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

[Elixir]

Keith Richard, Willy Nelson … what more proof do you need?

 

[Bronzeage]

A hit and run thread?

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

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

 

[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.

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

I saw Bigfoot.
Do you have evidence?
Not exactly, I heard a strange cry and saw what looked like a big tall hairy creature in the distance.
Well, I can't say you did or not see Bigfoot, next time bring me proof.

 

[bilby]

What about in the Bible when...

You're missing the point.

The question is whether gods exist outside fiction.

Nobody is saying that fictional gods don't exist; And everything you can imagine is, by definition, possible in fiction.

 

[Bronzeage]

A hit and run thread?

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

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

I saw Bigfoot.
Do you have evidence?
Not exactly, I heard a strange cry and saw what looked like a big tall hairy creature in the distance.
Well, I can't say you did or not see Bigfoot, next time bring me proof.

There is no commandment which says, "Thy shalt prove my existence to the satisfaction of any who doubt."

It's easy to set the level of evidence high enough to never reach satisfactory and declare victory.

The title of this thread supposes to prove a negative, which would require perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge could only exist in an all powerful omnipotent being, who is independent of time and space. Therefore, to prove God did not exist, one would have to be God.

 

[Jarhyn]

A hit and run thread?

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

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

I saw Bigfoot.
Do you have evidence?
Not exactly, I heard a strange cry and saw what looked like a big tall hairy creature in the distance.
Well, I can't say you did or not see Bigfoot, next time bring me proof.

There is no commandment which says, "Thy shalt prove my existence to the satisfaction of any who doubt."

It's easy to set the level of evidence high enough to never reach satisfactory and declare victory.

The title of this thread supposes to prove a negative, which would require perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge could only exist in an all powerful omnipotent being, who is independent of time and space. Therefore, to prove God did not exist, one would have to be God.

QFT.

I think this is the best way to state this. It's why I treat strong atheism, and hard determinism, and all sorts of other nonsense about the same as I treat 7-day creationism.

 

[steve_bank]

I take the OP assertion to mean there is existing scientific theories that specifically preclude the existence of a god. I do not think this is true.

Debate on subjective evidence and observation is just the regular debate onthe religion forum.

 

[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.

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

I saw Bigfoot.
Do you have evidence?
Not exactly, I heard a strange cry and saw what looked like a big tall hairy creature in the distance.
Well, I can't say you did or not see Bigfoot, next time bring me proof.

There is no commandment which says, "Thy shalt prove my existence to the satisfaction of any who doubt."

It's easy to set the level of evidence high enough to never reach satisfactory and declare victory.

The title of this thread supposes to prove a negative, which would require perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge could only exist in an all powerful omnipotent being, who is independent of time and space. Therefore, to prove God did not exist, one would have to be God.

QFT.

I think this is the best way to state this. It's why I treat strong atheism, and hard determinism, and all sorts of other nonsense about the same as I treat 7-day creationism.

As I have said on the forum, neither an theist nor an atheist be, Flip sides of the same coin. The dbate is ridiculous. I identify as atheist for the purpose of discussion. I have nopersonal identity as an atheist.

 

[bilby]

I take the OP assertion to mean there is existing scientific theories that specifically preclude the existence of a god. I do not think this is true.

Fair enough. You are wrong, but that's OK. Lots of people don't understand, or don't want to understand, the implications of modern physics.

It's OK to be ignorant, but that doesn't change the fact that others do know that something is true.

Saying "I don't know" is perfectly alright.

Adding "...therefore nor do you" is arrogant and nonsensical.

 

[bilby]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

There are processes which inevitably impact human lives that are bigger than any one person, a confluence of culture and human nature together that generates "personality of effect".

The thing behind the ancient name "Mammon" is most certainly real. It is formed of real intents, and real problems, and real zeitgeist across generations.

There are invariably things "like" that which people have named as a "god", because they didn't have words that would encode complicated intersections of ideas that could describe it as "an interaction effect between human hoarder impulses and permanent ledgering of ownership."

All they had was "big incomprehensible thing that has major impacts on the lives of people, and to which offered devotion brings money" which translated to "god" for them

They didn't have the adjoining "as such devotion is a clear naming of intent to self so as to actualize greater acceptance of doing anything for money, which itself is pretty effective at improving one's chances of accruing it, because the victor writes the history books," which makes it a little less big and incomprehensible. Still, this is "like" what they called "god", it just inserts something comprehensible where they had incomprehensible.

 

[skepticalbip]

A hit and run thread?

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

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

I saw Bigfoot.
Do you have evidence?
Not exactly, I heard a strange cry and saw what looked like a big tall hairy creature in the distance.
Well, I can't say you did or not see Bigfoot, next time bring me proof.

There is no commandment which says, "Thy shalt prove my existence to the satisfaction of any who doubt."

It's easy to set the level of evidence high enough to never reach satisfactory and declare victory.

The title of this thread supposes to prove a negative, which would require perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge could only exist in an all powerful omnipotent being, who is independent of time and space. Therefore, to prove God did not exist, one would have to be God.

QFT.

I think this is the best way to state this. It's why I treat strong atheism, and hard determinism, and all sorts of other nonsense about the same as I treat 7-day creationism.

That is strange reasoning. Understanding is not a binary condition. There is a broad spectrum of understanding. If someone is trying to sell you a magic lamp that will grant any wish when you rub it then, by your reasoning, you would have to assume that the lamp is either magic or not so there is a 50/50 chance so the couple thousand they are asking is worth the investment risk.

The gods worshiped by the world's religions are magic lamps but non-existent materially.

 

[Jarhyn]

A hit and run thread?

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

By the same procedure for proving the nonexistence of leprechauns and unicorns. What is actually at work here is the human desire to find another human is incorrect about some point, which is used as evidence one is the smarter of the two.

I saw Bigfoot.
Do you have evidence?
Not exactly, I heard a strange cry and saw what looked like a big tall hairy creature in the distance.
Well, I can't say you did or not see Bigfoot, next time bring me proof.

There is no commandment which says, "Thy shalt prove my existence to the satisfaction of any who doubt."

It's easy to set the level of evidence high enough to never reach satisfactory and declare victory.

The title of this thread supposes to prove a negative, which would require perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge could only exist in an all powerful omnipotent being, who is independent of time and space. Therefore, to prove God did not exist, one would have to be God.

QFT.

I think this is the best way to state this. It's why I treat strong atheism, and hard determinism, and all sorts of other nonsense about the same as I treat 7-day creationism.

That is strange reasoning. Understanding is not a binary condition. There is a broad spectrum of understanding. If someone is trying to sell you a magic lamp that will grant any wish when you rub it then, by your reasoning, you would have to assume that the lamp is either magic or not so there is a 50/50 chance so the couple thousand they are asking is worth the investment.

Not at all. You are committing a straw-man and pulling forward a bad analogy.

The OP uses the words "like", and quite frankly nobody gets to be immune to criticism of abuse of language and of criticism over declaring negatives.

My thought is to trust but verify. Perhaps hold the magic lamp vendor up by the ankles over a pit and toss him the lamp so as to see him wish his way out of it?

Of course the easiest part is to know how magic works, and so to know that magic does not work like that.

In this respect, the spectacle is almost 100% worth the investment.

But I explain what is "like" and how reckless and why it is reckless to discount the existence of the things ancient people discussed and that we should rather cast a modern eye of understanding on the thing. This allows us to build a bridge between old understandings and new rather than what Adam's approach will bring, which is merely alienation.

 

[excreationist]

What about in the Bible when...

You're missing the point.

The question is whether gods exist outside fiction.

Nobody is saying that fictional gods don't exist; And everything you can imagine is, by definition, possible in fiction.

I was discussing abaddon saying "A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such".... and whether that definition talking about being worshipped fit the Bible god. That was related to whether the intelligent force in a simulation I believe in can be considered to be a god.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have what is written in old scrolls and told to us by priests. And a simulation is not necessarily constructed by a God.

A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such.

The notion of extending the concept to any doofus who has some technical power, like computer programmers who assemble (or "create" if you want to be hyperbolic about it) a similitude of life (or "universe" if you want to be hyperbolic about it), is just people failing to know what similes are - they conflate "like" and "is".

That 'argument' is based on the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion. "A god is a divine being or entity" begins with the assumption that there is a god. It should be stated that god is a concept, leaving whether or not the concept accurately described a "being or entity" open to philosophical argument of whether god is imaginary or a being.

 

[excreationist]

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

What about post #5? My belief is partly based on a quote from Futurama.... there is no religion associated with it and I don't think I've ever worshipped it... (well I did sing hymns but I think they are mostly not historical) as I explain "The purpose of not being obvious is so that the simulation is more immersive and more indistinguishable from base reality."

 

[bilby]

What about in the Bible when...

You're missing the point.

The question is whether gods exist outside fiction.

Nobody is saying that fictional gods don't exist; And everything you can imagine is, by definition, possible in fiction.

I was discussing abaddon saying "A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such".... and whether that definition talking about being worshipped fit the Bible god. That was related to whether the intelligent force in a simulation I believe in can be considered to be a god.

Why, what does the Bible have to do with it?

Why not the Guru Granth Sahib? Or any other work of fiction that includes gods as characters?

 

[bilby]

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

What about post #5? My belief is partly based on a quote from Futurama.... there is no religion associated with it and I don't think I've ever worshipped it... (well I did sing hymns but I think they are mostly not historical) as I explain "The purpose of not being obvious is so that the simulation is more immersive and more indistinguishable from base reality."

What about it?

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the entire
reality of which we are aware is a simulation, why would we call the individual or individuals who made the simulation 'gods'?

And who has ever worshipped such individuals, or held a religious service to sing their praises?

If we live in a simulation, its creators don't qualify as gods any more than Jarhyn does - and he doesn't, despite his insistence to the contrary.

 

[excreationist]

I was discussing abaddon saying "A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such".... and whether that definition talking about being worshipped fit the Bible god. That was related to whether the intelligent force in a simulation I believe in can be considered to be a god.

Why, what does the Bible have to do with it?

Why not the Guru Granth Sahib? Or any other work of fiction that includes gods as characters?

The Bible god is believed by many to be real and is considered to be a god. The Bible seems to talk about a time before this "god" was worshipped yet he was still a god....

 

[excreationist]

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

What about post #5? My belief is partly based on a quote from Futurama.... there is no religion associated with it and I don't think I've ever worshipped it... (well I did sing hymns but I think they are mostly not historical) as I explain "The purpose of not being obvious is so that the simulation is more immersive and more indistinguishable from base reality."

What about it?

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the entire
reality of which we are aware is a simulation, why would we call the individual or individuals who made the simulation 'gods'?

I thought an intelligent creator of a universe could be called a god, especially if they intervene after its creation. And they're more of a god than the regular Greek and Roman gods....

And who has ever worshipped such individuals, or held a religious service to sing their praises?

Yes I'm saying this non-obvious intelligent force might not have been worshipped yet I'd say they could be called a god....
BTW my beliefs are partly based on this scene from Futurama:


Do you think the character can't be called a god?

If we live in a simulation, its creators don't qualify as gods any more than Jarhyn does - and he doesn't, despite his insistence to the contrary.

So you're saying the intelligent creator of a universe is equally as god-like as Jarhyn?