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

[arnoldo]

^^
Or simply "proving" that God does not exist by claiming only material things exist.

 

[steve_bank]

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?

There is no blurred line in modern science. All that exists is matter. Energy is derived from states of matter. Energy does not exist outside of matter, like water donn a waterfall.

The problem is that what god 'is' is derived from a few quotes in scripture is lacking any details, totally up to your imagination.

There was somone yeras back on the forum who belived levitation is possible. The Trascenental Meditation folkd used to offer classes, for a fee, in levitaion. A video of a class sjowed people sitting on cusions trying to lioft thermselves off the ground.

In Tibetan Yoga traditions levitation was said to be common. I read a book on a Tibetan saint Milarepa who was said to 'fly through the air with the speed of an arrow'.

A woman on the forum claimed she saw a monk move a pencil on a table without touching it. That trick was shown to be extreme breath control. But she insisted it was true, and that the secrets are hidden because the world is not ready.

Point being how far are you willing to investigate all believed phenomena and are you willing to evaluate your own beifs?

 

[steve_bank]

I would never engage in a formal public debate on existence of the Abrahamic because I know I can not prove it either way.

Feynman was part of the science team that looked at UFOs back around the 60s. Hi conclusion was possible but not probable.

When push comes to shove I take the same view, I can not rule out some kind of existence we can not scientifically detect but can causally affect our reality. Low probability but not zero probability.

For me it is about keeping an open mind in general.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I would never engage in a formal public debate on existence of the Abrahamic because I know I can not prove it either way.

Feynman was part of the science team that looked at UFOs back around the 60s. Hi conclusion was possible but not probable.

When push comes to shove I take the same view, I can not rule out some kind of existence we can not scientifically detect but can causally affect our reality. Low probability but not zero probability.

For me it is about keeping an open mind in general.

Baloney. You have a double standard, one for god claims and one for other absurd claims. Why the double standard when religion is involved?

 

[Copernicus]

I would never engage in a formal public debate on existence of the Abrahamic because I know I can not prove it either way.

Feynman was part of the science team that looked at UFOs back around the 60s. Hi conclusion was possible but not probable.

When push comes to shove I take the same view, I can not rule out some kind of existence we can not scientifically detect but can causally affect our reality. Low probability but not zero probability.

For me it is about keeping an open mind in general.

The argument is never about ruling out the existence of an Abrahamic God. Would you claim that you can rule out the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? If so, then I would say that you don't have a very good imagination. Both obviously have magical powers that could explain the apparent lack of evidence for them. Would you say that you have an open mind about the existence of Santa Claus? And, if asked to explain why you disbelieve in Santa Claus, would you say that it is impossible to prove one way or the other?

I am also somewhat skeptical of claims that assign probability to an existential claim. To calculate probability, you need to use discrete math. IMO, what you are talking about is plausibility or degree of confidence, not probability. Existential claims are always empirical claims, and it is reasonable to take the position that lack of evidence is a reasonable criterion for rejecting belief.

However, as I was at pains to express in the OP, arguments that conclude God does or doesn't exist aren't really where the debate belongs. That is a conclusion that depends on the truth of the premises that lead to it, and those premises are almost always more amenable to reasonable debate than the actual debate about God.

ETA: OK, what TGG Moogly said, but more succinctly.

 

[atrib]

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.

You are wrong. While dark matter (DM) does not appear to interact with electromagnetic radiation (the light spectrum),it does interact with spacetime just like regular matter and energy, in that it distorts spacetime. These distortions, including effects like gravitational lensing and motion of nearby material objects can be detected and measured, and the quantity and distribution of DM can be estimated using general relativity.

It is absurd to claim that god could exist in a DM realm, because
(1) we know very little about DM at the present time, and trying to hide god in a DM-like realm would be speculation heaped upon speculation, considering theists can't define god's properties either,
and
(2) a god existing in a DM realm would not be able to interact with regular matter and energy. Which would mean this god could not possibly have created materiel objects like planets and humans.

 

[atrib]

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 is a lot we don't know about the universe we inhabit. So I suppose it is hypothetically possible for intelligent, self-aware and self-organizing packets of energy to exist somewhere in the universe. In fact, Asimov speculated about the possibility of humans evolving into such organized, self-aware packets of energy over hundreds of billions of years in a short story (see The Last Question in the book Nine Tomorrows).

The problem for this hypothetical scenario is that we have no evidence to support it, and our present day scientific models do not support such a possibility. You are welcome to develop a scientific model that describes how such an entity could develop, sustain itself, and interact with the material world, and we would be happy to examine it. But I suspect you will do no such thing. Past behavior is usually a good predictor for future behavior, and your past behavior has been less than stellar when it comes to open and honest debate. You always post shit and then run away to hide, to put it more bluntly.

Theists like you do what you always do, which is to try to hide your god in the gaps in our knowledge. You can't tell me how your god came to exist, how it sustains itself, where it lives or what planet it took a shit on this morning. But you can and do speculate endlessly about the places it could choose to hide itself from us. Why is your god so scared of us that it never dares to show itself?

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.

What does this have to do with the existence of "disembodied spiritual agencies"? Can you please explain?

Also, your claim that "every cell in our entire body is replaced" is factually incorrect. Our heart muscles do not regenerate, which is why a heart attack can leave portions of your heart permanently dead. There are probably other organs or tissue groups that do not regenerate as well, but I am not willing to research this further because I so no connection between regenerating cells and disembodied spiritual entities.

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?

There is a simple explanation as to why many people experience altered realities or have so called "spiritual experiences" that does not involve supernatural skycreatures. Our brains are information processing units, and they can react to physical and chemical stimuli in different ways to produce realities that do not match the realities of the people around them. Our brains can also be damaged, in the short term or permanently, which is a condition that medical professionals usually lump under the umbrella of psychosis. Our senses often deceive us, and again, we don't need to turn to the supernatural to explain why.

If your god wanted to communicate with us, why doesn't it just show up and communicate with us all in a manner that leaves no room for doubt and misinterpretation? Why these games, why stay in the shadows and only give us occasional hints that can never be confirmed? Does your god suffer from a severe personality disorder; is it just a drama queen looking for constant attention and possibly to start its own channel on TV?

 

[steve_bank]

I would never engage in a formal public debate on existence of the Abrahamic because I know I can not prove it either way.

Feynman was part of the science team that looked at UFOs back around the 60s. Hi conclusion was possible but not probable.

When push comes to shove I take the same view, I can not rule out some kind of existence we can not scientifically detect but can causally affect our reality. Low probability but not zero probability.

For me it is about keeping an open mind in general.

Baloney. You have a double standard, one for god claims and one for other absurd claims. Why the double standard when religion is involved?

I knew so,enody would say that. Taking Newton as the starting point for modern mathematical and empirical science, science has been in continuous evolution and revolution. While today in the realm of scifi, to say that it is absolutely impossible for a non corporeal entity to exist is a limiting view.

It is about the way I think, based on experience and mistakes. Keeping an open mind even when it seems obvious something is not right.

I subjectively rate the Abrahamic god as low probability a subjectively weighted statement. I do not believe the god exists, but there is a very small possibility I could be wrong. If you want to make hay out of that feel free.

If that does not fit a narrow biased view on religion or is not inline with an anti religion position, tough shit. I do not believe god exists but I can not rule out the possibility.If my saying that
makes somebody uncomfortable, then good. The argument is more in science than religion as rto possibilities.

 

[steve_bank]

I would never engage in a formal public debate on existence of the Abrahamic because I know I can not prove it either way.

Feynman was part of the science team that looked at UFOs back around the 60s. Hi conclusion was possible but not probable.

When push comes to shove I take the same view, I can not rule out some kind of existence we can not scientifically detect but can causally affect our reality. Low probability but not zero probability.

For me it is about keeping an open mind in general.

The argument is never about ruling out the existence of an Abrahamic God. Would you claim that you can rule out the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? If so, then I would say that you don't have a very good imagination. Both obviously have magical powers that could explain the apparent lack of evidence for them. Would you say that you have an open mind about the existence of Santa Claus? And, if asked to explain why you disbelieve in Santa Claus, would you say that it is impossible to prove one way or the other?

I am also somewhat skeptical of claims that assign probability to an existential claim. To calculate probability, you need to use discrete math. IMO, what you are talking about is plausibility or degree of confidence, not probability. Existential claims are always empirical claims, and it is reasonable to take the position that lack of evidence is a reasonable criterion for rejecting belief.

However, as I was at pains to express in the OP, arguments that conclude God does or doesn't exist aren't really where the debate belongs. That is a conclusion that depends on the truth of the premises that lead to it, and those premises are almost always more amenable to reasonable debate than the actual debate about God.

ETA: OK, what TGG Moogly said, but more succinctly.

The origins of the Santa Claus myth are clearly know. No one believes Santa is real. The real arguments are issues like creationism vs evolution, specific claims by religion that can be refuted.

 

[Copernicus]

...
ETA: OK, what TGG Moogly said, but more succinctly.

The origins of the Santa Claus myth are clearly know. No one believes Santa is real. The real arguments are issues like creationism vs evolution, specific claims by religion that can be refuted.

So, what you seem to be saying is that you have an open mind on the question of the existence of God, but not on the question the existence of Santa Claus. Is that correct? And the basis for this distinction is that most people believe that Santa Claus is mythical but God is real. Have I got that right? Can you clarify, if I've misconstrued what you are trying to say?

 

[steve_bank]

We look around and our reality is Newtonian seemingly sold including our bodies. What we are is a collection of particles we call atoms and molecules governed by charges and atomic forces. Us non creationists believe it all began with simple self replicating structures acting in accordance with what we call chemistry.

To reject outright some sort of possible non corporeal existence, however low in probability, IMO is short sighted. And unscientific. The fact that believers in ghosts and gods may use the argument for creedence is not an issue, at least for me..

 

[steve_bank]

...
ETA: OK, what TGG Moogly said, but more succinctly.

The origins of the Santa Claus myth are clearly know. No one believes Santa is real. The real arguments are issues like creationism vs evolution, specific claims by religion that can be refuted.

So, what you seem to be saying is that you have an open mind on the question of the existence of God, but not on the question the existence of Santa Claus. Is that correct? And the basis for this distinction is that most people believe that Santa Claus is mythical but God is real. Have I got that right? Can you clarify, if I've misconstrued what you are trying to say?

Poor argument.There is actually more evidence for Santa than god. Every Christmas NORAD tracks Santa across North America....

 

[Lion IRC]

...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".

The law of excluded middle doesn't apply to atheist proselytising and counter-apologetics

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, what you seem to be saying is that you have an open mind on the question of the existence of God, but not on the question the existence of Santa Claus. Is that correct? And the basis for this distinction is that most people believe that Santa Claus is mythical but God is real. Have I got that right? Can you clarify, if I've misconstrued what you are trying to say?

Poor argument.There is actually more evidence for Santa than god. Every Christmas NORAD tracks Santa across North America....

That's correct. Santa is not a belief, Santa is a thing with physical dimensions and empirical attributes. I have actual pictures of myself sitting in his lap and asking him to bring me things. Not believing in Santa would be just as silly and irrational as not believing in my shoes. Disembodied spiritual agencies aren't a patch to the old Claus.

Now in point of fact we have numerous stories in human history about people being ghosts and about people being gods. And we have stories about people being half god because their mothers were impregnated by a disembodied spiritual agency. But I think that's a moot distinction. It's the difference between a god particle and a particle god.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I would attend better to the line that goes 'Keep an open mind; it is unscientific to categorically reject the existence of a guiding super-intelligence' if the main (prevalent, predominant) narratives that believers have preserved weren't so primitive and covered with the thumb-prints of civilizations that were susceptible to delusion and cruelty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

...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".

The law of excluded middle doesn't apply to atheist proselytising and counter-apologetics

That is not a good objection. Here, "proof" is about establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt, so in principle, that might happen. But I don't think it would happen in the case of the God question, in a realistic scenario.

 

[excreationist]

...Here, "proof" is about establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt, so in principle, that might happen. But I don't think it would happen in the case of the God question, in a realistic scenario.

Well Copernicus is talking about the God question:
"...I can easily prove that God exists, but there are others who can easily prove he does not...."

I don't think it makes sense to say you can prove opposites (God exists/doesn't exist) to a beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Here, "proof" is about establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt, so in principle, that might happen. But I don't think it would happen in the case of the God question, in a realistic scenario.

Well Copernicus is talking about the God question:
"...I can easily prove that God exists, but there are others who can easily prove he does not...."

I don't think it makes sense to say you can prove opposites (God exists/doesn't exist) to a beyond reasonable doubt.

There is a 100 billion dollar pile of gold in my back yard. I know it's there but I cannot find it. It is responsible for my wealth and happiness. Perhaps it is invisible and composed of a gold element that is as yet unknown and therefore quite mysterious. But I know it is there and people should take me seriously.

If anyone wishes to have a piece of that fortune you can send me some money and I will pay you back 100 times your investment when I find the gold.

And why would anyone think the opposite is true, namely, that it is not there? How would someone even prove that it is not there or that it is there, and why would someone even go to the trouble? Why not just take a chance that it is there and send me some dough just to be safe?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think it makes sense to say you can prove opposites (God exists/doesn't exist) to a beyond reasonable doubt.

Suppose the defendant is accused of seven accounts of rape and robbery (i.e., he is accused of raping the victims, and taking their wallets). It's 1980, and no DNA evidence is available. The victims identified him, while over 125 witnesses in total put him near the seven scenes of the crimes at the right times, and 3 witnesses actually said they witnessed 3 of the crimes (i.e., one per witness). They all identify him. He has a previous conviction for robbery + sexual abuse not amounting to rape. Character witnesses also provide evidence of a pretty bad person, with no respect for either women or private property. He provides alibis that are destroyed by the prosecution. Indeed, it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that they are all false.

On the basis of that evidence, he is convicted of rape. Would it have been reasonable on the part of the jurors to doubt that he was guilty?

But it turns out the real perpetrator was a doppelganger. The defendant provided false alibis because he was engaged in other criminal activity at the time. The witnesses got it wrong, because the two really look almost identical. And the actual perpetrator could establish beyond a reasonable doubt of his own guilt if he so chose, by describing details of the crimes no one else could know, and even by showing that he has the driver licenses of the victims, which he kept for fun.

Sure, it is not realistic, but that's not the issue. My point is that there is no logical problem with scenarios in which a person can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that X happens (in this case, the prosecutor can, with the aid of the victims, witnesses, etc.), and another person can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not happen. The issue is that establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt is always establishing it to a certain rational agent(s), even if that is implicit (e.g., obviously, it would be reasonable for the actual perpetrator not to be persuaded by the evidence provided by the prosecution, but it need not be reasonable for the jurors not to be so persuaded).

 

[atrib]

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?

I forgot to ask. Can you point us to some of these corroborated eye witness evidence pieces that clearly demonstrate the existence of discarnate consciousness entities please? I must have missed those when I checked the news this morning. And how were these sightings corroborated again? Details are important. Not doubting you, but I am curious to check this stuff out for myself, especially if billions and billions of people are seeing these discarnate consciousness entities. What do they look like, these discarnate consciousness entities, and how can you see them if they are discarnate? I have so much to learn!

Wait a minute, you're making up shit again, aren't you? You had me going there for a while, you rascal you!