There is no god or gods!

[Jackalope]

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."

That would be the case if empirical evidence should reasonably be expected to be found. If not, then we're back at only being able to conclude that we can't come to a conclusion.

Let's look at another problem to illustrate what I mean. Consider multiverse theory. There is theoretical support for the hypothesis, but nothing in the way of empirical evidence that supports multiverse theory over the standard inflationary model. In fact, the nature of the theory makes it impossible at this time to test empirically.

On that basis, it is certainly not reasonable to conclude that it is true, nor is it reasonable to conclude that it is false, or (in your words) almost certainly false (on the basis of empiricism). We cannot hope to prove something true or false based on empirical evidence we are not positioned to gather.

As another example, we cannot empirically examine the non-observable portion of our universe. It exists nonetheless.

This is not to say that a deity with specific contradictory properties could not be logically ruled out, of course.

---

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).

That of course raises more questions. Was the "miracle" real? Or were you fooled?

I saw a magician cut a woman in half and then put her back together once. Of course it was an illusion, but that serves to illustrate the point: if you witness something known to be impossible, absent any natural explanation of how it was done, how would you know if it was real, illusion, or hallucination?

Furthermore.... What is a god? What is impossible?

The questions aren't quite as simple as they may seem.

[Darkstar]

That would be the case if empirical evidence should reasonably be expected to be found. If not, then we're back at only being able to conclude that we can't come to a conclusion.

If god is deliberately hiding his own existence, then we won't find evidence. If he is 'everywhere', as some theists claim, then there should be mountains of it.

Let's look at another problem to illustrate what I mean. Consider multiverse theory. There is theoretical support for the hypothesis, but nothing in the way of empirical evidence that supports multiverse theory over the standard inflationary model. In fact, the nature of the theory makes it impossible at this time to test empirically.

On that basis, it is certainly not reasonable to conclude that it is true, nor is it reasonable to conclude that it is false, or (in your words) almost certainly false (on the basis of empiricism). We cannot hope to prove something true or false based on empirical evidence we are not positioned to gather.

As another example, we cannot empirically examine the non-observable portion of our universe. It exists nonetheless.

True, we cannot prove nor disprove multiverse theory; it is beyond what we can observe, just as god is claimed to be.

This is not to say that a deity with specific contradictory properties could not be logically ruled out, of course.

Therin lies the problem; of all the gods that theists claim to 'know' exist, they all fail in this regard. It is true that a god could theoretically exist, but almost certainly none of the gods proposed by religion.

If religion hadn't proposed god, no one would have ever thought about it because there is no evidence for it. Neither the multiverse nor god can be currently proven or disproven, but I would give the multiverse theory a major statistical advantage compared to a god in that even while blindly speculating one can be sure that of all possible explanations for something, an omnipotent, omniscent being that arose from nothing is the least likely explanation (and by Occam's razor).

I do not think it is absolutely impossible for a god to exist, but if the chance is 0.001%, I feel comfortable saying he doesn't. Someone said earlier (not sure if it was in this thread) that there is a difference between being certain, and having absolute proof. I do not have absolute proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I am certain of it in the same way I feel certain in saying that god does not exist.

---

That of course raises more questions. Was the "miracle" real? Or were you fooled?

I saw a magician cut a woman in half and then put her back together once. Of course it was an illusion, but that serves to illustrate the point: if you witness something known to be impossible, absent any natural explanation of how it was done, how would you know if it was real, illusion, or hallucination?

Furthermore.... What is a god? What is impossible?

The questions aren't quite as simple as they may seem.

1. God can repeat 'miracles' because he is omnipotent. In this context,a miracle is not simply 1 in 1,000,000, but something considered impossible. Upon closer examination, the cutting in half would be revealed to be fake, a true 'miracle' would not.

2. So we all simultaneously hallucinated the same exact dog, and so did everyone else who saw it?

3. True, they aren't simple. If god did something 'impossible', then it wouldn't be truly impossible. If we understood god, he wouldn't be supernatural, but natural. Maybe if he did something that should theoretically be impossible, we could call him god...but he could just be some uber-advanced alien that only seemed omnipotent...

No, I'm not saying it was aliens...

[Jackalope]

If god is deliberately hiding his own existence, then we won't find evidence. If he is 'everywhere', as some theists claim, then there should be mountains of it.

Quite possibly for the gods commonly claimed by theists, but that isn't what I'm speaking to. I'm speaking to the concept of deity in general.

This is not to say that a deity with specific contradictory properties could not be logically ruled out, of course.

I do not think it is absolutely impossible for a god to exist, but if the chance is 0.001%, I feel comfortable saying he doesn't. Someone said earlier (not sure if it was in this thread) that there is a difference between being certain, and having absolute proof. I do not have absolute proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I am certain of it in the same way I feel certain in saying that god does not exist.

When it comes to what I believe, I'm comfortable saying that the theistic gods do not exists. However, I won't assert that I know it to be true, because I don't - especially if you factor in deism and non-personal deities with unspecified qualities.

I'd have to ask "Precisely which god are we speaking of?". I will say that I'm personally certain enough that I think I'm in no danger of eternal torment, regardless of what I can prove. I recognize that my personal certainty doesn't equate to knowledge (or "absolute proof", in your words).

[Darkstar]

I recognize that my personal certainty doesn't equate to knowledge (or "absolute proof", in your words).

So we are basically in agreement. Although I cannot prove absolutely that god does not exist (as he has been labeled as 'unknowable' by his inventors) I am personally certain that he does not. If the definition of strong atheist is someone who has proved god's non-existence, then such a term is useless. I take strong atheist to mean someone who is personally certain that there is no god, and weak atheist to mean someone who doesn't believe in god, but still has at least some doubt of his non-existenece.

[Dranu]

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.

As said earlier, the infinite being.

It is infinite. If it is infinite, then how could there be room for anything else?

You are right in concluding there can be only one. Though the argument is perhaps slightly different than you may think, you are on the right track here (it more has to do with issues of identity and distinction).

As for there being room for all that is finite (creation) refer to my first post. Something can only conflict between limitations. Since God has none (being infinite), there is no internal limit that could conflict with anything else and create a contradiction (such as a being spcio temporally limited not being able to exist in the same place at the same time as another; etc).

Though this is not a problem for Spinoza's/Einstein's God since they are pantheist (I loved it when a Catholic priest proved to him the big bang on his own physics giving some proof to western theism ), it is an issue I ought to address since I'm no pantheist.

---

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.

Correction: IMPOSSIBLE to disprove at all before even observation (a priori). Now some things are practically non-falsifiable, but God is one of the few things I can think of that is logically non-falsifiable a priori.

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.

No, I would imagine he is quite falsifiable depending on what you mean, it is just impractical for us to be able to do so with our current tech, knowledge etc.

Unless of course you mean the same thing as 'God' and are just calling him the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. I can call a dog a cat, but it doesn't mean the dog is a cat if I mean the dog .

Anyhow, when I have more time I will try and keep us on topic because I think you still have not actually answered my earlier question, but since I am so charitable I have responded anyhow

[Darkstar]

First you need to define your god.

As said earlier, the infinite being.

Can a being be infinite, even in theory? We are not even sure if the entire universe is infinite, so how could something be greater than the universe? If god is greater than the universe itself, then it would be illogical to conclude that god could come into being from nothing when the universe could not. (and if you say that he did not come into being but always existed, then why could the singularity not have always been?)

It is infinite. If it is infinite, then how could there be room for anything else?

You are right in concluding there can be only one. Though the argument is perhaps slightly different than you may think, you are on the right track here (it more has to do with issues of identity and distinction).

As for there being room for all that is finite (creation) refer to my first post. Something can only conflict between limitations. Since God has none (being infinite), there is no internal limit that could conflict with anything else and create a contradiction (such as a being spcio temporally limited not being able to exist in the same place at the same time as another; etc).

Though this is not a problem for Spinoza's/Einstein's God since they are pantheist (I loved it when a Catholic priest proved to him the big bang on his own physics giving some proof to western theism ), it is an issue I ought to address since I'm no pantheist.

---

So, basically, because god is defined as infinite he is allowed to break the laws of physics and contradict himself without losing validity, and even create a paradox that isn't impossible. He can make 2+2=7 and be right. If it is beyond the scope of human understanding (or, more accurately, it is literally impossible), then it is 'the mystery of god'.

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.

Correction: IMPOSSIBLE to disprove at all before even observation (a priori). Now some things are practically non-falsifiable, but God is one of the few things I can think of that is logically non-falsifiable a priori.

Because he is defined as infinite, of course he is non-falsifiable. There will always be gaps for god-of-the-gaps to hide in. Once you disprove FSM with absolute certainty, I will do so for god (becuase neither can be done).

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.

No, I would imagine he is quite falsifiable depending on what you mean, it is just impractical for us to be able to do so with our current tech, knowledge etc.

Unless of course you mean the same thing as 'God' and are just calling him the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. I can call a dog a cat, but it doesn't mean the dog is a cat if I mean the dog .

Anyhow, when I have more time I will try and keep us on topic because I think you still have not actually answered my earlier question, but since I am so charitable I have responded anyhow

The person who invented the Flying Spaghetti Monster created him as a god. He is a parody of how easy it is to create a ridiculous and non-falsifiable story and claim it true, whilst revealing false secrets of the universe*. Likewise, if you say that when I say 'Flying Spagheti Monster' I mean god, then god can be anything so long as he is omnipotent. You earlier described god as 'the infinite being'. Therfore, the only quality of god is his omnipotence. Therefore, if we assume that god exists and that there can only be one, then you can you say with any confidence that the god you worship is anything like the real god, other than being omnipotent?

*Regardless of what miracles in the bible you believe in, you cannot deny (whilst remaining intelletually honest) that the earth is not flat, nor does the sun revolve around it.

[IATIA]

Infinity does exist. For god to be infinite, instananeous knowledge of something that does not have an end would be impossible and slower than instananeous ... well ...

Therefore this god could not be infinite in any respect. When theists speak of an infinite god with infinite powers, it is obvious they have no concept of what an infinity is and a god with less than infinite existance, would not be a god.

[Dranu]

So, basically, because god is defined as infinite he is allowed to break the laws of physics and contradict himself without losing validity, and even create a paradox that isn't impossible. He can make 2+2=7 and be right. If it is beyond the scope of human understanding (or, more accurately, it is literally impossible), then it is 'the mystery of god'.

No no, God does not break the laws of physics because (essentially speaking) God subsists and enables physical reality. Sort of like how math exists (by very imperfect analogy). 2+2=4 at all places and at all time with all things, and physical reality partakes of these divine eternal laws (co-existent with whatever exists in the same 'place').

God also cannot make 2+2=7 or anything contradictory. You are right to say He is omnipotent, but omnipotence only entails the ability to do anything. A contradiction is not even a thing, it designates nothing, and is not just 'beyond' our God-given reason, but opposes it.

Because he is defined as infinite, of course he is non-falsifiable.

That is correct, and this is before all facts. Unlike God, most other things are logically non-falsifiable, even if completely impractical and beyond our capacity to do so (this is an important point that distinguishes God from flying teapots, etc. There is a difference between lacking the ability to disprove something practically and it being truly, logically non-falsifiable!).

There will always be gaps for god-of-the-gaps to hide in. Once you disprove FSM with absolute certainty, I will do so for god (becuase neither can be done).

Again, I do not know what you mean by a FSM, but, unless its just another name you give God (in which case the argument is merely verbal), I can show you how its possibly false (unlike God).

This has nothing to do with that silly meme of 'god-of-the-gaps'. The Catholic God has never gone under a definitional shift nor minimalized in the role He plays in the universe. Modern science has also confirmed our cosmology where it used to be doubted 'scientifically' for thousands of years. Friend, please save that 'god-in-the-gaps' meme for the anti-intellectual fundamentalists. It is somewhat effective there I think (besides the unfortunate fact that they are anti-intellectual and such arguments are ineffective on them anyhow )

[Darkstar]

No no, God does not break the laws of physics because (essentially speaking) God subsists and enables physical reality. Sort of like how math exists (by very imperfect analogy). 2+2=4 at all places and at all time with all things, and physical reality partakes of these divine eternal laws (co-existent with whatever exists in the same 'place').

God also cannot make 2+2=7 or anything contradictory. You are right to say He is omnipotent, but omnipotence only entails the ability to do anything. A contradiction is not even a thing, it designates nothing, and is not just 'beyond' our God-given reason, but opposes it.

1. Therefore there are no laws of physics, only the illusion of them because we cannot break them.
2. God contradicts himself plenty of times in the bible, so why do you say he can't do anything contradictory?
3. Omnipotence itself is contradictory. If god cannot contradict himself, then there are things he cannot do, and he is not truly omnipotent.

There will always be gaps for god-of-the-gaps to hide in. Once you disprove FSM with absolute certainty, I will do so for god (becuase neither can be done).

Again, I do not know what you mean by a FSM, but, unless its just another name you give God (in which case the argument is merely verbal), I can show you how its possibly false (unlike God).

FSM=Flying Spaghetti Monster
My point is that I could invent an equally non-falsifiable god in my head right now. Likewise, what is 'another name you give god'? Does that mean all gods are just different interpretations of the real one? In that case he would contradict himself greatly. If not, then which ones are, and how can we know? How can we know that the true god has even revealed himself at all, and that he isn't the god of a religion that doesn't exist yet?

This has nothing to do with that silly meme of 'god-of-the-gaps'. The Catholic God has never gone under a definitional shift nor minimalized in the role He plays in the universe. Modern science has also confirmed our cosmology where it used to be doubted 'scientifically' for thousands of years. Friend, please save that 'god-in-the-gaps' meme for the anti-intellectual fundamentalists. It is somewhat effective there I think (besides the unfortunate fact that they are anti-intellectual and such arguments are ineffective on them anyhow )

I suppose that is true. God is absolutely non-falsifiable as he is defined, therefore even unlimited scientific knowledge could not disprove him, therefore god-of-the-gaps is unnecessary. The one question that always ties me down is this: if the universe could not come into existence without god, and god is infinitely greater than the universe, then how could god come into existence from nothing, when the universe cannot? (If the answer is 'I don't know', then we can be excused from not knowing how the universe came to be) Likewise, the universe took 14,000,000,000+ years to reach its current state, god appeared instantaneously. If there was no beginning to time, then the universe could have existed forever. If there was, then god would have had to have formed instantaneously from nothing in order to have always been, whereas the universe would have no such time restrictions.

[Dranu]

1. Therefore there are no laws of physics, only the illusion of them because we cannot break them.

I am not sure I understand you here. How does the fact that 2+2=4 at all places and at all times prove physics is false? Numbers are not physical things and so are beyond physics even though physical laws still apply to physical things.

2. God contradicts himself plenty of times in the bible, so why do you say he can't do anything contradictory?

I know of instances of apparent contradictions in Scripture, but no necessary ones. Certainly, I can see how you can fair mindedly call them contradictions though. Anyhow, I deny God commits contradictions by reason. I'm Catholic after all. We also believe in the holy book of nature and reason and deny Sola Scriptura as heresy. Thus I interpret scripture in light of Tradition, Magisterium, reason, and science.

Nevertheless, though perhaps an interesting criticism for certain believers of the Christian god, this is somewhat off my point. I am talking about God in the generic natural theology sense, not Christian specifically (even if that is the right interpretation ).

3. Omnipotence itself is contradictory. If god cannot contradict himself, then there are things he cannot do, and he is not truly omnipotent.

If a contradiction is not a thing (as it most certainly is not), then not being able to do it is not a thing God cannot do. Thus, not being able to do contradictions does not negate omnipotence (the ability to do anything).

I suppose that is true. God is absolutely non-falsifiable as he is defined, therefore even unlimited scientific knowledge could not disprove him, therefore god-of-the-gaps is unnecessary.

You will find some fundamentalists who will give you a falsifiable version of a god and to who this god-of-the-gaps criticism is somewhat applicable (typically the ones who think evolution and God are incompatible, etc). However, as to God of natural theology in general, you are right.

The one question that always ties me down is this: if the universe could not come into existence without god, and god is infinitely greater than the universe, then how could god come into existence from nothing, when the universe cannot?

According to what I have argued so far, some may conclude, like Spinoza, that the universe is the infinite being (though this has some logical problems). Assuming the universe is creation though, then it is finite, at least in the way of Cantor's transfinites. That is, it might be infinite in kind but not absolutely. It is lacking/limited in some ways. Thus, if we hold the principle of sufficient reason (basically the principle that reason applies to all things), we need assume a sufficient reason for it (we wouldn't if it were completely infinite). God, however, being infinite, is a sufficient explanation for Himself. Of course being infinite means being eternal, so there is no coming into existence or instantaneously appearing for Him either.

Likewise, the universe took 14,000,000,000+ years to reach its current state, god appeared instantaneously. If there was no beginning to time, then the universe could have existed forever.

Fortunately the natural sciences (in very recent years; thanks to a Catholic priest) have 'proven' to us that the universe is 14 billion+ years old, not eternal. Everything empirical points to a start point, disproving the quasi-atheistic 'atheism-of-the-gaps' theory of the static universe. As far as the cause of the universe goes, atheism-of-the-gaps can at least still seek a refuge there in the closing gaps and speculate the cause was non-theistic or try and criticize the science of the big bang (which is pretty solid by this point).