I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[Jarhyn]

Who do you think you are

You peer and equal on this earth, and someone you should respect just as much as yourself. I am a denizen of this place since long before you got here, and I am asking you, same as someone on the subway in Japan would, were you to crow this loudly, to please quiet down.

I offer a claim of fact, and you can check it yourself, that you are not making any observations that are even in any way unique.

All you do is speak loudly, make claims of support, and then not support it.

Please, cease playing the role of Ion.

The most fucked up part is that many aspects of your beliefs, though not the bent-out-of-shape emphasis you put on them, are shared by many people here.

There are a number of autotheists here, I'm sure (always get a ping reply when you hit the local loopback!). And there a number of mathematical multiversalists, too.

I MIGHT be the only current member with any "education" on Kabbalah, or even interest?

I'm pointing out that if you don't stop shitting up the forums with blinding narcissism and "main character syndrome", you will be getting some of that "0" and you will have to find a new place to "vibrate your consciousness and energy "

I just looked up Kabbalah.. just another religion in which the practitioners want to be special and more holy than people of other beliefs… another religion for egotists who think the pigs are more equal than all the other animals….
The rapture is when we realize we are a singularity a collective consciousness and come together bringing all we have learned from our existence into a mutually beneficial understanding and solution of our differences

You don't really have the slightest idea what I'm talking about, then. It's not about religion it's about theory of mind, and discussions of concepts of infinitude and math.

When taken to the full extent of materialism, it's actually a discussion on how to operate the processes normally performed on AI to generate and train them... within your own mind, since they are pretty much exactly the same kinds of systems (and are so by design).

The part you would probably be interested in is the discussion of AinSof and B'reshit and TzimTzum.

Personally, I think there's a lot more value in understanding number theory, set theory, physics and the like, because that's the beauty before us to behold.

Those other ideas? If you manage to effect change, you can manage to effect Putin ending up in a hole. Yet I see no Russian dictators in holes.

This brings us back to the creation of the universe.
In the beginning God created.
(1) consciousness in a universe
of nothingness (0).
We are still that singularity creating our consciousness by vibrating 100111000
Every word sight sound thought is a product of our conscious singularity.
Purpose?: because a singularity in a universe of nothingness is very bored and lonely for eternity because energy cannot be created or destroyed.
So we are the god that created god in order to explain our existence. It gives our existence meaning and purpose …Also Know As… life
The past no longer exists
The future does not exist yet.
Only now ever exists.. an ever changing ever expanding now after now after now…
10001110000 creating our perception of a physical reality by vibrating…
Angstroms sights vibrating energy
Decibels sounds vibrating energy
Thoughts synapses vibrating energy
Descartes described it asI think therefore I AM
Or as the god of the bible put it
“Tell them I AM has sent you”
THIS IS WHAT I SEE AS PART OF A DISCUSSION… not an argument…

Yawn, more religious regurgitation, circular reasoning, and bald assertion. You're stuck on repeat.

You seem to have a problem understanding concepts on a quantum and scientific level . It’s okay. I have spent a decade sorting it out from the first I AM realization of existence to the subatomic electromagnetic energy waves we call our consciousness which creates everything you could ever think of literally.

Then show it. We're all here waiting for it, for the ToE from a set of axioms, with which to describe the interactions thereof, and a simple evidence in the form of Putin dying an unlikely and ridiculously funny death.

Hop hop.

 

[steve_bank]

Who cares what ancient Hebrews thought. Egypt and Babylon were far more interesting.

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

 

[bilby]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Perhaps.

But there's hard science that has been posted in this thread that "proves" a god can not influence our current reality, where "proof" has the casual meaning of "would entail the abandonment of well evidenced theory on the basis of wild speculation".

The proof that gods cannot influence our lives, or our deaths, is far more solid than the proof that the Moon isn't made of cheese, and yet people still waste time worrying that it's not as rigorous as a mathematical proof - as though the failure to meet this impossible standard were sufficient to render speculation about such gods non-batshit-crazy.

Gods, as defined by all major religions in human history, are less plausible than cheese moons being overflown by exuberant cattle.

Anyone who seriously suggested that you might want to consider the real possibility of the Moon being made of Stilton would be laughed all the way to the psychiatrist.

Yet people, who are apparently not gibbering loons, are happy to say stupid shit like "It's still not proven that gods don't exist", and expect to be taken seriously. That's nuts.

Gods don't exist. Rocks don't fall upwards. Perpetual motion isn't possible. None of this is in any doubt; If any of it were incorrect, all of modern physics would need to not only be wrong, but wildly and obviously wrong. It's not. We checked.

That's proof - in the vernacular sense. Rigorous proofs are for mathematics.

 

[Jarhyn]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Perhaps.

But there's hard science that has been posted in this thread that "proves" a god can not influence our current reality, where "proof" has the casual meaning of "would entail the abandonment of well evidenced theory on the basis of wild speculation".

The proof that gods cannot influence our lives, or our deaths, is far more solid than the proof that the Moon isn't made of cheese, and yet people still waste time worrying that it's not as rigorous as a mathematical proof - as though the failure to meet this impossible standard were sufficient to render speculation about such gods non-batshit-crazy.

Gods, as defined by all major religions in human history, are less plausible than cheese moons being overflown by exuberant cattle.

Anyone who seriously suggested that you might want to consider the real possibility of the Moon being made of Stilton would be laughed all the way to the psychiatrist.

Yet people, who are apparently not gibbering loons, are happy to say stupid shit like "It's still not proven that gods don't exist", and expect to be taken seriously. That's nuts.

Gods don't exist. Rocks don't fall upwards. Perpetual motion isn't possible. None of this is in any doubt; If any of it were incorrect, all of modern physics would need to not only be wrong, but wildly and obviously wrong. It's not. We checked.

That's proof - in the vernacular sense. Rigorous proofs are for mathematics.

I rather think all that "proof" is spurious. Part of the reason why science cannot prove zero gods is in fact that science cannot prove we are not in a simulation, and simulations can allow events to be observed uncaused by internal simulation mechanics.

It's proof of exactly the opposite of what you claim.

People who are not loons say "there are zero or more gods" because that's all the surety we get.

At best the evidence proves that no hook or trigger has been observed.

Until it has, zero remains in the table.

All your proof gets you is zero remaining on the table. It cannot remove "or more" or even the concept of omnipotence and omniscience.

On the flip-side, neither "zero" or "more than zero" being on the table gets you anywhere near "thus we ought".

We only identify the lack of connection there, between "n gods" and "thus we ought" when we consider for a moment pretending n>1. It's like doing calculus that way, putting everything over x, pretending x is not zero, removing the X in the denominator, and then saying "haha, now solve for X=0!"

At that point, we see that ethics exists independently of the "gods?" question. This is the entire topic of the ancient Socratic dialog with Euthephro.

 

[abaddon]

... science cannot prove we are not in a simulation...

All your proof gets you is zero remaining on the table. It cannot remove "or more"...

The makers of simulated universes aren't creators, they're assemblers. Calling the assemblage a "universe" is poetic license as well. The error is the same as calling a painted tree a tree and the painter a "creator of trees".

Also, why's "create" enough to define a "god"?

The arbitrariness of the definitions ("we can define gods like this, we can define gods like that") only helps demonstrate my stance about gods: that they're figurative speech for other non-god things - novelists, games-designers, rock stars, patterns in nature, the earth, the cosmos, or just whatever people want to call a "god".

I think the "or more" gets removed once you see how arbitrary the concept is.

I don't know why the concept needs to be salvaged with the word-wrangling. It's like once the notion of a supernatural being has been obviated, people step in and defend the word itself. "Me! I'm a god, so gods exist!" So nearly anything can be a god if you phrase the premises 'just so' to force the conclusion. Why not just leave it at the status of elves, dwarfs, and similar fantasy critters in novels, movies, games?

What actual being or entity has inherent divinity and so isn't just bearing an arbitrary label? Anything at all?

 

[bilby]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Perhaps.

But there's hard science that has been posted in this thread that "proves" a god can not influence our current reality, where "proof" has the casual meaning of "would entail the abandonment of well evidenced theory on the basis of wild speculation".

The proof that gods cannot influence our lives, or our deaths, is far more solid than the proof that the Moon isn't made of cheese, and yet people still waste time worrying that it's not as rigorous as a mathematical proof - as though the failure to meet this impossible standard were sufficient to render speculation about such gods non-batshit-crazy.

Gods, as defined by all major religions in human history, are less plausible than cheese moons being overflown by exuberant cattle.

Anyone who seriously suggested that you might want to consider the real possibility of the Moon being made of Stilton would be laughed all the way to the psychiatrist.

Yet people, who are apparently not gibbering loons, are happy to say stupid shit like "It's still not proven that gods don't exist", and expect to be taken seriously. That's nuts.

Gods don't exist. Rocks don't fall upwards. Perpetual motion isn't possible. None of this is in any doubt; If any of it were incorrect, all of modern physics would need to not only be wrong, but wildly and obviously wrong. It's not. We checked.

That's proof - in the vernacular sense. Rigorous proofs are for mathematics.

I rather think all that "proof" is spurious. Part of the reason why science cannot prove zero gods is in fact that science cannot prove we are not in a simulation, and simulations can allow events to be observed uncaused by internal simulation mechanics.

It's proof of exactly the opposite of what you claim.

People who are not loons say "there are zero or more gods" because that's all the surety we get.

At best the evidence proves that no hook or trigger has been observed.

Until it has, zero remains in the table.

All your proof gets you is zero remaining on the table. It cannot remove "or more" or even the concept of omnipotence and omniscience.

On the flip-side, neither "zero" or "more than zero" being on the table gets you anywhere near "thus we ought".

We only identify the lack of connection there, between "n gods" and "thus we ought" when we consider for a moment pretending n>1. It's like doing calculus that way, putting everything over x, pretending x is not zero, removing the X in the denominator, and then saying "haha, now solve for X=0!"

At that point, we see that ethics exists independently of the "gods?" question. This is the entire topic of the ancient Socratic dialog with Euthephro.

The suggestion that we are in a simulation fails the "not batshit crazy" test.

We aren't in a simulation.

I know you like to analogise between our existence and various simulations with which you are very familiar; But taking that analogy to be a probability worthy of our consideration is frankly no less non-pointless than solipsism is.

 

[AdamWho]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Sure you have.

As noted in the OP there are a couple levels

1. Gods which have contradictory characteristics cannot exist. Such gods include the Abrahamic gods. These contradictions have been understood for 1000s of years

2. Gods who violate well established physical laws, have strong evidence that they do not exist. For examples gods which can transmit and receive knowledge faster than the speed of light. Gods which act in the universe while not existing in the universe.

3. Gods equivalent to non-existing can be said to not exist for all practical purposes.

4. Irrelevant gods. Such gods were previously used to explain physical phenomena that are well understood now. These gods (as defined) don't exist.

Exactly what you are confused about?

 

[Jarhyn]

The suggestion that we are in a simulation fails the "not batshit crazy" test

I have run universe simulations.

It is not batshit crazy to identify "universe simulations exist therefore this universe may be a universe simulation".

It just is important to be able to put it in context so one may know that such would not reasonably impact ethics.

 

[steve_bank]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Sure you have.

As noted in the OP there are a couple levels

1. Gods which have contradictory characteristics cannot exist. Such gods include the Abrahamic gods. These contradictions have been understood for 1000s of years

2. Gods who violate well established physical laws, have strong evidence that they do not exist. For examples gods which can transmit and receive knowledge faster than the speed of light. Gods which act in the universe while not existing in the universe.

3. Gods equivalent to non-existing can be said to not exist for all practical purposes.

4. Irrelevant gods. Such gods were previously used to explain physical phenomena that are well understood now. These gods (as defined) don't exist.

Exactly what you are confused about?

That is not scince. That is a set of unprofitable assumptions and assertions.

Putting it in simple teems theists say god must exist thefore god exists, case closed. I ave proven god exists.

An atheist might say god can not exist therefore god does not exist. case closed. I have proven god does not exist.

Neither are proofs, both are rationalizations.

Or 'Science Says' god can't exist therefore god does not exist.. Ok but what scienc exactly? Newton;s Laws? Relativity? Quantun Mecanics?

Simply invoking science gets you nowhere. Something relatively new, Christians clam science proves god exists. Watched a show on it.

 

[bilby]

The suggestion that we are in a simulation fails the "not batshit crazy" test

I have run universe simulations.

It is not batshit crazy to identify "universe simulations exist therefore this universe may be a universe simulation".

It just is important to be able to put it in context so one may know that such would not reasonably impact ethics.

I have picked up rocks.

It remains batshit crazy to identify "I can pick up rocks, therefore I can pick up Uluru".

We don't live in a simulation.

 

[Jarhyn]

The suggestion that we are in a simulation fails the "not batshit crazy" test

I have run universe simulations.

It is not batshit crazy to identify "universe simulations exist therefore this universe may be a universe simulation".

It just is important to be able to put it in context so one may know that such would not reasonably impact ethics.

I have picked up rocks.

It remains batshit crazy to identify "I can pick up rocks, therefore I can pick up Uluru".

We don't live in a simulation.

More, just a fact of universes: they can be created.

It does not mean they are. Just that they can be.

You just can't wave it away. It's there, the eternal elephant in the room.

Making absolute assertions about what the universe is or is not, without observability or testability of your assertions, is not science and it is not reason.

It is religion.

I just don't see how it hurts so much to just be honest and say "there are zero or more, but it does not matter to ethics even if 'or more'".

It does not leverage you to behave differently. On the whole it gives you MORE leverage against the demands people foist upon you to worship their concept of god.

I'm not saying "I can lift a rock therefore I can lift that rock" I am saying "rocks can be lifted, therefore that rock may be lifted".

I'm not saying we do live in a simulation. Just that we MAY.

I'm quite clear that I do not expect I can lift that rock. There are much smaller rocks I can lift, though, and ultimately the game theory for thinking how I may lift that rock is still applicable in lifting the smaller rocks I can lift, and which I have every plan to.

More, it's just enjoyable prodding at those who think they created the simulation to do the shit any simulation creator would have engineered access for to do. Like with the bird shitting in a tyrant's eye...

"Or more" as an option does not rob me my faculties of observing "zero have been observed this far", either. It just helps me understand what to ask for in claims of "or more".

 

[AdamWho]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Sure you have.

As noted in the OP there are a couple levels

1. Gods which have contradictory characteristics cannot exist. Such gods include the Abrahamic gods. These contradictions have been understood for 1000s of years

2. Gods who violate well established physical laws, have strong evidence that they do not exist. For examples gods which can transmit and receive knowledge faster than the speed of light. Gods which act in the universe while not existing in the universe.

3. Gods equivalent to non-existing can be said to not exist for all practical purposes.

4. Irrelevant gods. Such gods were previously used to explain physical phenomena that are well understood now. These gods (as defined) don't exist.

Exactly what you are confused about?

That is not scince. That is a set of unprofitable assumptions and assertions.

Putting it in simple teems theists say god must exist thefore god exists, case closed. I ave proven god exists.

An atheist might say god can not exist therefore god does not exist. case closed. I have proven god does not exist.

Neither are proofs, both are rationalizations.

Or 'Science Says' god can't exist therefore god does not exist.. Ok but what scienc exactly? Newton;s Laws? Relativity? Quantun Mecanics?

Simply invoking science gets you nowhere. Something relatively new, Christians clam science proves god exists. Watched a show on it.

I guess you are restricting "science" to "things published in journals".

None of your objections seem to make any sense.... you don't seem to be engaged with the content of the OP or the arguments.

Don't feel obligated to respond if you aren't going to add anything substantive.

 

[Jarhyn]

Still have not seen any science posted that proves a god can not exist.

Sure you have.

As noted in the OP there are a couple levels

1. Gods which have contradictory characteristics cannot exist. Such gods include the Abrahamic gods. These contradictions have been understood for 1000s of years

2. Gods who violate well established physical laws, have strong evidence that they do not exist. For examples gods which can transmit and receive knowledge faster than the speed of light. Gods which act in the universe while not existing in the universe.

3. Gods equivalent to non-existing can be said to not exist for all practical purposes.

4. Irrelevant gods. Such gods were previously used to explain physical phenomena that are well understood now. These gods (as defined) don't exist.

Exactly what you are confused about?

That is not scince. That is a set of unprofitable assumptions and assertions.

Putting it in simple teems theists say god must exist thefore god exists, case closed. I ave proven god exists.

An atheist might say god can not exist therefore god does not exist. case closed. I have proven god does not exist.

Neither are proofs, both are rationalizations.

Or 'Science Says' god can't exist therefore god does not exist.. Ok but what scienc exactly? Newton;s Laws? Relativity? Quantun Mecanics?

Simply invoking science gets you nowhere. Something relatively new, Christians clam science proves god exists. Watched a show on it.

I guess you are restricting "science" to "things published in journals".

None of your objections seem to make any sense.... you don't seem to be engaged with the content of the OP or the arguments.

Don't feel obligated to respond if you aren't going to add anything substantive.

The issue is that math, observable reality, says "universes can be, and observably by us, are simulated".

Science can't erase that observation of what is really a metaphysical truth rather than scientific specifically. Science cannot revoke a metaphysical truth.

Science can discuss the truth of a large number of metaphysical claims, but when something is a metaphysical truth all any science may do is say "ok, I guess I'll figure for and look for that, then".

Natural science is blind to that which operates the nature, plain and simple. As is anything purely within nature.

At best we can put metaphysical bounds up, on one side "there cannot be fewer than zero of a specific thing" and "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says there can be more than zero of this specific format of relationship extant in the "wider universe"", which we have likewise proved universes MAY have.

This metaphysics allows us to consider important philosophy as relates to creation of universes, the foundations of morality and ethics, and most importantly, how to handle those who claim they are God, or claim they speak for such

 

[steve_bank]

I am restricting science to known working models, not pop science or interpretation of science.

Someone in the past claimed an infinite number line proves we live forever after death. Or QM proves mind body duality.

You are doing what theists do just substituting the generl undefined word science for the undefined word god.

P1. Relativity says this...
P2. QM says that...
C God can not exist.

My years applying science as an engineer turned me into a pragmatic skeptic. A sign on someone's office, 'In god we trust, all else bring data'. That sums up my pregame skepticism.

My skepticism is tempered by having made mistakes assuming something could not possibly be true when it was.

So, I keep an open mind. I can say there is no proof for or against the existence of a god. The best I can say objectively is proof offed des not support the conclusion. Do I worry about a god? No. But if you ask me in a debate then that is my position.

 

[AdamWho]

I am restricting science to known working models, not pop science or interpretation of science.

Someone in the past claimed an infinite number line proves we live forever after death. Or QM proves mind body duality.

You are doing what theists do just substituting the generl undefined word science for the undefined word god.

P1. Relativity says this...
P2. QM says that...
C God can not exist.

My years applying science as an engineer turned me into a pragmatic skeptic. A sign on someone's office, 'In god we trust, all else bring data'. That sums up my pregame skepticism.

My skepticism is tempered by having made mistakes assuming something could not possibly be true when it was.

So, I keep an open mind. I can say there is no proof for or against the existence of a god. The best I can say objectively is proof offed des not support the conclusion. Do I worry about a god? No. But if you ask me in a debate then that is my position.

If you are still using the word "Proof" you might be in the wrong thread.

The fact that you used a syllogism in your post demonstrates conclusively that you either didn't read or don't understand the point made in the OP... continuing to make the same mistake over and over makes me think you aren't participating in good faith.

As stated in the OP the only case where proof comes into play is when a god has mutually exclusive characteristics in its definition. An example is the Bible god; this god cannot exist.

If you want to redefine Bible god into something else.... then you are talking about a different god... Maybe Thor?

 

[AdamWho]

The issue is that math, observable reality, says "universes can be, and observably by us, are simulated".

Science can't erase that observation of what is really a metaphysical truth rather than scientific specifically. Science cannot revoke a metaphysical truth.

Science can discuss the truth of a large number of metaphysical claims, but when something is a metaphysical truth all any science may do is say "ok, I guess I'll figure for and look for that, then".

Natural science is blind to that which operates the nature, plain and simple. As is anything purely within nature.

At best we can put metaphysical bounds up, on one side "there cannot be fewer than zero of a specific thing" and "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says there can be more than zero of this specific format of relationship extant in the "wider universe"", which we have likewise proved universes MAY have.

This metaphysics allows us to consider important philosophy as relates to creation of universes, the foundations of morality and ethics, and most importantly, how to handle those who claim they are God, or claim they speak for such

This read like a pseudo-philosophical word salad. I have no idea what you mean by metaphysics... I don't think you have any idea either.

Your argument is basically "I just took my first philosophy class... therefor god exists"

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue is that math, observable reality, says "universes can be, and observably by us, are simulated".

Science can't erase that observation of what is really a metaphysical truth rather than scientific specifically. Science cannot revoke a metaphysical truth.

Science can discuss the truth of a large number of metaphysical claims, but when something is a metaphysical truth all any science may do is say "ok, I guess I'll figure for and look for that, then".

Natural science is blind to that which operates the nature, plain and simple. As is anything purely within nature.

At best we can put metaphysical bounds up, on one side "there cannot be fewer than zero of a specific thing" and "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says there can be more than zero of this specific format of relationship extant in the "wider universe"", which we have likewise proved universes MAY have.

This metaphysics allows us to consider important philosophy as relates to creation of universes, the foundations of morality and ethics, and most importantly, how to handle those who claim they are God, or claim they speak for such

This read like a pseudo-philosophical word salad. I have no idea what you mean by metaphysics... I don't think you have any idea either.

Your argument is basically "I just took my first philosophy class... therefor god exists"

"My failure of understanding means you are wrong"

If you have no idea what I mean by metaphysics read my posts on it! Or just ask. Physics is to metaphysics as the rules are to metagaming.

Essentially: you can't escape Godel's Incompleteness Theorem no matter how much you wave your hands or stamp your feet. It is true of ALL existences in ALL physics, our own being just a small slice of that set.

 

[steve_bank]

While atheists in general have the unassailable neutral position of "I do not believe a god exists because of insufficient evidence", I think we can make significantly strong statements about gods.

Some gods are so incoherently defined and logically inconsistent that they cannot logically exist as defined. For example, the Omni-gods which is all powerful, all knowing and all loving have this contradiction. This contradiction has been well understood by Greek philosophers as early as 500 BCE. Apologists understand that this is a contradiction too and have redefined their gods to be maximally powerful as to not fall into contradiction. The Bible god falls into this category.

Other gods are more carefully defined and/or not logically impossible.

My claim is that we understand the laws of physics sufficiently well to rule-out the existence of large classes of possible gods.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Common criticisms of this point are as follows

1. "But we don't know everything". This is irrelevant because we don't need to know everything when we understand the boundaries of the possible. I don't need to know the number of grains of sand on a beach to know that it is a large but finite number...

2. "But god can break the rules". If such a god operates in the physical world, then we would see results of such a god. We don't see any god operating but many many examples of no god acting in the world on any level.

3. "But god is the physical laws of the universe". A redefinition of god into 'the physical laws' is just a version of deism and equivalent to a non-existent god.

4. Clark's Third Law "Any sufficient technology will be seen as magic". This is a literary rule-of-thumb not a physical law. It also makes a unfalsifiable claim that has no evidence. No matter what technology a god might be using, it will be based in physical law... not magic. And we typically don't refer to advanced technological beings as being gods.... although we have yet to see any evidence for such beings existing outside of fiction.

***

My claim is: The bible god absolutely doesn't exist and our understanding of physical law is sufficient to rule out the existence of anything we would label gods.

'I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist'​

1. My response to the OP title is no different than to a theist. What is yor evidence? The sub forum is religion vs science. Perhaps the tjread should be in existence of gods or philosophy.

2. 'Some gods are so incoherently defined and logically inconsistent that they cannot logically exist as defined.'

Theists make logically valid arguments. How is yours any more true? Proof of a logical argument is evidence. Logic alone is insuffient for was a proof.

3. While atheists in general have the unassailable neutral position of "I do not believe a god exists because of insufficient evidence"

I do not agree with the generalization.

4. "But we don't know everything". This is irrelevant because we don't need to know everything when we understand the boundaries of the possible. I don't need to know the number of grains of sand on a beach to know that it is a large but finite number...

It is most relvant if yio are making an argument. And that brings science into the debate. You infer absolute boundaries are known, which they are not. How would we know when we know everything? Some in the 19th century thought science was at an end.

5 Clark's Third Law "Any sufficient technology will be seen as magic".

Correct. If someone appeared on the White House lawn claiming to be a god we have no way to know if it is advanced technology. That idea was covered in the Star Trek saga.

6. My claim is: The bible god absolutely doesn't exist and our understanding of physical law is sufficient to rule out the existence of anything we would label gods.

And again tuy bring in science and my response is still the same. Science as laws is a misnomer. Newton's Laws work within an opertaional boundary. Very small is QM, very fast is relativity. Models are called laws when they are so well demonstrated that we apply them without worry. The term law in scince does not infer anything absolute and inviolate.

Conservation of matter and energy are not stated as absolutly true, only that no exceptions have been found.

o, back to my sylogism amd waht are the specific laws of science that preclude a god?

Some Christians say science proves god exists based on your kind of reasoning.

 

[bilby]

If the thread title was "I think we can make the positive claim that the Moon is not made of cheese", would we have all these posts trying to explain that such a claim is unsupportable?

Why is it that as soon as people (even many atheists) see the word 'God', their brains switch off, and they start looking for excuses to believe crazy nonsense?

 

[Jarhyn]

If the thread title was "I think we can make the positive claim that the Moon is not made of cheese", would we have all these posts trying to explain that such a claim is unsupportable?

Why is it that as soon as people (even many atheists) see the word 'God', their brains switch off, and they start looking for excuses to believe crazy nonsense?

Because it is a positive claim on the basis of not actually observing anything.

We have been to the moon, seen the stuff it is made of and it is not "cheese". We have "produced" the moon.

"Exactly zero" it an excuse to believe crazy nonsense. No absolutely unsupportable statement, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, is acceptable in a truly informed and enlightened world view.

I will say exactly zero things I cannot support with reason. "There exactly are zero gods" cannot ever be supported by reason. Therefore I shall not say it.

"Or more" is for the same reason that limit notation is used: the caveat is important.