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

[steve_bank]

A hit and run thread?

Still haven't heard how science proves gods can not exist. I await a response with great anticipation.

I am happy to talk, it is just this forum doesn't have a lot of activity, so I don't check in that often

As outlined in the OP, there are categories of gods who are ruled out of existing.

1. Logically impossible gods. The Abrahamic god and the VAST majority of worshiped gods

2. Gods which violate well understood physical law. Any god-like simply cannot have omniscience or omnipotence in this universe. And those who cite science fiction as counter examples are not better than

3. Gods who are equivalent to non-existent. Deist gods, gods outside of space/time who don't interact with the universe.

4. Redefinition of Gods into things that exist is just dumb. "My coffee cup is god, therefor god exists", "Nature is god, therefor god exists"

****

Besides after reading this thread, there really isn't anything substantive to reply to.

Arguments from imagination/fantasy/fiction....
Word redefinition games...
Purposeful misinterpretations/misunderstanding just for the point of arguing.
Focus on minutia instead of ideas....
Irrelevant tangents.

After almost 25 years in this forum (in one form or another), it is always the same.... How much time do you think I should invest to steer the conversation?

Well understood physics? In the 19th century QM was yet to be developed. Newtonian physics was the absolute truth.

The presumption of rejectingg a god because it violates known physics is a presumption that we know all there is to know.

 

[bilby]

The presumption of rejectingg a god because it violates known physics is a presumption that we know all there is to know.

No, it really isn't.

Science IS the rejection of failed hypotheses. It doesn't need to know all there is to know to do this, it just needs to know that the hypothesis in question is incompatible with observed facts.

All hypotheses rejected by science fit into this description.

You don't need to know everything, to know that the Earth is not orbited by the Sun and planets. Equally, you don't need to know everything, to know that gods exist only in fiction.

 

[AdamWho]

Well understood physics? In the 19th century QM was yet to be developed. Newtonian physics was the absolute truth.

The presumption of rejecting a god because it violates known physics is a presumption that we know all there is to know.

The physics of everyday life is completely understood... and it has been for a long time (~60 years). There are no gaps left for any god-like thing to hide in.

If you don't like this claim, I will give you a source of someone you might agree with (Sean Carroll).

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

It is tedious to argue about gods on theist terms with their silly story books. We should go straight to the heart of things: God-like things cannot exist in our universe. There are no gaps for them to hide in (and still be called gods)

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

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.

The word god is defined as creator. I think therefore I am. Something created me. God exists.. sort of.
Hi . I have been researching for many years and I believe I have the answers for you.
What who when how and why we exist.
I will try a short summary of my conclusions.
1.deconstruction… flesh>atoms>subatomic particles >
Subatomic electromagnetic energy waves > consciousness…..
2. Physical is just a perception of vibrating energy.
10011100011 angstroms decibels firing synapses > all just subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.
We are a singularity that is creating our consciousness by vibrating.
I think therefore I am.. everything is a product of our thinking.
There is more such as the past is over doesn’t exist anymore > the future doesn’t exist yet.
Only now ever exists.. now after now .. we are an ever expanding singularity consciousness.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the purpose of the universe is to make our existence as a singularity (1) in a universe of nothingness (0) 1100011100
A more enjoyable experience…. Eternity is a long time to be lonely and bored.

 

[bilby]

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.

The word god is defined as creator. I think therefore I am. Something created me. God exists.. sort of.
Hi . I have been researching for many years and I believe I have the answers for you.
What who when how and why we exist.
I will try a short summary of my conclusions.
1.deconstruction… flesh>atoms>subatomic particles >
Subatomic electromagnetic energy waves > consciousness…..
2. Physical is just a perception of vibrating energy.
10011100011 angstroms decibels firing synapses > all just subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.
We are a singularity that is creating our consciousness by vibrating.
I think therefore I am.. everything is a product of our thinking.
There is more such as the past is over doesn’t exist anymore > the future doesn’t exist yet.
Only now ever exists.. now after now .. we are an ever expanding singularity consciousness.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the purpose of the universe is to make our existence as a singularity (1) in a universe of nothingness (0) 1100011100
A more enjoyable experience…. Eternity is a long time to be lonely and bored.

Those are certainly all words.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Isn't the proposition of a material world supported by the material things in the world around us?

THIS seems to me to have the conclusion in the premise. That's the ENTIRETY of what I was getting at. Everything else was only elaboration about how abstractions like "materialism" or "idealism" come later in life, when culture sticks such ideas into people's heads. My effort to specify "stick with the first person POV" was me trying to avoid any further responses to me that ignored the simple point of logic and involved yapping about either physics or metaphysics or religion.

Is the material world to be considered a premise? We bump against its reality each and every day. So, if a premise, a proven premise.

I think if the materialist Greeks were reacting to a climate of Idealist philosophers, then it wasn't so simple as deriving a materialist metaphysics from the observation of "material" things or objects, as I thought you were suggesting (as if "material" is right there in the experience of phenomena themselves). "Material" is an IDEA that's tacked on top of experience. It'll feel very obvious to a modern who's been exposed to the idea all his life, throughout all his culture.

So I think the Greek materialist philosophers did something way more amazing in deriving "atoms" from their experience than is suggested by a phrase like "Isn't the proposition of a material world supported by the material things in the world around us?" when it was not so obvious-seeming to them that the "things in the world" are material.

The ancient Greeks, as with us all, had a physical world to bump against, interact with and test. How the world is observed to behave, its attributes and properties must be a consideration.

The proposition that the matter is composed of 'atomos' must have been based on observations of the properties of matter, that objects can be reduced, ground down, burnt, etc, to finer and finer particles....a pot becomes a pile shards when broken, shards may be smashed to pieces, the pieces ground to dust, dust to fine powder.

Sure; But the idea of atomos is that you cannot just keep on doing this indefinitely.

Which is far from obvious, given ancient Greek knowledge and observations.

The idea of atomos strikes me as related to the concept of infinity. If you believe infinity to be impossible, then you could feel compelled to believe that there must be an endpoint for any process - and when that process is cutting stuff up, the endpoint is called 'atomos' - an idea whose foundation is the (false) belief that infinity is absurd and impossible.

If it happens to be correct, then it's right for the wrong reasons; But it's questionable whether it's correct; Atoms as we csll them today are most certainly divisible, just ask the citizens of Nagasaki.

I wasn't suggesting that they got their 'atomos' model right, only that it's likely that they extrapolated from the observation that matter can be reduced to finer and finer particles.

But the whole point of atomos is that some things cannot be reduced to finer particles.

Extrapolating from the observation that things can be so reduced would refute atomos as an hypothesis.

What things can't be reduced to finer particles?

Yes, exactly.

Well, that explains it.

There are no “particles “
Ignorant physicists through in a “p” in Einsteins E=mc2 I solve for mass and get
m=E/c2 … energy and the speed of light light are not physical or particles…
Only subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.. also known as consciousness exist. As Rene Descartes said I think therefore I am.. just thoughts… angstroms decibels..
Firing synapses colours sounds all just vibrating energy…

 

[bilby]

Only subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.. also known as consciousness

These are only 'also known as consciousness' by people who are blatantly making shit up without reason or evidence.

If you have some structured argument to bridge the VAST gulf between "subatomic electromagnetic energy waves" and "consciousness", this would be a good time to present it.

 

[DBT]

Isn't the proposition of a material world supported by the material things in the world around us?

THIS seems to me to have the conclusion in the premise. That's the ENTIRETY of what I was getting at. Everything else was only elaboration about how abstractions like "materialism" or "idealism" come later in life, when culture sticks such ideas into people's heads. My effort to specify "stick with the first person POV" was me trying to avoid any further responses to me that ignored the simple point of logic and involved yapping about either physics or metaphysics or religion.

Is the material world to be considered a premise? We bump against its reality each and every day. So, if a premise, a proven premise.

I think if the materialist Greeks were reacting to a climate of Idealist philosophers, then it wasn't so simple as deriving a materialist metaphysics from the observation of "material" things or objects, as I thought you were suggesting (as if "material" is right there in the experience of phenomena themselves). "Material" is an IDEA that's tacked on top of experience. It'll feel very obvious to a modern who's been exposed to the idea all his life, throughout all his culture.

So I think the Greek materialist philosophers did something way more amazing in deriving "atoms" from their experience than is suggested by a phrase like "Isn't the proposition of a material world supported by the material things in the world around us?" when it was not so obvious-seeming to them that the "things in the world" are material.

The ancient Greeks, as with us all, had a physical world to bump against, interact with and test. How the world is observed to behave, its attributes and properties must be a consideration.

The proposition that the matter is composed of 'atomos' must have been based on observations of the properties of matter, that objects can be reduced, ground down, burnt, etc, to finer and finer particles....a pot becomes a pile shards when broken, shards may be smashed to pieces, the pieces ground to dust, dust to fine powder.

Sure; But the idea of atomos is that you cannot just keep on doing this indefinitely.

Which is far from obvious, given ancient Greek knowledge and observations.

The idea of atomos strikes me as related to the concept of infinity. If you believe infinity to be impossible, then you could feel compelled to believe that there must be an endpoint for any process - and when that process is cutting stuff up, the endpoint is called 'atomos' - an idea whose foundation is the (false) belief that infinity is absurd and impossible.

If it happens to be correct, then it's right for the wrong reasons; But it's questionable whether it's correct; Atoms as we csll them today are most certainly divisible, just ask the citizens of Nagasaki.

I wasn't suggesting that they got their 'atomos' model right, only that it's likely that they extrapolated from the observation that matter can be reduced to finer and finer particles.

But the whole point of atomos is that some things cannot be reduced to finer particles.

Extrapolating from the observation that things can be so reduced would refute atomos as an hypothesis.

What things can't be reduced to finer particles?

Yes, exactly.

Well, that explains it.

There are no “particles “
Ignorant physicists through in a “p” in Einsteins E=mc2 I solve for mass and get
m=E/c2 … energy and the speed of light light are not physical or particles…
Only subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.. also known as consciousness exist. As Rene Descartes said I think therefore I am.. just thoughts… angstroms decibels..
Firing synapses colours sounds all just vibrating energy…

I was referring to the ancient Greeks and their experience of grinding or reducing matter down to finer and finer particles, the finest of which they postulated to be the atomus.....not current physics, new age or pop philosophy.

 

[Elixir]

Those are certainly all words.

Wins thread!

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Wins thread? You can’t even present any evidence, let alone win a discussion on consciousness. You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

 

[Elixir]

You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject.

Yes, obviously. Since “the subject” is vaporware of your insipid imagination, I call it a “win”.

But I’m sure you have lotsa words for that!

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject.

Yes, obviously. Since “the subject” is vaporware of your insipid imagination, I call it a “win”.

But I’m sure you have lotsa words for that!

I figured your entire evidence is baseless and unsupported insults. You did not win but kicking someone in the nuts in a boxing contest is cheating and your insults are against the rules of logic reason and evidence … YOU LOSE. By the way this is not a discussion now it’s a debate that you just lost.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wins thread? You can’t even present any evidence, let alone win a discussion on consciousness. You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

You know, we just had another one in here. Go ahead, look up @MrIntelligentDesign's posts.

Yours bear a strong similarity.

Now, I've personally created a number of universes: deterministic, ordered processes which interact in systematic ways upon a field or fields.

I know for a fact that it's entirely possible for a universe to be created by a rank idiot.

I know for a fact that it wouldn't take consciousness to make that happen.

Your bullshit still doesn't get you any closer to "there are more than zero gods" any more than Adam's does to "there are exactly zero gods".

Until you produce a god for us to look at, "there are zero or more gods". Until you show us a Theory of Everything that shows us an infinite normal series that resembles our universe and then demonstrate predictive power from said infinite normal series, "there are zero or more gods".

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Wins thread? You can’t even present any evidence, let alone win a discussion on consciousness. You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

You know, we just had another one in here. Go ahead, look up @MrIntelligentDesign's posts.

Yours bear a strong similarity.

Now, I've personally created a number of universes: deterministic, ordered processes which interact in systematic ways upon a field or fields.

I know for a fact that it's entirely possible for a universe to be created by a rank idiot.

I know for a fact that it wouldn't take consciousness to make that happen.

Your bullshit still doesn't get you any closer to "there are more than zero gods" any more than Adam's does to "there are exactly zero gods".

Until you produce a god for us to look at, "there are zero or more gods". Until you show us a Theory of Everything that shows us an infinite normal series that resembles our universe and then demonstrate predictive power from said infinite normal series, "there are zero or more gods".

First of all learn to understand a simple concept.
I think therefore I am (1) not zero.. how ever
My realization that I exist.. causes a BIG BANG of unanswerable questions (0) answers.
Who what where why how do I know I exist?
1 000111000 vibrating conscious energy we use to create and communicate every thought. Read an encyclopedia on what the binary system is. Oh and what angstroms decibels and firing synapses are. Then reconsider what 100011100 is creating and communicating. Hint: what is consciousness? As opposed to quantum physics

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wins thread?

Yeah, pretty much.
Whst? Did you think that insisting on your shit with truck-all for evidence would even place in this forum?

You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

Huh. I guess you did.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Wins thread?

Yeah, pretty much.
Whst? Did you think that insisting on your shit with truck-all for evidence would even place in this forum?

You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

Huh. I guess you did.

Lol

 

[steve_bank]

Wins thread? You can’t even present any evidence, let alone win a discussion on consciousness. You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

You know, we just had another one in here. Go ahead, look up @MrIntelligentDesign's posts.

Yours bear a strong similarity.

Now, I've personally created a number of universes: deterministic, ordered processes which interact in systematic ways upon a field or fields.

I know for a fact that it's entirely possible for a universe to be created by a rank idiot.

I know for a fact that it wouldn't take consciousness to make that happen.

Your bullshit still doesn't get you any closer to "there are more than zero gods" any more than Adam's does to "there are exactly zero gods".

Until you produce a god for us to look at, "there are zero or more gods". Until you show us a Theory of Everything that shows us an infinite normal series that resembles our universe and then demonstrate predictive power from said infinite normal series, "there are zero or more gods".

First of all learn to understand a simple concept.
I think therefore I am (1) not zero.. how ever
My realization that I exist.. causes a BIG BANG of unanswerable questions (0) answers.
Who what where why how do I know I exist?
1 000111000 vibrating conscious energy we use to create and communicate every thought. Read an encyclopedia on what the binary system is. Oh and what angstroms decibels and firing synapses are. Then reconsider what 100011100 is creating and communicating. Hint: what is consciousness? As opposed to quantum physics

I fart and smell it, therefore I am.

Scatter brained is an old term for someone who has a constant stream of unconnected thoughts never actually focusing on a constent theme. A modern euphemism is 'stream of concessions'. Thought to mouth without any filtering or care given to logic and rationality.

Back in the day one took LSD or smokd pot, waited for it to come, and then start making an endkess stream of profound revelations. It was called 'tripping'. Camdels amd incense for the mystical effect.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Wins thread? You can’t even present any evidence, let alone win a discussion on consciousness. You are obviously bereft of any knowledge of the subject. Now if you want to present any questions on the subject I would be happy to give you my understanding but… I really do not see the point.. you just want to start an argument so you can “win” it. Are you really that insecure?

You know, we just had another one in here. Go ahead, look up @MrIntelligentDesign's posts.

Yours bear a strong similarity.

Now, I've personally created a number of universes: deterministic, ordered processes which interact in systematic ways upon a field or fields.

I know for a fact that it's entirely possible for a universe to be created by a rank idiot.

I know for a fact that it wouldn't take consciousness to make that happen.

Your bullshit still doesn't get you any closer to "there are more than zero gods" any more than Adam's does to "there are exactly zero gods".

Until you produce a god for us to look at, "there are zero or more gods". Until you show us a Theory of Everything that shows us an infinite normal series that resembles our universe and then demonstrate predictive power from said infinite normal series, "there are zero or more gods".

First of all learn to understand a simple concept.
I think therefore I am (1) not zero.. how ever
My realization that I exist.. causes a BIG BANG of unanswerable questions (0) answers.
Who what where why how do I know I exist?
1 000111000 vibrating conscious energy we use to create and communicate every thought. Read an encyclopedia on what the binary system is. Oh and what angstroms decibels and firing synapses are. Then reconsider what 100011100 is creating and communicating. Hint: what is consciousness? As opposed to quantum physics

I fart and smell it, therefore I am.

Scatter brained is an old term for someone who has a constant stream of unconnected thoughts never actually focusing on a constent theme. A modern euphemism is 'stream of concessions'. Thought to mouth without any filtering or care given to logic and rationality.

Back in the day one took LSD or smokd pot, waited for it to come, and then start making an endkess stream of profound revelations. It was called 'tripping'. Camdels amd incense for the mystical effect.

Just admit you are not intelligent enough to discuss thieve concepts. So you resort to insults to hide your ignorance of those concepts.

 

[Elixir]

I see evolution creating things beyond human understanding. Even "artificial" evolution.
I don't see gods creating anything other than possibly raw energy before it began to condense into matter. Show me the logical need for a god that cannot possibly be filled by other prior assumptions. Show me an observation that falsifies evolution.

Just admit you are not intelligent enough to discuss thieve concepts. So you resort to insults to hide your ignorance of those concepts.

That's pretty persuasive. Works really well, the more people you repeat it to.
You win.
Here's a balloon, Mr Intelligent.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

I see evolution creating things beyond human understanding. Even "artificial" evolution.
I don't see gods creating anything other than possibly raw energy before it began to condense into matter.
Show me the logical need for a god that cannot also be filled by other prior assumptions.

Read this very carefully and consider the implications.
We created the god that created us to explain our existence. Circular reasoning? A conundrum.