There is no god or gods!

[genkaus]

I don't think one can easily deny God exists and feel certain about it. I think it's impossible. However the same is not true of a magical pink unicorn creating the universe. I think even if one cannot prove that to be impossible, one can honestly feel certain there is no such thing.

Actually, one can. I do it everyday. God doesn't exist - see?

There is several reasons why I feel this is the case. Knowledge of God is similar to me to that of (objective) morality. People can disbelieve in (objective) morality, but they can never be sure it's a delusion. There is something in them telling them it's not a delusion.

I believe in objective morality. God, on the other hand, is a delusion.

The same is true of greatness. We can be all confused about it, we can even think it has no basis, and is a delusion, but we can never feel certain it is a delusion.

Nope. I'm all for greatness as well. Still, no god.

Ultimate Great being existing. Ultimate Greatness as the foundation of our own perceptions of greatness, be they twisted from him or very much in line with him, the ultimate moral being being the foundation of our morality be they as clear or clouded they maybe, twisted or in line with him....Perfection truly existing in an objective sense...though we may twisted in our perception of perfection....

No, a human can deny such a thing, can say I don't know, but he will never feel certain of it not existing.

I can and do deny it. And I feel certain doing it. In fact, if I even had a doubt that god existed, then I wouldn't be able to believe in either objective morality or greatness.

It will always bug him...why? Because deep down inside is a hidden knowledge.

Doesn't bug me.

For some that knowledge is so out there, it's impossible for them to doubt. For others, it's buried deep within, so it's impossible for them to believe, but yet they cannot feel certain it doesn't exist.

And others don't have any such delusions masquerading as knowledge.

And if his glory displays eternalness, one can perhaps doubt eternal glory existing, eternal beauty existing, eternal majesty existing, and our souls being created through that eternal glory constantly, emitting existence to us...but it can never be sure such a being doesn't exist. It can never be sure it's own glory and beauty is separate from eternal beauty and glory.

It can be confused, it can feel like "how can I know such a being exists"...but it can never be sure that it doesn't exist.

And that is why, really, that no one feels certain that God doesn't exist.

But really, I am certain that god does not exist. Because if he did, the concepts of beauty, glory, majesty, morality and greatness would all be rendered moot and meaningless. These concepts hold meaning precisely because they are rooted in human consciousness. It is because we are the product of existence that we can attach different value to different aspects. If it was the other way around, then any such differentiation would be meaningless.

[Dranu]

I see your point. That argument fails on so many levels that it would be a waste of time.

Sure, whatever. If you want to discuss it though, let me know.

Let us get back on track. Take "Russell's teapot" for example. I can send a satellite up and verify it's existence or not. A 'true believer' however, will insist that the satellite was in the wrong orbit to observe it or used the wrong equipment. Maybe the satellite was arbitrarily at the same speed? Set the satellite to random bursts of speed to compensate, then the 'true believer' will say the 'teapot' affected the orbital speed to remain undetected. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Okay? I am not sure I see the relevance here friend. Are you saying (because I am more interested in my discussion with you, not something you quote and I care not to read) that arguments that demonstrate that it is near impossible to show something 'x' is existent or non-existent are proof they are non-existent? If so that seems a tad bit peculiar. I would think a pure agnostic position would make more s[/i]ense there if thats the case (on a basis of reason alone anyhow).

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the stated point of the thread was to "elaborate on what possible proof there could be for the non-existence of any god or gods." I gave my answer (proof) in the first post in this thread that there is no such argument (and can never be) as it relates to God (the almighty) in the major religions.

[IATIA]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the stated point of the thread was to "elaborate on what possible proof there could be for the non-existence of any god or gods." I gave my answer (proof) in the first post in this thread that there is no such argument (and can never be) as it relates to God (the almighty) in the major religions.

Actually the question is, "Why do I have to substantiate a claim of non-existence of a deity when it is the theist making the positive claim?". Followed by, "What possible proof could there be for a negative?". Ergo, the Russell's Teapot example.

As to the revelence of the teapot to all of this, if I can prove there is no teapot, I can use the same technique to prove there is no god.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument which is why any proof of the teapot's non-existence will probably fail and why (on one of many levels) your argument fails.

You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

I believe a 'Pink Unicorn' could possibly exist, therefore possibly a 'Pink Unicorn' does exist.

Na-nah na-nah boo boo! Reductio ad absurdum.

[Dranu]

Actually the question is, "Why do I have to substantiate a claim of non-existence of a deity when it is the theist making the positive claim?".

Ahh ok, in that case you would be right in consenting God cannot be disproven. Also there may be no logical burden on you in relation to God's existence. If you do not claim God does not exist, then there is no logical burden of proof in relation to God's existence on your position (as long as you also do not claim God exists). Of course you may have a burden of proof for asserting that the agnostic position is thus the right position.

However, the so-called 'hard' atheist has a burden of proof just like a theist for God's existence (for they also make an assertion; namely 'God does not exists').

Followed by, "What possible proof could there be for a negative?". Ergo, the Russell's Teapot example.

It would be wrong to say a negative cannot be disproven. It is done all the time with great ease in many things (though not all, obviously).

As to the revelence of the teapot to all of this, if I can prove there is no teapot, I can use the same technique to prove there is no god.

Please do demonstrate the (as shown in my first post) impossible. It is logically impossible to show God is impossible (whereas it is logically possible for just about everything else even if improbable if not practically impossible). This is a fairly unique quality of God.

I believe a 'Pink Unicorn' could possibly exist, therefore possibly a 'Pink Unicorn' does exist.

Na-nah na-nah boo boo! Reductio ad absurdum.

Hmm? I don't follow. Perhaps you are trying to criticize the Ontological argument? If so, the term of art to be used is 'overload argument' (such as the famous Island argument) not 'Reductio ad Absurdum' (which is actually what St. Anselm's Ontological argument is; it assumes a premise to demonstrate its absurdity form what follows)

---

[Darkstar]

Ahh ok, in that case you would be right in consenting God cannot be disproven. Also there may be no logical burden on you in relation to God's existence. If you do not claim God does not exist, then there is no logical burden of proof in relation to God's existence on your position (as long as you also do not claim God exists). Of course you may have a burden of proof for asserting that the agnostic position is thus the right position.

However, the so-called 'hard' atheist has a burden of proof just like a theist for God's existence (for they also make an assertion; namely 'God does not exists').

Well, if you have the burden of proof for saying that god exists, and you cannot prove it, it is logical to conclude that he does not. If you say "god does not exist" as a conclusion drawn from the fact that you cannot provide evidence he does, I don't think it entails the same burden.

It would be wrong to say a negative cannot be disproven. It is done all the time with great ease in many things (though not all, obviously).

Not all, as in those things which are non-falsifiable by definition. God is non-falsifiable in the way that he has been defined, therefore the 'unknowable' god of which most theists speak cannot be disproven absolutely.

Please do demonstrate the (as shown in my first post) impossible. It is logically impossible to show God is impossible (whereas it is logically possible for just about everything else even if improbable if not practically impossible). This is a fairly unique quality of God.

This is a fairly unique quality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Well, it is...) Alternatively, this is a fairly common quality among the thousands of gods various religions have claimed to exist.

I believe a 'Pink Unicorn' could possibly exist, therefore possibly a 'Pink Unicorn' does exist.
Na-nah na-nah boo boo! Reductio ad absurdum

Hmm? I don't follow. Perhaps you are trying to criticize the Ontological argument? If so, the term of art to be used is 'overload argument' (such as the famous Island argument) not 'Reductio ad Absurdum' (which is actually what St. Anselm's Ontological argument is; it assumes a premise to demonstrate its absurdity form what follows)

---

Which does not refute the first part of his statement in any way...

[IATIA]

As to the revelence of the teapot to all of this, if I can prove there is no teapot, I can use the same technique to prove there is no god.

Please do demonstrate the (as shown in my first post) impossible. It is logically impossible to show God is impossible (whereas it is logically possible for just about everything else even if improbable if not practically impossible). This is a fairly unique quality of God.

First you need to define your god.

For god number one;
It is infinite. If it is infinite, then how could there be room for anything else?

For god number two;
It is finite. If it is finite, then reasonably, there could be two. This would also be incompatable with a 'supreme being'.

---

Prove 'Russell's Teapot' does not exist.

[Jackalope]

Well, if you have the burden of proof for saying that god exists, and you cannot prove it, it is logical to conclude that he does not.

Is it? In that case where the burden of proof has not been met to establish a positive claim, the logical conclusion is that the burden of proof has not been met.

In other words, all that can be said is that the question remains unanswered.

It is reasonable and rational to withhold belief where the burden has not been met, but it is not so to conclude that the claim is falsified. Asserting non-existence is not the same as asserting non-belief, and as Dranu correctly states, bears it's own burden of proof.

Ergo, I am an agnostic atheist.

[Darkstar]

Well, if you have the burden of proof for saying that god exists, and you cannot prove it, it is logical to conclude that he does not.

Is it? In that case where the burden of proof has not been met to establish a positive claim, the logical conclusion is that the burden of proof has not been met.

In other words, all that can be said is that the question remains unanswered.

It is reasonable and rational to withhold belief where the burden has not been met, but it is not so to conclude that the claim is falsified. Asserting non-existence is not the same as asserting non-belief, and as Dranu correctly states, bears it's own burden of proof.

Ergo, I am an agnostic atheist.

Better wording: "Well, if you have the burden of proof for saying that god exists, and you cannot provide any empirical evidence for it, it is logical to conclude that he almost certainly does not."
I am a strong atheist because I believe that the concept of god is so ridiculous that the chance of him existing is too small to matter, in leiu of actual evidence.

[IATIA]

I am a strong atheist because I believe that the concept of god is so ridiculous that the chance of him existing is too small to matter, in leiu of actual evidence.

My Bold

Which begs another question. What possible proof could there be of a god? Send jesus up to me? "Hi, I am jesus. What questions do you have for me?" I would just give the street bum a smoke and a buck then send him on his way.

[Darkstar]

Which begs another question. What possible proof could there be of a god? Send jesus up to me? "Hi, I am jesus. What questions do you have for me?" I would just give the street bum a smoke and a buck then send him on his way.

Well, if someone claiming to be god did something previously proven impossible, that would be a good start. (And I'm not talking something probably impossible, I mean like making a live dog materialize out of thin air by snapping his fingers) Of course, we wouldn't know which god it was. God would be playing a pretty good game of hide and seek if he existed. If he wanted to prove once and for all that he existed, it would be easy to demonstrate.

On a related note, some theists say that god will never prove his own existence because we would have no choice but to follow him if he did, infringing on our free will. And yet some theists claim non-belief in god is a choice, that we could choose to beleive if we wanted. How would we lose the ability to choose if he manifested himself if we were in denial as those theists had claimed? Wouldn't it be a better test to reveal yourself and see who follows, rather than hide yourself and see who blindly believes?