I can show you everything that does! *__- )
'Thought' exists, 'thought' is perceived!
That which is perceived, exists!
Rocks are perceived, imaginary unicorns with tiny purple bat-wings pooping silver Twinkies as it flies through the clouds exists!
It exists in/as the 'content' of 'existing' thought!
Ultimately, no matter on what we focus our microscope, dream or unicorn of the planet Jupiter, everything is made of the same basic 'stuff', Mindstuff/information waves!
To judge 'Reality' on the qualities of observed phenomena is an error.
It's ALL Reality!
Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One, that is what the inherent 'duality' of 'thought' does; it allows Reality to be Known/perceived/experienced! 'This, not that'... While it's really 'both'!

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.

Yes! It does!
That piece of 'ash', and that fresh piece of paper... the infant and the lad and the young man and the middle-age man and the old man and the wizened sage man are not 'different' people, they are all different Perspectives of the same One Reality!
Let that soak in for a moment...
I offer an illustration of 'left', to illustrate;

'Point to the left'.
Easy.
Note where you are pointing.
Now turn 1 degree and point to the left.
Again note the results.
Now another degree, etc...
And another 1/4 of a degree...
Turn in every possible direction, on every possible axis!
It turns out that every direction is 'left', 'left' is a 'cloud needing a particular Perspective to have any 'direction' at all!
Now point to the 'right'!
Same drill!
Note that the exact same cloud of 'left', is also, at the same moment, a cloud of 'right'!
And a cloud of 'up'!
And a cloud of 'down'...
Do the experiment!

The only 'distinctions' that can even be called 'left' or 'right', OR 'up' and 'down'... are a matter of Perspective!

Ultimately, We are One (unchanging (motionless), all inclusive) 'Cloud'/Reality!!

Every moment is a unique Perspective of Reality!
And every moment arises synchronously!
All together!
All unique Perspectives arise to Consciousness all together!
Like Mr. Magoo blinking once a moment over the extent of the existence of the Universe, with all those peeks happening synchronously!

Reality is a synchrony of unique moments of what amounts to 'Self!' Knowledge!
All at once!
Existence IS The Singularity!
Timeless!

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment = 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

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

Yes.
Actually, it's a Latin term referring to "all" or "every".
'Unum' is the word for 'one'
It is the same thing!
One is ALL INCLUSIVE, everything!

originally posted by: namelesss
Everything Exists!

Logical fallacy
Is that 'Truth by assertion/declaration, or would you like to discuss how Truth is a fallacy? *__-

originally posted by: namelesss
Everything is Real!

Logical fallacy
Is that 'Truth by assertion/declaration, or would you like to discuss how Truth is a 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.
Is that 'Truth by assertion/declaration, or would you like to discuss how Truth is a 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).

Logical fallacy! *__-
I never suggested that Reality is not experienced at a very unique individual 'subjective' level!
Your fallacy is in your assumption that the ant perceives a different Reality than you do!
Necessarily, he doesn't.
Again, I refer you to 'Omni-'!
That means that there is not anything 'else' BUT Reality! But existence! But Truth! But 'God'!
The only difference is a matter of Perspective!

a reply to: namelesss

by that logic, everything is equally factual, which is a paradox and does nothing but distract from the discussion.

...that wouldnt be the point, would it?

originally posted by: namelesss
'Thought' exists, 'thought' is perceived!
That which is perceived, exists!

I was never denying that the 'thought' of god doesn't exist, this point is obvious.

The notion that the religious claim isn't that the thought of god exists because thoughts exist, they are directly claiming that outside of their minds this being exist.

That type of claim can be disproved under the right circumstances.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Yes! It does!
That piece of 'ash', and that fresh piece of paper... the infant and the lad and the young man and the middle-age man and the old man and the wizened sage man are not 'different' people, they are all different Perspectives of the same One Reality!

The correct answer is 'no' the paper went from paper to no-longer-paper. Do the atoms that made the paper up still exist? yes, but in a different form, a form that is no longer paper.

Is a tree a piece of paper? No. it's a tree. They may have originated from the same place, but the two objects are inherently separated. You don't go around asking for a piece of tree to right on whenever you need a paper, do you?

originally posted by: namelesss
Is that 'Truth by assertion/declaration, or would you like to discuss how Truth is a fallacy? *__-

No, I wouldn't like to discuss the matter. You have yet to make any valid points so far. Once you're able to achieve this feat, I am willing to focus on another argument.

originally posted by: namelesss
Logical fallacy! *__-
I never suggested that Reality is not experienced at a very unique individual 'subjective' level!

You claimed that there is one universal reality. This is easy to prove false because we can see how one individual perceives things differently from another. A colorblind person only knows that the colors they see (or don't see) are inaccurate because the rest of the population can see them. Their reality in relation to color is different than another persons.

The same thing applies to every person and creature. Thus, there is not just a single, universal reality.

You're claim is false.

originally posted by: namelesss
That means that there is not anything 'else' BUT Reality! But existence! But Truth! But 'God'!
The only difference is a matter of Perspective!

I'll quote TzarChasm here because he worded it perfectly:

by that logic, everything is equally factual, which is a paradox and does nothing but distract from the discussion.

...that wouldnt be the point, would it?