Does Gravity Disprove God?

[Learner]

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

There is no need to disprove God because nothing we do in our day to day reality is apparently effected by it, and this creature cannot be bothered to show up or lift a finger to intervene no matter how hard people pray to it. The probability that God exists, as described in the various religious denominations that are prevalent today or were prevalent at some point in our history, is so infinitesimally small that it can be safely ignored without any consequences.

Im pretty sure some would like to know, if even being just for the sake of science.
How does one persue ? Is the question ...again.

 

[Learner]

You are still going on about this? typical as in the usual/majority, Christianity, Islam, etc

Typical in whose experience? In what country? To what level of education or reading? I mean, yes, most of the people i knew growing up were either Mormon or Catholic, but by the time i graduated high school, i was aware of gods including the Norse tradition, Newhon, Babylonian, Egyptian, Cthulhu, Melnibonean... To me, the word 'god' means all SORTS of things, varying degrees of power, varying widths of influence, varying popularity... If you're going to use the term, you need to be clear on what you mean AND which ones you're excluding.

Just the common denominator between varying definitions of Gods should do. God,creator of the universe,this world and man.

 

[bilby]

Typical in whose experience? In what country? To what level of education or reading? I mean, yes, most of the people i knew growing up were either Mormon or Catholic, but by the time i graduated high school, i was aware of gods including the Norse tradition, Newhon, Babylonian, Egyptian, Cthulhu, Melnibonean... To me, the word 'god' means all SORTS of things, varying degrees of power, varying widths of influence, varying popularity... If you're going to use the term, you need to be clear on what you mean AND which ones you're excluding.

Just the common denominator between varying definitions of Gods should do. God,creator of the universe,this world and man.

It is well understood that the universe, this world, and man all had very different origins; The universe is about 13,770,000,000 years old; this world is about 4,500,000,000 years old, and man has been around for about 200,000 years - so that in itself suggests that they don't share a common origin.

Man evolved from earlier ape species, which evolved from earlier mammal species. It is certain and demonstrable that man was not 'created' as such, but rather arose via natural selection from earlier ancestors.

This world started with the aggregation of loose material from the equatorial disk left over when the Sun formed; both Earth and Sun formed due to gravity, and no more required a 'creator' to form than rocks need a 'creator' to roll down a hill.

The universe, well, we don't know exactly how it started - things back to the first 5x10^-44 of a second are well understood, but before that we cannot say what was going on; But we can be absolutely certain that the universe didn't aggregate from a solar accretion disc, nor evolve from a species of hominid ape, as neither of those result in the super-hot, super-dense state of the universe that we know was present at the Planck time; so all gods that meet your specification can be eliminated - no such entity is possible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Typical in whose experience? In what country? To what level of education or reading? ... If you're going to use the term, you need to be clear on what you mean AND which ones you're excluding.

Just the common denominator between varying definitions of Gods should do. God,creator of the universe,this world and man.

"Common" to who? not all gods are the creators of man.

 

[skepticalbip]

Typical in whose experience? In what country? To what level of education or reading? I mean, yes, most of the people i knew growing up were either Mormon or Catholic, but by the time i graduated high school, i was aware of gods including the Norse tradition, Newhon, Babylonian, Egyptian, Cthulhu, Melnibonean... To me, the word 'god' means all SORTS of things, varying degrees of power, varying widths of influence, varying popularity... If you're going to use the term, you need to be clear on what you mean AND which ones you're excluding.

Just the common denominator between varying definitions of Gods should do. God,creator of the universe,this world and man.

Your understanding of the world's religions is sadly lacking. The three Abrahamic religions are not the end there are thousands of religions, likely hundreds of current religions. In Shinto the Japanese emperor, Akihito, is a god and is not credited with creating the universe, Earth, or man.

 

[Kharakov]

AHA! You got me.

Going to your link, I found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Architect_of_the_Universe

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name

...Good one...

Grate architect of cheese dispersion too....  Great Architect of the Universe...

 

[Kharakov]

Gods being fictional characters says that gods do not exist.

Nullum cacas Sherlock qui erat a plumbarius etiam... umm... plumbum.

 

[Learner]

Just the common denominator between varying definitions of Gods should do. God,creator of the universe,this world and man.

It is well understood that the universe, this world, and man all had very different origins; The universe is about 13,770,000,000 years old; this world is about 4,500,000,000 years old, and man has been around for about 200,000 years - so that in itself suggests that they don't share a common origin.

Man evolved from earlier ape species, which evolved from earlier mammal species. It is certain and demonstrable that man was not 'created' as such, but rather arose via natural selection from earlier ancestors.

Let us suppose it is all agreed things work out as you have mentioned. One great problem is as always. You only ever mention a process or processes and functions. You are happy to call this 'natural law' and leave it at that. 'Natural selection' is an apt name for this process,because in reality. Natural law is itself ,I have to say; A mysterious woo!

This world started with the aggregation of loose material from the equatorial disk left over when the Sun formed; both Earth and Sun formed due to gravity, and no more required a 'creator' to form than rocks need a 'creator' to roll down a hill.

The universe, well, we don't know exactly how it started - things back to the first 5x10^-44 of a second are well understood, but before that we cannot say what was going on; But we can be absolutely certain that the universe didn't aggregate from a solar accretion disc, nor evolve from a species of hominid ape, as neither of those result in the super-hot, super-dense state of the universe that we know was present at the Planck time; so all gods that meet your specification can be eliminated - no such entity is possible.

So no creator is neccessary for rocks to fall down? What if a creator made the laws (Natural laws) for rocks to fall down? Regardless of what one believes. You can not really use these as arguments against the creator argument and admittedly vice versa. Especially not knowing why there is natural law!

 

[Learner]

Just the common denominator between varying definitions of Gods should do. God,creator of the universe,this world and man.

Your understanding of the world's religions is sadly lacking. The three Abrahamic religions are not the end there are thousands of religions, likely hundreds of current religions. In Shinto the Japanese emperor, Akihito, is a god and is not credited with creating the universe, Earth, or man.

As you have written. Akitho is a lesser god that has created nothing. I've seen pop stars idolized this way lol. So we can safely rule out Akihito and all the other lesser gods from the debate. We only want universe creators because this coincides with the forum.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So we can safely rule out Akihito and all the other lesser gods from the debate. We only want universe creators because this coincides with the forum.

Um, no. Akhito is one of the gods I'm atheistic about.
I'm atheistic about all gods (with the possible exception of the IPU, I'm probably agnostic there). So that's part of the forum.

And as far as this thread, I don't really care which god drives certain people to reject science, but I've noticed that they only reject certain sciences. And assign evil motives to the scientists proclaiming facts in that area.
And assign supreme competence at creating a conspiracy to fool...someone, but still not so competent as to just set up a fake science that actually accomplishes our alleged goals...

 

[skepticalbip]

Your understanding of the world's religions is sadly lacking. The three Abrahamic religions are not the end there are thousands of religions, likely hundreds of current religions. In Shinto the Japanese emperor, Akihito, is a god and is not credited with creating the universe, Earth, or man.

As you have written. Akihito is a lesser god that has created nothing. I've seen pop stars idolized this way lol. So we can safely rule out Akihito and all the other lesser gods from the debate. We only want universe creators because this coincides with the forum.

You are trying to change the ground rules in the middle of the thread. Akihito isn't comparable to a screen idol. Akihito is believed to be an actual god in Shinto, the reincarnation of previous incarnations. Odin, Thor, Baal, etc. etc. etc. are also major gods. People wised up to most gods of the past because those gods weren't capable of creating a science that could scientifically prove their existence. Our current gods haven't been able to create such a science either so they will likely end up being rejected like prior gods when people wise up. But, unfortunately, people will more than likely just create more gods to replace them just as they always done in the past until they wise up to them too.

Akihito at least can be pointed out as existing by the followers of Shinto which is a leg up on the Abrahamic gods. The only problem that Shinto would have is proving that this being that actually can be demonstrated as existing is a god. But the existence of Akihito is undeniable.

Shinto has already overcome the greatest hurtle that the Abrahamic religions haven't even approached - that their god actually exists. Now the only question remaining is exactly what magic powers he has (if any) by demonstrating them. The Abrahamic religions blindly accept their gods exist on absolutely no grounds and claim powers their gods have without any basis to think they may possess (if they exist, which hasn't been demonstrated).

 

[Kharakov]

Ever lead someone on a goose chase? Dick Cheney did.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ever lead someone on a goose chase? Dick Cheney did.

I try to as often as possible.

It is a fun way to demonstrate that claims need to be more closely thought through rather than just blindly accepted.

 

[Kharakov]

Ever lead someone on a goose chase? Dick Cheney did.

I try to as often as possible. It is a fun way to demonstrate that claims need to be more closely thought through rather than just blindly accepted.

William Tell, about that apple...

 

[Malintent]

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

You are correct. There is no disproving Zeus.
The Christian Tri-Omni god, however, is disproven.

 

[ryan]

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

You are correct. There is no disproving Zeus.
The Christian Tri-Omni god, however, is disproven.

And how did you manage to disprove that god?

 

[Juma]

You are correct. There is no disproving Zeus.
The Christian Tri-Omni god, however, is disproven.

And how did you manage to disprove that god?

Its not that hard. Gods are obvious figments of imagination. You dont need more proof than that.

 

[DBT]

You are correct. There is no disproving Zeus.
The Christian Tri-Omni god, however, is disproven.

And how did you manage to disprove that god?

The absence of evidence to support the existence of something is evidence against its existence. The information we have about the Christian god is only available in the Bible (and associated writings)....which shows an evolution in human thought and belief in relation to, first; a tribal god, Yahweh the son of El given dominion over the tribe of Israel by his sire, a fierce god of war...which over time evolved into a universal god, the god of Christianity. This does not support an objective god, but an evolving belief in the reality of a mental construct.

 

[ryan]

And how did you manage to disprove that god?

The absence of evidence to support the existence of something is evidence against its existence.

Please see below.

The information we have about the Christian god is only available in the Bible (and associated writings)....which shows an evolution in human thought and belief in relation to, first; a tribal god, Yahweh the son of El given dominion over the tribe of Israel by his sire, a fierce god of war...which over time evolved into a universal god, the god of Christianity. This does not support an objective god, but an evolving belief in the reality of a mental construct.

I agree that a god that wants to be known does not logically exist, but that is not the kind of god most religions have. God could have incorporated this belief into evolution sorting out the people who operate by faith and not only their senses. The free will of the person would expose the nature of that person. The penalty of strict empiricism is infinitely scary and terrible, but it doesn't mean this option is not possible.

Think about how crazy it is that what is is. Why this, why the reasons why this, why, why, ... ?

 

[Lion IRC]

...The absence of evidence to support the existence of something is evidence against its existence.

There's an overwhelming absence of evidence for atheism.
...that would be evidence of something according to your epistemic system.

The information we have about the Christian god is only available in the Bible (and associated writings)....

You mean...the EVIDENCE we have about the Christian God
That 'information' is documented and presented as historical evidence.
Of course I realise you might not believe that evidence, but some people don't believe the evidence for climate change either.