I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[Copernicus]

Yes, I can prove that God does not exist, but it is also true that other people can prove that he does not. That's because "proof" in the context of such an argument is usually about whether or not God or deities are likely to exist, not whether there is some absolute logical proof of existence. (Exception: philosophical debates in the sense of scholasticism, which I am not interested in here.) We believe or don't believe because the concept of God seems credible to us, and we establish credibility on the basis of evidence. In my experience, most believers think that they have sufficient evidence to find God credible.

But how is it possible for me to prove something to exist, if someone else can prove it not to exist? Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises. The catch here is that the premises must themselves be true in order for the conclusion to be true. A conclusion that merely follows from premises is valid, but not necessarily true. A valid conclusion that follows from true premises is necessarily true. That is, the proof is sound.

Debates over the existence of God always seem to go nowhere. People on both sides of the debate are almost never persuaded to a conclusion that is opposite the one they started with. My point here is that the debate is never over the truth of the conclusion. It is almost always over the truth of one or more premises. The only way to win such a debate is to stipulate that all the premises leading to the conclusion are true.

So what is my "easy" proof that God does not exist? Right here:

1. God is a disembodied spiritual agency.
2. Disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

Too simple? Of course it is. Most people believe in the existence of disembodied spiritual agencies, so they reject the second premise right off the bat. Very few theists will deny the first premise, although I have rarely come across some who do. It is part of Mormon doctrine, I believe, that God does have a material body, although one would need to check on that with the individual Mormon, I think.

What about the second premise? Is it true or false? I believe that it is true. All agencies, whether you want to term them "spiritual" or not, require material brains in order to exist. The evidence for my belief comes from the observation that agents cease to exist when the brains that they depend on are destroyed. We know this, because consciousness is impaired when the brain is damaged, and consciousness is a key component of volition or agency. Now don't tell me that you disagree with that belief, or we'll have to have a debate over it, before we come back to my original ironclad proof that God does not exist.

I could obviously go on, but I invite others to comment on or critique my thesis: I can easily prove that God exists, but there are others who can easily prove he does not. The argument is almost always over the soundness of the proposed proof, not the validity. So the real debate is never really over whether the conclusion is true. It is really over whether other beliefs that the conclusion depends on are true.

 

[bilby]

Whether or not disembodied spiritual entities exist, we now know (as well as we know any scientific facts) that there is no possible mechanism for such entities to influence physical objects on a human scale.

There are no unknown particles or forces at energies conversant with live human beings. And we can detect all of the known particles and forces, and there are no unexplained ones that could possibly be the vectors of divine intervention.

Gods are as plausible and as real as perpetual motion machines. People who believe that either are possible simply don't understand fundamental physics.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/10/22/from-particles-to-people-the-laws-of-nature-and-the-meaning-of-life/

 

[Copernicus]

I've seen reports that roughly half the population believes that ghosts exist. The real driver behind such beliefs is an intuitive belief that thoughts and emotions exist independently of physical reality. This belief persists across all human cultures that I am aware of, and it exists despite the fact that people also seem well aware of the connection between brains and mental processes It is obvious that brain damage impairs mental functions, not to mention the ability to control one's physical body. Nevertheless, people seem to feel that there is a kind of parallel spiritual body that might be liberated by the death of the physical body.

The point of the OP is that we don't really debate the existence of God. The debate always comes down to something other than the reality of God, and those premises that we use to justify god belief tend to be far more tractable and subject to debate than claims that we can't somehow really prove or disprove God's existence.

 

[bilby]

People believe all kinds of things that are not only untrue, but easily tested.

It's no great shock that they believe untrue things that are hard to test.

Lots of people believe that the sun is yellow; or that the moon is only visible at night.

When people are able to be wrong about things that are constantly in their face on a regular basis, we must expect a lot of wrongness about a lot of things.

Substance dualism is hugely popular; but it remains completely nonsensical.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I accept the invitation.

Yes, I can prove that God does not exist, but it is also true that other people can prove that he does not. That's because "proof" in the context of such an argument is usually about whether or not God or deities are likely to exist, not whether there is some absolute logical proof of existence. (Exception: philosophical debates in the sense of scholasticism, which I am not interested in here.) We believe or don't believe because the concept of God seems credible to us, and we establish credibility on the basis of evidence. In my experience, most believers think that they have sufficient evidence to find God credible.

Close. Usually, the claim is (roughly if not exactly) that one can establish beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., conclusively) that God exists/doesn't exist. The arguments are not always or mostly deductions, but arguments in the sense of "arguing a case". They may and often involve a combination of deductive arguments, empirical evidence (i.e., observations), moral argumentation, appeals to authority, etc.

I think equivalently (or close to that), it's to provide information so that it would be epistemically irrational for a person that gets that information to fail to believe that God exists/does not exist. Here, there is an implicit reference to certain epistemic position of the persons in question, since information that is rationally compelling to a rational agent may not be rationally compelling to another one with a different epistemic starting point (e.g., DNA evidence may contribute considerably to establish beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a present-day jury that a defendant is guilty, but it would have had no effect on a rational jury from 100 years ago; further evidence - about what DNA is, why tests are reliable, etc. - would be needed. Even if the present-day jury also requires expert testimony, the 1918 jury would require a lot more, just to establish the credibility of the experts in that weird thing called "DNA", etc.). Also, some information that part of the the intended audience already might be meant to be ignored, so perhaps other arguments and pieces of information are left aside for the sake of the argument.

In philosophical discussions, by the way, this sort of argumentation is also very frequent, even if it's not called "proof" usually, and it's of higher quality than in ordinary debates (usually, i.e., in most cases).

But how is it possible for me to prove something to exist, if someone else can prove it not to exist?

The same way ou can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty while someone else can establish that he is not. Most of the time, it is not doable. But it might be doable, for reasons such as:

1. What is rationally compelling information (i.e., it would be unreasonable/epistemically irrational to fail to believe what is being argued for) to a person may not be so to another (see 1918 jury example above).
2. Even rationally compelling information only increases the probability to a point, but not to 1, and further information might go in the other direction - though it would be unreasonable to expect so in a given case!

Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises.

Not in the sense of "proof" you are talking about, which is about establishing stuff conclusively. Even going by what you say in the first paragraph, except in the "Exception: philosophical debates..."), etc., also except in those cases, it's not about showing that it follows from a set of premises, at least not mostly. The premises and conclusion might help, but that's just the formal argument, which in this context is usually extremely simple. The real argument is the argument in the sense of "arguing a case", which is the part in which the arguer intends to establish some of the premises (usually, at least half the premises are obvious, so there is no need to argue for them), by providing information as explained above.

So what is my "easy" proof that God does not exist? Right here:

That is not a proof that God does not exist in the sense of "proof" described above.

 

[Jobar]

There's a major problem here with defining the central term.

I'm reminded of something from Robert Green Ingersoll:

In the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows:

"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without
body, parts or passions."

Think of that! -- without body, parts, or passions. I defy any
man in the world to write a better description of nothing. You
cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than "without
body, parts, or passions." And yet this God, without passions, is
angry at the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a
jealous God, whose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God,
without passions, loves the whole human race; and this God, without
passions, damns a large majority of mankind. This God without body,
walked in the Garden of Eden, in the cool of the day. This God,
without body, talked with Adam and Eve. This God, without body, or
parts met Moses upon Mount Sinai, appeared at the door of the
tabernacle, and talked with Moses face to face as a man speaketh to
his friend. This description of God is simply an effort of the
church to describe a something of which it has no conception.

One reason to be an atheist can be called non-cognitivism- "I do not understand what believers mean when they use the word 'God'." We can try and try to come to some common understanding with believers, but instead of a more precise mutual definition, things get more and more blurry; instead of converging on a single idea, it diverges.

The same is true for believers in different faiths; even very slight differences in dogma are nearly impossible to mend.

 

[Copernicus]

I accept the invitation.

Yes, I can prove that God does not exist, but it is also true that other people can prove that he does not. That's because "proof" in the context of such an argument is usually about whether or not God or deities are likely to exist, not whether there is some absolute logical proof of existence. (Exception: philosophical debates in the sense of scholasticism, which I am not interested in here.) We believe or don't believe because the concept of God seems credible to us, and we establish credibility on the basis of evidence. In my experience, most believers think that they have sufficient evidence to find God credible.

Close. Usually, the claim is (roughly if not exactly) that one can establish beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., conclusively) that God exists/doesn't exist. The arguments are not always or mostly deductions, but arguments in the sense of "arguing a case". They may and often involve a combination of deductive arguments, empirical evidence (i.e., observations), moral argumentation, appeals to authority, etc.

I think equivalently (or close to that), it's to provide information so that it would be epistemically irrational for a person that gets that information to fail to believe that God exists/does not exist. Here, there is an implicit reference to certain epistemic position of the persons in question, since information that is rationally compelling to a rational agent may not be rationally compelling to another one with a different epistemic starting point (e.g., DNA evidence may contribute considerably to establish beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a present-day jury that a defendant is guilty, but it would have had no effect on a rational jury from 100 years ago; further evidence - about what DNA is, why tests are reliable, etc. - would be needed. Even if the present-day jury also requires expert testimony, the 1918 jury would require a lot more, just to establish the credibility of the experts in that weird thing called "DNA", etc.). Also, some information that part of the the intended audience already might be meant to be ignored, so perhaps other arguments and pieces of information are left aside for the sake of the argument.

In philosophical discussions, by the way, this sort of argumentation is also very frequent, even if it's not called "proof" usually, and it's of higher quality than in ordinary debates (usually, i.e., in most cases).

In trying to wade through all of that, I searched in vain for something that was substantively different from what I had said. Maybe I just missed the point you were trying to make, but it seemed to me that you had missed what I was trying to say. I did explicitly say that I wasn't interested in an "absolute logical proof" but a proof of credibility. I was talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. empirical proof. My point was that the syllogism constructed to conclude God's likely nonexistence was never an adequate basis for reaching the conclusion, because credibility really rests on some premise, which turns out to be an argument that theists and non-theists are better able to come to terms on. You never want to actually directly conclude that God exists or doesn't exist on the basis of a high level argument. The real disputes invariably lie hidden at a deeper level, e.g. the question of substance vs property dualism. Almost all belief systems involving deities are ultimately based on substance dualism. If I start out arguing with a theist over God's existence and don't make clear my rejection of substance dualism, then I am arguing about the wrong area of disagreement. I would certainly agree with theists, if I accepted all of the assumptions that they were making to support their belief.

But how is it possible for me to prove something to exist, if someone else can prove it not to exist?

The same way ou can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty while someone else can establish that he is not. Most of the time, it is not doable. But it might be doable, for reasons such as:

1. What is rationally compelling information (i.e., it would be unreasonable/epistemically irrational to fail to believe what is being argued for) to a person may not be so to another (see 1918 jury example above).
2. Even rationally compelling information only increases the probability to a point, but not to 1, and further information might go in the other direction - though it would be unreasonable to expect so in a given case!

From this, I conclude that you are in basic agreement with my point--that people who fail to agree on the premises (or factual evidence) are wasting their time unless they can agree on what the facts are. So the argument is always at a lower level, and it is imperative to take the argument there rather than to just leave it at the 'guilty/not guilty' level, where everyone just assumes a common understanding of the premises. Guilt or lack thereof follows after there is an agreement on priors. So when someone says "Prove that God does not exist", I can easily prove it, based on the premises that I hold to be true. But that kind of superficial proof is uninteresting and beside the point. Arguments over the existence of God are always less interesting than those over issues that bear on stepping back to premises.

Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises.

Not in the sense of "proof" you are talking about, which is about establishing stuff conclusively. Even going by what you say in the first paragraph, except in the "Exception: philosophical debates..."), etc., also except in those cases, it's not about showing that it follows from a set of premises, at least not mostly. The premises and conclusion might help, but that's just the formal argument, which in this context is usually extremely simple. The real argument is the argument in the sense of "arguing a case", which is the part in which the arguer intends to establish some of the premises (usually, at least half the premises are obvious, so there is no need to argue for them), by providing information as explained above.

This is where I remind you that I wasn't interested in establishing stuff conclusively. I am interested in establishing it as credible. I was always talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt. See that in the last sentence of the first paragraph that you quoted. When you step back to arguing over a critical premise--the place where theists and non-theists really have a substantive disagreement, you still use logic to make the case. Logic exists at all levels of an argument, even when one is arguing on purely empirical grounds.

So what is my "easy" proof that God does not exist? Right here:

That is not a proof that God does not exist in the sense of "proof" described above.

Now you've lost me. Or perhaps my argument went completely over your head. You may have a very different idea of what you think I meant by "logical proof". I was very clear that a "logical proof" is not necessarily a sound proof. You have to establish the truth of all prior premises before you can reach a sound conclusion. IOW, we aren't ever really arguing over whether God exists. We are arguing over the premises necessary to reach such a conclusion.

 

[Copernicus]

There's a major problem here with defining the central term.

I'm reminded of something from Robert Green Ingersoll:

In the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows:

"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without
body, parts or passions."

Think of that! -- without body, parts, or passions. I defy any
man in the world to write a better description of nothing. You
cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than "without
body, parts, or passions." And yet this God, without passions, is
angry at the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a
jealous God, whose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God,
without passions, loves the whole human race; and this God, without
passions, damns a large majority of mankind. This God without body,
walked in the Garden of Eden, in the cool of the day. This God,
without body, talked with Adam and Eve. This God, without body, or
parts met Moses upon Mount Sinai, appeared at the door of the
tabernacle, and talked with Moses face to face as a man speaketh to
his friend. This description of God is simply an effort of the
church to describe a something of which it has no conception.

One reason to be an atheist can be called non-cognitivism- "I do not understand what believers mean when they use the word 'God'." We can try and try to come to some common understanding with believers, but instead of a more precise mutual definition, things get more and more blurry; instead of converging on a single idea, it diverges.

The same is true for believers in different faiths; even very slight differences in dogma are nearly impossible to mend.

There is no major problem with defining the central term unless you reject the truth of premise #1. If you accept its truth and the truth of the second premise, then the conclusion is inescapable. If you want to argue over premise #1, then that just means that the real argument is not over my proof. It is over a low level premise. That is where the substantive argument exists. However, at that point, we are just having a terminological dispute, not a substantive one. Most atheists are not non-cognitivists. They know perfectly well what most believers mean by their use of the word "God", IMO. But we can always have an argument over that.

 

[excreationist]

The idea that we are in a simulation is kind of compatible with the Christian God. His mind could exist in a physical world outside of the simulation.

...I can easily prove that God exists, but there are others who can easily prove he does not....

How can it be a genuine "proof" if the opposite can also be "proved".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In trying to wade through all of that, I searched in vain for something that was substantively different from what I had said. Maybe I just missed the point you were trying to make, but it seemed to me that you had missed what I was trying to say. I did explicitly say that I wasn't interested in an "absolute logical proof" but a proof of credibility. I was talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. empirical proof.

As I said, it was close, so mostly I was agreeing with that. But a key difference is that an argument (in the sense of "arguing a case") intent on showing something beyond a reasonable doubt does not need to be limited to empirical data. It may involve a number of different lines of argumentation. In the case of arguments for the existence of God, some of them are empirical, but not all of them are , and some are not empirical, even if they do not attempt a logical proof, either. For example, sometimes, the argument is a moral one, centrally if not entirely. Also, some other times, they try to make an argument from contingency, which appeals to both modal and probably moral intuitions. And so on.

That aside, I didn't get the impression that when you said "likely" you meant likely enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt, so there may have been a misunderstanding on that part.

My point was that the syllogism constructed to conclude God's likely nonexistence was never an adequate basis for reaching the conclusion, because credibility really rests on some premise, which turns out to be an argument that theists and non-theists are better able to come to terms on. You never want to actually directly conclude that God exists or doesn't exist on the basis of a high level argument.

I'm not following that part. Could you clarify, please?

The real disputes invariably lie hidden at a deeper level, e.g. the question of substance vs property dualism. Almost all belief systems involving deities are ultimately based on substance dualism.

Often, sure, but also, very common arguments from suffering, moral evil and/or hiddenness do not rely on any assumptions against substance dualism. And I have argued for the nonexistence of God even granting the assumption that there is an omnipotent, omniscient agent. I conclude that the probability that he is God (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect) is negligible. I don't make any assumptions against substance dualism in that context, of course.

This is where I remind you that I wasn't interested in establishing stuff conclusively.

You do not need to remind me. What I'm saying is that your claim that

Proof is always an exercise in logic. One starts with a conclusion that can be either true or false and then shows that it follows logically from a set of premises.

is false, in the sense of "proof" you used in the first paragraph.

Now you've lost me. Or perhaps my argument went completely over your head.

I don't think so. I'll further clarify below.

You may have a very different idea of what you think I meant by "logical proof". I was very clear that a "logical proof" is not necessarily a sound proof.

Indeed, that it was (well, not a proof, but an attempted proof). My point is that a "logical proof" is not a proof in the sense of "proof" in the first paragraph of the OP.

IOW, we aren't ever really arguing over whether God exists. We are arguing over the premises necessary to reach such a conclusion.

We are arguing about whether God exists. One of the way of arguing over that is arguing over the premises in question, though it's not the only one. One does not need to give premises and come up with a syllogism in order to make a case.

I could obviously go on, but I invite others to comment on or critique my thesis: I can easily prove that God exists, but there are others who can easily prove he does not.

No. In the sense of "proof" in question (i.e., what is usual in these sort of debates), in order to prove that God does not exist, you would have to establish that he does not beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not know whether you can.
On the other hand, a theist would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist. I'm pretty sure she cannot.

By the way, regarding philosophy, I understood you weren't interested in those arguments involving a purported "absolute logical proof" of existence. But were you ruling out the rest of the arguments used in Philosophy of Religion? Most of those arguments intend to show beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least to show it's probable, or at least to persuade a person to change their credences to some extent, etc., that God exists or does not exist (or whatever they want to argue for, but we're talking about those two).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is no major problem with defining the central term unless you reject the truth of premise #1. If you accept its truth and the truth of the second premise, then the conclusion is inescapable. If you want to argue over premise #1, then that just means that the real argument is not over my proof. It is over a low level premise. That is where the substantive argument exists. However, at that point, we are just having a terminological dispute, not a substantive one. Most atheists are not non-cognitivists. They know perfectly well what most believers mean by their use of the word "God", IMO. But we can always have an argument over that.

Different theists (and sometimes the same) often mean different things in different contexts. That does not imply they mean nothing (of course), or that they're not making truth claims. I think they generally are. Often, theists who give somewhat sophisticated arguments tend to accept at least omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection as necessary conditions for an agent to be God. In cases like that, arguments like Kalam or Fine Tuning would only be part of a case for theism. Sometimes, of course, they just switch concepts in the middle of an argument without realizing, so they equivocate.

 

[Learner]

And... the claims that dark matter exists but its invisible to detection by our current methods so far, but we are sure DM infuences our physical universe. Its hard to prove (to see at all the invisible let alone see the actual "laws of physics" so to speak) but then ... there is the idea / claims of theists that God exists in a different "realm" to our physical realm like that of erm... the believed realm of Dark Matter.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And... the claims that dark matter exists but its invisible to detection by our current methods so far, but we are sure DM infuences our physical universe. Its hard to prove (to see at all the invisible let alone see the actual "laws of physics" so to speak) but then ... there is the idea / claims of theists that God exists in a different "realm" to our physical realm like that of erm... the believed realm of Dark Matter.

Invisible but not undetectable or immeasurable. We can certainly empirically make a case for it.

Also, dark matter is not a disembodied spiritual agency. It is not a ghost. It is real enough to measure and be quantified. We can't see the wind either, but it isn't therefore a creature of woo.

Dark matter is not a belief, nor a belief in a belief, such as would be a god or a ghost. And because ghosts and gods are so alike, perhaps we should combine them and call them ghods. The big kahuna could be Ghod.

Like gods and ghosts, disembodies spiritual entities are only beliefs. There is nothing more to the claim than just that. I could just as easily believe I am that world's first trillionaire. Believing in a god is just believing in a belief. That probably has psychological implications, perhaps advantageous to some, but it doesn't make anything real, certainly not gods, ghosts, etc.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not all gods are 'disembodied spiritual agencies'-- Mormon theology asserts that God was once an exalted man (and that Mary was impregnated through a physical encounter -- at least this was the company line at one time.) There could be a god Ned, with his followers, the Neddites, worshiping him in person, who knows.
If your focus is Bible God, as defined by the preponderance of churches, then I'm on board, although syllogisms are never going to jump ahead of the special pleading done by religionists.
How about: God in the Bible has a gender. He is male, male, male.
Gender is determined by primary sexual characteristics present at birth, and by secondary sexual
characteristics that arrive at puberty.
Disembodied spiritual agencies can have no sexual characteristics; therefore Bible God is an
incoherent concept.
Also, if God is male, is he circumcised? And who did it? (I would like to think the Holy Ghost was the mohel, and took the job partly out of resentment for not having a showier role in the regime. Also that the actual circumcision was done with those Cecil B DeMille laser blasts that cut the stone tablets in the '56 Ten Commandments. With a sound effect like ZEEEERCH!!) Sorry, I got carried away, but today is Sunday, and I feel extra pious. ZZZEEEEERCH!!!

 

[steve_bank]

Before modern science no one knew there was an EM spectrum outside the visible. At best an individual can say he or she sees no evidence for disembodied spirits or gods.

To say no such mechanism exists for a spirit to interact with reality is not the same as saying there is no current science to support the hypothesis.

Whether a god exists is not objevely provable either way. What those of us n the science side can do is evaluate specific claims, such as young Earth creationism which fails all objective science analysis of the Earth and the cosmos.

The theists can not objectively prove a god exists. If so we would have no debate.

I pray to god for something and I do not get it doesn't mean god does not exist. If a Satanist claims a chant will summon a demon, but it doesn't in a demonstration maybe the demon was busy.

Someone appears and claims to be a god. Is it a god or an ET with advanced technology? No way to know.

The theists 'proofs' fall into categories in different forms. None of it objective proof, which is why it is faith and not science.

Look at the world, it is self evident god created it.

Ny favorite the bootstrap argument:
How do you know god exists?...because god is in the bible.
How do you know the bible is true?...because god is in it or god inspired it.
Ok but then how do you know god exists?....

 

[Lion IRC]

The blurred line between matter and energy does not allow you to make such a brute claim as..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist." This is a basic secular proposition. Nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.

Our 'physical' bodies shed dead cells which are progressively replaced by new ones, and this process is so comprehensive that over the course of our lifetime, every cell in our entire body is replaced. We literally don't have the same body we were born with. This too is an entirely secular, scientific fact. No need to invoke religion or supernaturalism. So you need to go easy with the ..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist" stuff.

Now can we talk about the ubiquitous, corroborated eye witness evidence for discarnate consciousness which has existed since the dawn of time? Or are you going to dismiss billions and billions of your fellow humans as liars and lunatics just because you think you have 'proved' something to yourself by brute special pleading a contradiction of their sensory evidence?

 

[bilby]

The blurred line between matter and energy does not allow you to make such a brute claim as..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist." This is a basic secular proposition. Nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.

There's no 'blurred line'. Matter is a specific kind of energy. None of this is mysterious, except to the ignorant; And there's no gap in the science here tbat you can cram gods into without starting from a position of ignorant faith.

Our 'physical' bodies shed dead cells which are progressively replaced by new ones, and this process is so comprehensive that over the course of our lifetime, every cell in our entire body is replaced. We literally don't have the same body we were born with. This too is an entirely secular, scientific fact. No need to invoke religion or supernaturalism. So you need to go easy with the ..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist" stuff.

Patterns are more important than components. A human is a pattern of molecules, not the molecules themselves. Again, this is not a mystery, nor a gap for gods to live in. You can justify your beliefs by deliberate ignorance, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to take you seriously, or to want to join you in your ignorance of reality.

Now can we talk about the ubiquitous, corroborated eye witness evidence for discarnate consciousness which has existed since the dawn of time? Or are you going to dismiss billions and billions of your fellow humans as liars and lunatics just because you think you have 'proved' something to yourself by brute special pleading a contradiction of their sensory evidence?

Lots of people have been ignorant for a long time. Most of them at least had the excuse that nobody had yet discovered the facts of which they were ignorant. But that excuse expired in the twentieth century. Now your choice is between knowing that gods are impossible, or deliberately avoiding finding that out.

Wilful ignorance is not laudable, nor is it moral. You need to stop it, as you are harming others with your failure to understand reality.

 

[Copernicus]

The blurred line between matter and energy does not allow you to make such a brute claim as..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist." This is a basic secular proposition. Nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.

Lion, that premise can be defended on the basis of empirical observation and makes no claim about religion. Premise 1 made a reference to a religious entity, not 2. Don't forget that we are talking about the likelihood or credibility of the existence of agencies, not a self-evident truth. Atheism is a belief about gods, but gods are only one type of spiritual entity that human beings believe in. So you are right that it isn't about religion, nor was it intended as such. It is just a step in a simple argument about the existence of God, and it is an empirical claim that one can argue for or against on the basis of observation. Occam's razor would be relevant in such an argument.

Our 'physical' bodies shed dead cells which are progressively replaced by new ones, and this process is so comprehensive that over the course of our lifetime, every cell in our entire body is replaced. We literally don't have the same body we were born with. This too is an entirely secular, scientific fact. No need to invoke religion or supernaturalism. So you need to go easy with the ..."disembodied spiritual agencies do not exist" stuff.

I did not say that agents were necessarily material, only that they are not disembodied phenomena. An agency is an entity that has a causal effect on the behavior of matter. It isn't totally clear what a "spiritual agency" is, but one can try to clarify by citing examples of the way English speakers use such an expression. I think most of us would understand ghosts to be spiritual agencies, so evidence of the existence of ghosts would falsify the second premise. I would claim that no such evidence exists. If there are ghosts, then they are always to be found inside the machine.

Now can we talk about the ubiquitous, corroborated eye witness evidence for discarnate consciousness which has existed since the dawn of time? Or are you going to dismiss billions and billions of your fellow humans as liars and lunatics just because you think you have 'proved' something to yourself by brute special pleading a contradiction of their sensory evidence?

Sure, that's exactly my point. We can talk about such things, but you are getting ahead of yourself by jumping to conclusions about how I would dismiss their claims. I'm quite certain that one would find some such claims to be false, so the question would be whether or not they were all false. Again, the relevant issue here is no longer about the existence of God, but about a much more substantive dispute than, say, trying to justify belief that God exists. No need to get that specific. The more interesting discussions are almost always to be found in discussions about something other than God or gods.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There are several basic approaches to demonstrating God exists.

1. Revelation.
William of Okham stated that God is incomprehensible. So all we can possibly know about God comes from revelation.
But which reveation? Christianity? Moslem? Mormon? Other? With so many varying revelations, many must be wrong. It is then possibe all revelations are wrong. No proof really exists to prove any revelation true.

2. A priori. One defines God (usually loosely based on revelation), and having defined one's God, looks for evidence to prove that God exists. This includes sub-claims, existence of a supernatural realm et al. There is no one good argument for God. The supposed theories soon become bogged down in incoherent problems, self contradictions and attempts to eliminate things like naturalism to allow God to stand by default.

3. Evidence for possible Gods derived from the nature of the Universe as we experience reality. Natural religion. But the Universe seems to be a Universe with no trace of God(s). We have the hiddeness of God problem and again, lack of evidence for a supernatural realm. We end up with unprovable ideas like Process Theology or Spinozan pantheism.

Pick your poison.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^

You missed two of the most common arguments:

. "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."
. "Science can't explain everything, therefore god."

As absurd as those are as arguments, the believer can never be convinced that they are not proof.