Evidence god does not exist

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay, well X exists ok? And we don't know what it is. What is it? Well it's X. X is X. But that gets us nowhere at all, it's circular, of course. So to find out what "X" is we have to find out what it is not. But that makes no sense either because we can't find out what it is not until we find out something about what it is.

Substitute "X" for "God" and you see the problem.

[fr0d0]

According to you Evie (from past statements), a huge amount of what we can understand is physical. Given those odds what we can understand to be non physical is severely reduced.

Understanding what something isn't is very much understanding what it is. Knowing something isn't animal or vegetable lets us know our subject is mineral in a game of animal, vegetable and mineral. Further questioning narrows down the possibilities until we have a precise enough answer to hazard an informed opinion.

X = 1/26th of the alphabet.

[The Omnissiunt One]

According to you Evie (from past statements), a huge amount of what we can understand is physical. Given those odds what we can understand to be non physical is severely reduced.

Everything non-physical that we know of is either conceptual (a product of thought) or thought itself (unless you're a radical materialist, in which case the latter doesn't apply). Therefore, God is likely to be conceptual i.e. non-existent.

[Captain Scarlet]

According to you Evie (from past statements), a huge amount of what we can understand is physical. Given those odds what we can understand to be non physical is severely reduced.

Everything non-physical that we know of is either conceptual (a product of thought) or thought itself (unless you're a radical materialist, in which case the latter doesn't apply). Therefore, God is likely to be conceptual i.e. non-existent.

For me this is a very real problem for theism. It has to assert that there is a part of existence that is unaccounted for and that the uni, multi, manyverse is not the totality of existence. This means we cannot in effect reason to god from analogy because analogies only work by reference to the totality of what we know exists. On the face of it this immediately rules out arguments from design and the cosmological arguments. Leaving ontological arguments (which is as close to you get to bootstrapping a god into existence by definition only), moral arguments (for which there are naturalist defeaters), tag type arguments (which seem poor) and personal experience (which outside of each individual carry little weight).

[Edwardo Piet]

Understanding what something isn't is very much understanding what it is.

Not in and of itself. Since you failed to completely understand what I meant by "X". I'll create something imaginary instead and give you no information whatsoever about it (therefore it doesn't matter what I call it, hence why I just said "X" but you didn't get it). There's this thing that I can now claim to exist: It's called a "Grugwoodoozor", now in order to find out what this thing is, whatever it is, we need to find out what it is not. Do you see how ridiculous that is yet? How can we possibility find out what it is not if we don't have even the slightest bit of information to go by of what it is?

Knowing something isn't animal or vegetable lets us know our subject is mineral in a game of animal, vegetable and mineral.

Mineral already has a definition.

X = 1/26th of the alphabet.

I hope you understand that by "X" I obviously meant "insert anything here". X could be anything, and the point is, since it could be anything, whatever that is, we can't understand it through what it is not until it is defined in some way of what it is first.

Everything non-physical that we know of is either conceptual (a product of thought) or thought itself (unless you're a radical materialist, in which case the latter doesn't apply).

That's non-physical in the sense of mental. But mental is still physical in the sense that the mind (or consciousness within the brain in other words) is still part of the physical universe. As are concepts therefore as they reside in the brain. God almost certainly doesn't exist but the concept (well, the many concepts) of God still exists and they reside in the brain, which is all part of the physical universe, and in that very real sense, is physical

[Captain Scarlet]

That's non-physical in the sense of mental. But mental is still physical in the sense that the mind (or consciousness within the brain in other words) is still part of the physical universe. As are concepts therefore as they reside in the brain. God almost certainly doesn't exist but the concept (well, the many concepts) of God still exists and they reside in the brain, which is all part of the physical universe, and in that very real sense, is physical

I think this is right and it gets worse. I would claim the material world is all that there is. The common response to this apart from casuistry is to assert that I cannot disprove a superntural world. The problem with this argument is that those arguing for a supernatural world cannot disprove a super-super natural world which created the supernatural world (and which the superntural world knows nothing of its existence) ... and so on into infinite regress. In addition the supernaturalist cannot disprove that the natural world is necessary and that it didn't create the supernatural world which is contingent upon it. Round and round we go. I think there is a burden of proof for the supernaturalist which is not being picked up in the form of evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think this is right and it gets worse. I would claim the material world is all that there is. The common response to this apart from casuistry is to assert that I cannot disprove a superntural world. The problem with this argument is that those arguing for a supernatural world cannot disprove a super-super natural world which created the supernatural world (and which the superntural world knows nothing of its existence) ... and so on into infinite regress.

Interesting point but it still doesn't mean there's no supernatural realm. And also, if the supernatural realm is defined as "the highest realm" then there can be no higher, nothing more "super" than it.

In addition the supernaturalist cannot disprove that the natural world is necessary and that it didn't create the supernatural world which is contingent upon it. Round and round we go.

But the supernatural realm still may exist, in the sense that it isn't logically disproved.

I think there is a burden of proof for the supernaturalist which is not being picked up in the form of evidence.

If the supernatural is claimed then the burden of proof is on the supernaturalist. Because the burden of proof applies to all claims lacking in evidence.

[Captain Scarlet]

OO I agree with all of these points and wasn't seeking to make any different represntation.

[CRAPSTIANITY-SHITSLAM]

The topic's title has been formulated wrong. Correct should be: "Any evidence that any mythological creature like a 'God' exist?".

Then if someone had any reference that something mythological like a "God" exist, can post it.

-

Fact: Don't exist anything like a "God", because never has been approve the existence of any mythological creature like this.

AVE SCIENCE

[AngelThMan]

God hello are you there?...
[silence]
Some people think you dont exist, you don't like that do you?
[silence]
Will you send them to hell?
[silence]
What about all the others who worship other religions? If you look at a map of the world most people will be going to hell won't they?
[silence]
Whats the time up there?
[silence]
Why did you create the universe so chaotically, makijng it look like you didn't exist?
[silence]
Will I get what I want for Xmas?
[silence]
See you then...
[silence]

God is not going to answer someone whose purpose is clearly to prove he doesn't exist. I know your post is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but if you, or anyone did a similar test in real life, cynically calling on God to see if he responds, God would never respond. So a test like this would prove nothing.