Proof that God does not exist.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    ???
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,990
    That's not a definition, it's a bald assertion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    A definition is a bald assertion. Maybe it was a poor definition or an incomplete one but definitions are not essays. To say something is a bald assertion is to say it is unsupported. That's not the job of definitions, to support.

    Cat
    noun
    1.
    a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in anumber of varieties.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
     
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,424
    What makes the human race moral or even savable. There's no way of making it good on the demon of un-fairness. It's either un-fair on him or he doesn't exist.
     
  9. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    May I respectfully suggest this water cooler squabble be disbursed and disbanded

    Further this approach be abandoned and replaced, by a new thread, with a different legal process

    Since the object of this thread was to prove god did not exist may we, provisional only assume, however tenuously held the belief (or outright disbelief) might be by many or how strongly held by others god exist

    This stand in no manner presumes said presumption of existence as fait accompie of actual existence and will not be considered in evidence for existence

    Evidence

    Evidence which might be brought to play in this new approach could be of the following

    Analogical Evidence

    Anecdotal Evidence

    Character Evidence

    Circumstantial Evidence

    Demonstrative Evidence

    Digital Evidence

    Direct Evidence

    Documentary Evidence

    Exculpatory Evidence

    Forensic Evidence

    Hearsay Evidence

    Physical Evidence

    Prima Facie Evidence

    Statistical Evidence

    Testimonial Evidence

    List obtained from

    https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/

    The legal process I have in mind is

    CORONER'S INQUEST

    An inquest is a judicial inquiry in common lawjurisdictions, particularly one held to determine the cause of a person's death.[1]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest

    If we can decide if god is legally dead ie does not currently exist we perhaps can move to the more thorny problem did he ever exist

    Thoughts Alex

    Anyone

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    Hi there sowhatifit'sdark.
    The way you have replied and commented makes it difficult for me to reply.

    You said.

    You say there is a difference, then you act in the next sentence that there is no difference. Do you understand that difference? You agreed to what I said. Explain what you agreed to, please.

    I dont understand what you ask so please rephrase your question.

    You said...
    Then why does your thread have the title it does? Could you please change the title of the thread.

    Read the progress from going to do it then not and then maybe but I wont be changing the title.
    Hang around and see what develops.

    You said...

    It is not a premise to many believers. Just because something cannot be proved to exist does not mean that some people may have good reasons to believe it exists.

    Could you tell me what the good reasons may be... Please be specific as to do so would be a great help.

    You said...
    You seem to have a lot of judgments of theists. I sympathize. But overgeneralizing is not useful. As a theist I do not assume that I can demonstrate to you the existence of God, certainly not if you are unwilling to engage in certain practices for a long time and I see no point in trying to convince you you should. I know there are lots of idiotic theists, but you seem to have limited experience of a fuller range of theists.
    My position is very simple... I just would like to know why say yourself believes in firstly scriptures that contain clear errors. Why promote scriptures that are supposed to be the word of God when they contain mistakes.... Does the fact that they contain mistakes not cause you concern and how do you select what is right or wrong... Slavery presumably you reject it but it is in the bible presented as good and indeed normal.. Its not so. How do you resolve such problems a d know what is right and what is wrong.
    You said...
    That sounds like a doomsday kind of religious belief. Can you demonstrate that belief you just put forward beyond a reasonable doubt?
    Its not a religious belief it is no more than a comment designed to point out that if we dont follow our laws, and therefore the laws standard of proof, civilization will fail.
    Think about it.. it is our law that holds society together... It regulates government, it regulates commerce, it regulates everything really and it replaces the role of religion in the history past.
    All I suggest is the law provides a system of proof and I intend to rely on that system of proof to prove God does not exist... In other words I believe that if one applies the system of proof accepted at law one can prove a negative or in this case that God does not exist.
    Look at it this way a court of law would require evidence if you want to rely upon a claim as fact and as far as Gods existence it is only your claim that is your evidence or heresay.. That is someone else told you God exists... The law does not accept the things you rely upon to say there is a God.
    All you have is an un supported opinion that a God exists... Do you have more or not?

    You said...

    What? I don't think you have much experience of agnostics or the various types of agnosticism.
    There certainly may be agnostics who mean that, but it can 'say' other things as well. And generally does.
    I dont have a problem with your comments as it is as most of the stuff in this thread a matter of opinion....

    Thank you for presenting your thoughts and for your honesty.


    Alex
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    I tried to back out but I could almost see the disappointment on the faces of those anticipating my fall.
    But I do feel guilty because the prospect of proving God does not exist must be confronting for many.
    The thread will die a natural death hopefully.
    The challenge for me is to set the idea that you cant prove a negative somewhat on its head at least I think you can by using the standards of proof used at law and if those standards are not sufficient what does that mean...
    I like your list of the various types of evidence hopefully such presentation may help some understand they have available many forms of evidence to choose from.
    You listed heresay evidence which is normally inadmissable but for this exercise I would be happy to have someone present heresay evidence...
    I wish folk could answer me as to why they can believe given the barriers that I see may prevent them believing.
    Funny I have two friends each of who were raised in strict religious backgrounds and each of them are not only athiest but savagely so... One was ready to deck a guy when he started preaching religion, he near went tropo, I had to lead him away. The other guy has clearly had something happen as he screams out in his sleep... He stayed over one night and just about scared me and my then wife to death... His screaming mentions things I cant go into but certainly for him a religious school was not too good for him... As time went on we discovered he was rather screwed up... So maybe these guys give me a negative view.
    But the first one is probably where I get the term "made up" but he adds the words BS.
    Also in business the folk who profested when you met them that they were christians were invariably the ones you had to be careful of.... Terrible to say but they would tell you something but you could never take their word. Little things but I dont think they even realised how they would change their positions.
    Anyways I expect I have just been unfortunate to see the negative side of religion.
    Alex
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    I am sorry I dont understand what you mean... Do you think you could expand a little because I am interested in what you have to say.
    Alex
     
  13. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    Xelasnave.1947,
    The way you have replied and commented makes it difficult for me to reply.

    You said.

    You say there is a difference, then you act in the next sentence that there is no difference. Do you understand that difference? You agreed to what I said. Explain what you agreed to, please.

    Me; There is a difference between arguing that no arguments exist that support the existence of God and claiming one has proved that God does not exist.

    You:There is indeed a difference.

    You: And it is interesting that so far we still are at a point where no evidence for God exists. Its like believers have proved there is no God by simply failing to offer anything at all.

    To me second green sentence assumes there is no difference. Yet, you had just agreed with me that there was a difference.


    It is not a premise to many believers. Just because something cannot be proved to exist does not mean that some people may have good reasons to believe it exists.

    Could you tell me what the good reasons may be... Please be specific as to do so would be a great help.

    First, do you recognize the fact that one can have good reasons for believing something that one may not be able to or even cannot prove to others is the case.


    My position is very simple... I just would like to know why say yourself believes in firstly scriptures that contain clear errors.

    I am not a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) so what you are referring to me is not relevent. It also is an overgeneralization, even for monotheists, since their are monotheitsts in those traditions who think that their scriptures may contain culturally influenced distortions or even errors of various kinds. They believe, for various reasons, that the scriptures capture core truths, just as pretty much everyone listens to certain authorities without considering them infallible, just experts. There is a great deal of theistic variety.

    You said...
    That sounds like a doomsday kind of religious belief. Can you demonstrate that belief you just put forward beyond a reasonable doubt?
    Its not a religious belief it is no more than a comment designed to point out that if we dont follow our laws, and therefore the laws standard of proof, civilization will fail.


    A comment and a doomsday kind of religious belief are not mutually exclusive. You stated something, without qualification. That if you do not evaluate things, including the existence of God, in the ways we do guilt or innocence in courts, society will fall. I am asking where this doomsday belief comes from.



    Think about it.. it is our law that holds society together... It regulates government, it regulates commerce, it regulates everything really and it replaces the role of religion in the history past.

    No, it does not replace the role of religion and was in place concurrent and overlapping with religion. Not that I think this has been a good thing, but so many things you say seem not grounded in reality.


    ALL I SUGGEST is the law provides a system of proof and I intend to rely on that system of proof to prove God does not exist... In other words I believe that if one applies the system of proof accepted at law one can prove a negative or in this case that God does not exist.


    That is not all you suggested. You said something doomsday, end of civilization ish about what happens if we do not apply to court standards to religoius beliefs.

    Look at it this way a court of law would require evidence if you want to rely upon a claim as fact and as far as Gods existence it is only your claim that is your evidence or heresay.. That is someone else told you God exists... The law does not accept the things you rely upon to say there is a God.
    All you have is an un supported opinion that a God exists... Do you have more or not?


    Courts, in general, do not deal with what people believe, but what they do. In fact it was generally the monotheisms that had courts deal with beliefs. Again, I have said I don't assume you have any particular reason to believe in God. I don't think there are currently arguments for God that function as proofs. I think one needs experience. Other theists have other reasons they believe. Right now your posts go beyond saying that theists have not proved there is a God. You have claimed you can prove there is no God. I think that is BS.


    What? I don't think you have much experience of agnostics or the various types of agnosticism.
    There certainly may be agnostics who mean that, but it can 'say' other things as well. And generally does.
    I dont have a problem with your comments as it is as most of the stuff in this thread a matter of opinion....

    Agnosticism 1 is not mutually exclusive from atheism. You don't seem to realize that. That is a fact. Agnosticism can also be a philosphical position, rather than the emotional based one you posit. This is also a fact. If you want to be the voice of reason in relation to theists, you might want to consider using the same rigor you expect from theists for your own beliefs. And yes, much of this thread is opinions. But you opened with a claim to have a proof.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  14. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    Perhaps you can download this PDF and cut and paste out of it something you think would apply to indicate that you can indeed prove a negative

    https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

    Ask a mod to lock the thread for "to many off topic post"

    If if if that type of request is available

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    Still not sure but if you say I contradict myself I will accept that is the way you see it.

    Of course.. There must be some reason.
    It seems we are agreeing in a limited way.
    I must have put it the wrong way for you.
    I dont want a misunderstanding.
    I say law is important and without law a society can not function.
    That has nothing to do with doomsday.
    The law sets out the power of the government and the power of the people if there is no law there is no society. It has nothing to do with doomsday it is a fact. Without the law how can the go ernment run. Everything depends on the law without it there is no government.
    Government is created by the law. A country has a constitution the constitution is a law.
    No. My point was that if we dont respect our law we have nothing. I am pointing out that the way the law is you can prove certain things and certainly not what you think I am saying.
    Sorry for any confusion perhaps read what I said more carefully and dont be in a rush to think I said something that I did not say. In these matters one can assume incorrectly what another is saying and in this case I think you are misunderstanding some things I say.
    Think of it this way the way the law approaches proof all I say is that it is possible to prove a negative.. If that makes you angry you should level your anger at the law and I did not write the law... But I certainly am sorry if you feel that I have mad you angry and if so I appologise sincerely to you.
    Well you may be right that I cant do it.. It was a pretty big claim to start with and so far things dont seem to be going my way. I already indicated that I did not want to continue but others are making a retreat difficult and so the thread goes on...
    There was a thread here some time ago but from the other direction.. Its title was a claim that the poster could prove there was a God. The thread went for sometime and everyone seemed to enjoy discussing religion... And to a degree this thread was to provide a place for folk to discuss religion.
    We all like to put forward our opinion and I felt this thread could provide a platform where folk from various world views could interact.. And here we are. I now have the pleasure of talking to you and you have the pleasure I telling me that what I claim I can do is BS. I think we can benefit from interaction and trying to understand how others think.
    I hope you can see it similar.
    Yes I did and to a large degree I regret openning the thread mainly because I think it has upset people which was never my intention.
    If you have not noticed its is about discussion and perhaps I should have only claimed that I thought it possible to prove a negative.
    But think of the positive we have had occassion to chat and I dont know about you but I enjoy having a chat with other people who hold different views to me.
    Thank you again for joining in the thread and presenting compeling propositions.
    Alex
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,007
    To make everyone happy I withdraw my claim that I can prove God does not exist.
    I should have had more sense and not started down this road.
    To those who I have upset I offer my sincere and humble appology.
    And in an attempt to mitigate my stupidity I ask all to realise that I am somewhat bedridden and that the only folk I get to talk to are really on this forum and although uninformed about religion find that I like discussing it and finding out how others see the world.
    My approach has been abrasive no doubt but driven by a genuine desire to bring out others with their point of view.
    Again I am sorry to those that I have upset and hope you can understand that being alone and somewhat bedridden perhaps causes me to go over the top at times.
    Alex
     
  17. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,990
    You might want to look up the definition of a "bald assertion".

    But you won't.
     
  18. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    Cleveeer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    I did. Just to double check before I wrote my previous response to you. It is an assertion without evidence. Sometimes used in criticism of advertising. Now some people assume that it must be false. But the 'bald' part of 'bald assertion' means that it is naked. There is no justication present. Definitions are assertions seeking to make clear what a term means. You quoted one, a fairly simple definition of metaphysics. Your criticism was that this definition was a bald assertion. I think that is silly since definitions ARE NOT MEANT TO INCLUDE JUSTIFICATIONS. They are definitions. Descriptions of term meaning.

    Instead of going ad hom. You could have shown why what I wrote contradicted bald assertion. You could have integrated what I wrote in an answer. You could do that now. I don't know if you will or not.

    Instead of saying his definition was a bald assertion, you could suggest a better definition for metaphysics and/or show why his definition is a poor one. I don't know if you will do this or not. This would also take some work on your part. On the other hand it would further the discussion.

    Definition of metaphysics

    1a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology

    River focused on that first part. Seems a rather simple but useful definition.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  20. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    No problem. It is so rare that anyone can admit any error or wrong approach, one can only be grateful when someone does that. Cool.
     
  21. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    And you think my post in some way showed I did not understand 'bald assertion' because.....?

    And do you also think Metaphysics , fundamental nature of reality
    is a poor definition or a bald assertion? If so, why?

    Here's what I get from an online dictionary....

    Definition of metaphysics
    1a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology

    River focused on that first part. Seems like a rather simple but useful definition.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  22. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    Prof, A “bald” assertion is usually a statement that has very little to no evidence or basis to back it up.

    Bold usually means an emphatic or forceful assertion, which may or may not have sufficient evidence. So, a “bold” assertion may be “bald” also. But, not all “bold” assertions are “bald.”

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sier...we-really-a-bunch-of-flat-earthers/?cid=19357

    Justification (for making the statement - not required)
    Bald is in essence superfluous
    Bold relates to the person making the assertion

    Perhaps you were thinking of bold???? Perhaps?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    So what part of his definition of metaphysics was bald or bold?

    Saying his definition of metaphysics was a bald assertion, just seems like a bald assertion to me. You know, little work folks. Nothing I've said contradicted the definition of bald assertion.
     

Share This Page