How is it a "fact" that god doesn't exist?

[stephen_speicher]

Lastly, please know that I am not trying to convince you to believe in God, nor did I say there was any reason to do so. I am only saying that no proof does not necessarily make God’s non-existence a fact.

Let me know if what I am saying does not make any sense, I will try to make it more clear.

You might want to consider some of the ideas that are implicit in what you suggest. Do you think that anything imaginable is really possible, until you prove otherwise? Suppose I say to you that there are teeny-weeny purple men with one eye, three legs, and a tail, and these teeny-weeny guys actually control everything that you say and do. Furthermore, these teeny-weeny guys are invisible. Do you accept that as a possibility? And, even if you do accept such a possibility, will you now lead your life with this possibility in mind? Will you let this possibility affect, in any manner at all, anything that you do for the rest of your life?

One major problem with the teeny-weeny purple guys is that their existence is a completely arbitrary assertion, and the question that you need to answer is whether you intend to take arbitrary assertions seriously? The alternative would be to demand from the one who asserts the existence of these teeny-weeny purple men, some evidence for their existence. Until and unless such evidence is provided, you should not really consider the teeny-weeny purple men even for an instance. You need not prove the non-existence of these teeny-weeny men; the person who asserts their existence must provide some for you to consider.

The same with god. Your job is not to prove the non-existence of god, but rather to require evidence of god's existence from those who assert so.

[Brien]

Thanks for everyones help in this area. I think I have come a lot further in my understanding. I hope I did not come off as offsive or offended. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and you have helped me to see where I have been. That is why I came here.

[MisterSwig]

MisterSwig,

I don't see the point in proving that you are smarter than someone if you don't teach them something by doing it. I have always been taught that the existence of reality and man's ability to test it is the foundation of science. If you mean to say otherwise please explain what you mean. If you mean to say that I misused the word please say so.

I posted the question to learn not to argue. To me, it seems that this forum should be for teaching, not insulting.

It was not my intention to insult you. However, it was clear to me from your initial post on this thread that you needed a good reality check. Now that I have your attention ...

I hope you will go back and look at your posts. You began by saying that you have a "slew" of questions. Yet, nowhere in your posts is a straight-up (non-rhetorical) question.

If you have a genuine question, let's have it. But don't pretend that you are seeking answers when you do not ask questions, and in fact argue for the possible existence of God using arbitrary claims.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Winston: Carlos, I’ve decided. I’m not going to leave this city because there is too much here for me—you’re one of the values I want to keep. It would be a sacrifice for me to go to New York right now.

Carlos: I won’t say “thank God” because there is no God; I’ll just say I’m glad.

Winston: How can you be so sure there isn’t a god?

Carlos: For one, there is the emotional aspect. No concept hurts as much too think about than “God.” I’m sure you know what I mean—you must have experienced the vice-like compression of your brain?

Winston: I know what you mean but we never argue with emotions. What’s your rational argument?

Carlos: “God” like any word we use is an idea. Almost all the words we have refer to something that exists. The word “table” refers to the table in front us, to the one in your home, to the one in mine, to every one that does exist, will exist, and has existed. But “God”: there is no object to represent with that concept. But people use it too much and so it has a common usage. What is meant is a being that is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, ineffable. It is taken to mean: the creator of the universe. God is certainly not human since humans don’t know everything there is to know, and we make mistakes, and we have physical form and we are mortal. We certainly haven’t created the universe.

Now what do we mean by “universe”. We mean existence as such; everything that exists. This planet, the milky way, the hundreds of galaxies that surround us, everything that we can’t see and never will see. We can discover the origin of one human by regressing to the parents, their parents, and so on. We have trouble with the first man, the missing link between men and apes. This should be of bigger concern for us than “god”. But to go to origin, or first cause, of everything that currently exists, is impossible. We would have to be able to go back in time. And we would have to determine which galaxy came before the other, which star before the other, which planet before the other. In principle this can be done since they are physical objects, and we can’t only because science has not reached the stage to be able to do so. But “God” means the first cause; we can only come to that by going backwards step-by-step.

In order to say that God created the universe as a whole we would have to know everything. But human knowledge does not proceed like that. We know aspects of the universe but not everything. We may know physics but we do not know everything there is about physics. We know philosophy but we do not know everything there is to know about philosophy. We are not omniscient. I know that many philosophers have lamented this fact, but it is part of our glory. Our endeavor will never end; there is always something to learn, and always something relevant to learn.

When one starts to look at the nature of our knowledge we begin to see the absurdity of the concept. A concept is an integration of two or more units of perception. God cannot be perceived and so it is an anti-concept. Imagine if I were to tell you that there is a conspiracy of people in this city trying to kill me. How do I know? I just feel it. I see it in the way people look at me, my life is not successful, I was sick 10 times this year—that has to be the answer. Well this would be arbitrary unless I had much more evidence.

Since humans have perception, we have ample evidence to know that something exists. Since we have concepts we can begin to discover the causes of things. We can build systems of descriptions, causes, and explanations. We can integrate biology, with psychology, and physics, and engineering, and medicine, and philosophy—but not all at once, only over time. We wonder how the universe began. But how do you know that it began at all? You know it exists. Since it exists now, it existed last week, and a millennia before, and so on. Time is just a concept that men use to advance in life. There is no time without humans to measure motion, and their need to do so. Without humans, existence is just one eternal moment.

To say that god created the universe, is to take a giant ARBITRARY leap. The arbitrary is that which is neither true nor false. To take this leap is to reject the nature of human knowledge that brings humans so much happiness.

So the answer is that at a certain point one has to consciously define one’s axioms. One has to consciously define rules of thought. One of those issues of human thought is “the arbitrary”.

Besides, the onus is on the declarer of the arbitrary to prove his position.

Is this a satisfactory explanation, Winston?

Winston: Wow. I don’t know... I know that I need a drink, though.

-------

Brien, by the way, Rand says that the best proof so far is Aquinas'.

Americo

[nimble]

So I think I might be missing the point of this argument. You say God could exist? How? If god is outside of reality, would that not automatically define him as unreal? Unless we are talking of another god that i havent heard of, but i dont really want to get into that.

[Bondolon]

As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the (inherently imperfect) human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable.

[RationalBiker]

I of the same school that contends the burden is not on me to prove a negative. No evidence exists to support the existence of a god, so one need not prove a god doesn't exist to make that assertion. People can either accept that or reject that.

If I make the assertion that I have an invisible friend that follows me around all the time, can you prove that I don't?

Having formerly been agnostic, I understand the distinction now.

VES

[RadCap]

"As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the (inherently imperfect) human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable."

You have a problem with standards for your assertions. By WHAT STANDARD is the human body "inherently imperfect"? And, according to such a standard, what is an inherently PERFECT body, to which you compare the human body and judge it inherently lacking?

As to your general assertion, it is a contradiction. You are saying that knowledge should not be limited by what you have means of establishing by your senses and proving by logic. Yet that is the nature of rationality. So your utterance is that you *feel* it is unreasonable to be reasonable. Quite a contradiction.

It is therefore also quite appropriate that you use the term "feel" instead of *think* in that assertion.

[Bondolon]

You have a problem with standards for your assertions.  By WHAT STANDARD is the human body "inherently imperfect"?  And, according to such a standard, what is an inherently PERFECT body, to which you compare the human body and judge it inherently lacking?

Fair enough. I suppose an explanation of "why" was indeed lacking. I say that because, as a species, people tend to disagree quite a bit. Every group or organization that has some sort of focus (e.g. Environmentalists, Terrorists, etc...) believes that they are right. If you consider the situation of the PLO and Israel, two groups are fighting that each believe they are right. So where is the agreement here? As an assumption, let the human body be "perfect in faculty and reason". If this were the case, it would stand to reason that the PLO and Israel would be able to see, logically, the most perfect deal to fix their situation. Taking it even further, I maintain that if humans had the perfect capacity for rational thought, humans would have no wars, and there would be an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-communist society. Therefore, as an assumption, let the human body be "imperfect in faculty and reason, but greater than all of the creatures in such".

In said situation, it would be possible, nay, likely to see two groups following what they consider to be the most perfect, most logical course of action, and disagreeing horribly with their opposing group. Basically, what I'm saying is, I am not suggesting that human logic be thrown out the window, or that people should just forfeit all rights to decision making, but that people should continue to live as they have been living (making assumptions they believe are true, and acting upon them as such), keeping in mind that the possibility for being "wrong" is a very real one.

As to your general assertion, it is a contradiction.  You are saying that knowledge should not be limited by what you have means of establishing by your senses and proving by logic.  Yet that is the nature of rationality.  So your utterance is that you *feel* it is unreasonable to be reasonable.  Quite a contradiction.

There you go telling me what I believe again (and again, you are very, very wrong). I am not saying that knowledge should not be limited by humans. I am saying that humans are limited in terms of knowledge. Take for example the dark ages, or going even farther back, the stone age. Humans were far more lacking in knowledge than people today, but they still felt themselves to be very "smart". My opinion is that a human today claiming to be a perfect being, fully capable in faculty and reason, is tantamount to a caveman believing that his discovery of fire was the "secret" of the universe.

It is therefore also quite appropriate that you use the term "feel" instead of *think* in that assertion.

Ah, well then, that was "helpful". Really brought along "rational" discussion. Your accusing me of acting on emotion instead of logic definitely proves (ad hominem aside) that you are the superior debater here.

[nimble]

I think this forum is meant for rational discussion. I dont think any name calling or condescending attitudes have a place here. If two people disagree they can discuss it, and if they still disagree, who cares? If you are right, do you NEED the other person to think your way? That is like the christians who force others to think their way. Because they NEED others to think like them, because their thoughts cant stand on their own, they need the support of a mass of people to "prove" themselves true. It is not worth fighting on an online forum. Just keep that in mind.

[nimble]

By the way I think Rad Cap is right in this one. You did attack the rational faculty. He never claimed that humans were infallible, he just claimed that certainty is possible. And it is.

[Bondolon]

By the way I think Rad Cap is right in this one. You did attack the rational faculty. He never claimed that humans were infallible, he just claimed that certainty is possible. And it is.

And that's where (ultimately) my disagreement, and my agreement lies.

I agree that I did "attack" the rational faculty, and I stand by said "attack". However, the assertion that certainty is possible (in terms of abstract beliefs) is one with which I do not agree. The assertion, "this ball is red" is an assertion that is easily redeemable, and mainly has to do with one's interpretation of said object, or, in other words, "this ball reflects photons that are intercepted by my eyes, and in the translation of said interception, my brain has told me that the color red would best describe what I see." The capability of human reason in said situation is more than sufficient. The problem comes when one asserts things that are unprovable, for instance "There is no god".

[nimble]

well it is a negative stance. there is NO god. I dont need to prove a negative stance. In fact i do not even NEED to make that assertion. Until it has been proven, it shouldnt get the dignity of being a term. But when others define god as an indefinable object, it would contradict all of my knowledge that real things have identities. SO at that point im left with a choice. Do i discard all previous knowledge to rid myself of the contradiction or do i discard the fallacious concept of god. I choose god and I stand by that choice.

[AMERICONORMAN]

So I think I might be missing the point of this argument. You say God could exist? How? If god is outside of reality, would that not automatically define him as unreal? Unless we are talking of another god that i havent heard of, but i dont really want to get into that.

No, I’m not saying that we could prove God’s existence. When you say that god is outside of reality it implies that there is a place other than the reality we perceive. God is not part of reality, at all. What I’m saying is that god falls in the category of concepts that don’t represent some real thing. Therefore, it is useless and even dangerous. That’s all.

I think that I implied, mistakenly, that at some point in scientific achievement humans will be in the position to answer god’s existence. I just mentioned the only rational approach that I could think of to try and prove it but it’s impossible because of the nature of the anti-concept. Discovering which planet came before which is different than finding the first cause of everything that exists. But if you’re going to endeavour to find the first cause, you will have to first discover such facts first.

Americo.

[nimble]

Im just saying God doesnt exist. I can make that statement. If god has nothing to do with reality, existence is only in the realm of reality. you go into non-existence in any other realm that you want to conjure up. That is the whole of my statement.

[Spearmint]

God is by definition supernatural. Meaning that god does not pertain to the natural realm in which we live. This means we cant see, hear, taste, touch, or smell god. This is the only way in which facts can be proven. Things which exist must have a physical identity that pertains to the natural realm. If god cannot by definition exist in the natural realm, then he is outside of reality. Anything outside of reality is by definition unreal. Which means he cannot exist.

This isn't really true. The Greek's idea of Zeus wasnt supernatural; he was a perfectly defined entity which had (supposed) identity and entailed no intrinsic contradictions. The same applies to the gods of many other cultures. Perhaps you are referring specifically to the god of judeo-christian tradition, but the initial post in this thread made no reference to any specific concept of god.

[RadCap]

Quitter

Your conception of "perfect capacity for rational thought" is flawed, making the rest of your argument completely flawed.

You take the existence of disagreement to mean no one can think rationally - no one can correctly identify the facts of reality and act in accordance with them. This is a completely false premise. Disagreement can indicate one group may have the facts or reality wrong. It does not indicate at ALL that EACH party is wrong.

Example - many people have disagreed with me on numerous topics. The fact that they have disagreed with me in NO way proves that I am wrong. It simply shows that a contradiction exists, and so at least ONE of us must be wrong. The only way to determine WHICH one - and to determine if either of us is right - is via reason - ie logic and the senses (something you EXPLICITY reject as flawed).

Also, rational thought is a process, not an attribute of the human body - which is what you treat it as. And because man is fallible - because he is CAPABLE of making mistakes in that process (ie he is NOT omnicient nor infallible), you claim man is inherently "flawed". If only man had NO CHOICE but to come to the right conclusions, then he would be perfect. But because he is volitional - because he can choose - and thus can choose incorrectly - he is flawed.

This is a VERY old fallacy - and by your arguments, it is a premise I KNEW you held. I simply wanted you to state it explicitly.

The omniscient and infallible is not and cannot be used as a standard for anything. It is a fantasy. It does not and cannot exist. It is the UNREAL. And the UNREAL cannot be used PERIOD - let alone as a standard to CONDEMN the real.

As such, your basis of your argument upon it, destroys that entire argument.

--

"people should continue to live as they have been living (making assumptions they believe are true, and acting upon them as such), keeping in mind that the possibility for being "wrong" is a very real one."

This is ANTIRATIONAL. This is ANTILOGICAL. It is the claim that - WITHOUT evidence to support the assertion, one should consider one's knowledge suspect.

That VIOLATES the laws of logic. As such, you CANNOT claim that it is a logical or rational position. It is the OPPOSITE. In fact, you CANNOT get any more irrational than this statement. It is the acceptance of ARBITRARY ASSERTION as FACT. It is the acceptance of NONreality *as* REAL.

--

RC "You are saying that knowledge should not be limited by what you have means of establishing by your senses and proving by logic."

Q " There you go telling me what I believe again (and again, you are very, very wrong)."

That is an UTTERLY FALSE denial. With it you contradict the ENTIRE previous part of the same post. For you, perfection is omniscience and infallability (because without either one of them, people could disagree - and your definition of perfection is NO disagreement). But BOTH those conditions VIOLATE the law of identity. Both require NO means of obtaining knowledge (because a means does not give you information 'directly'. You don't "know" reality this way.

As such - I was right. Apparently you simply do not grasp the meaning of your OWN words.

"I am not saying that knowledge should not be limited by humans."

Straw man. Was not my claim.

"I am saying that humans are limited in terms of knowledge."

This is true. But again, means nothing. The fact man is not omniscient, nor infallable has absolutely NO bearing upon what he CAN claim AS knowledge - AS CERTAIN. It means nothing - except that he CAN be wrong. But that knowledge does not mean he IS wrong in any given instance.

THAT claim - YOUR claim - must be proved. And you have not done so. You CERTAINLY cannot do so in this instance.

In other words, simply BECAUSE man is fallible and limited in knowledge, you CANNOT toss out the rules by which he VALIDATES that knowledge and ELIMINATES error. Yet by claiming man cannot toss out the unsupported assertion of a god - one which has NO evidence to support it and which CONTRADICTS what man DOES know - you are claiming just that - you are claiming that man must NOT abide by the rules of logic.

That is simply bizarre.

It is obvious you have no understanding of the objectivist concepts of metaphysics and certainly its epistemology. However it is even MORE obvious you do not grasp the concepts of identity and logic - which are even broader than this particular philosophy. And it is PAINFULLY clear you do not grasp the concept of the logical concept "Onus of Proof".

You reject all these things on the basis of a flawed metaphysics, which has led you to a flawed epistemology.

I suggest you come back here after you have read ALOT more about Objectivism specifically, but logic in general. Because right now, by rejecting those standards (as you do by creating a fantasy standard), you INVALIDATE EVERY WORD you post. If logic is "imperfect" then EVERY statement you have made here is imperfect. It is NOT knowledge. And if it ISNT knowledge, then it is just HOT AIR.

Come back when you have more than that - because, until then, we LITERALLY have no means of communicating with you.

------

"Really brought along "rational" discussion. Your accusing me of acting on emotion instead of logic definitely proves (ad hominem aside) that you are the superior debater here."

Since logic is, according to you, an imperfect standard, you must rely upon something else in order to make a claim to knowledge (as does ANY philosophy which claims logic and reason cannot 'truly' grasp reality). I simply pointed out the fact that your use of the term FEEL instead of THINK (which is "inherently flawed") is QUITE appropriate given your EXPLICIT philosophy. In other words, I identified this as something consistent with your fallacious philosophy. Identifying facts and stating them are not ad homs. For instance, calling you an arse is not an ad hom IF I can prove you are one by reference to the statements you utter - like in the one above.

Oh - and since adherence to the laws of logic is one of the things which makes a good debater - and since you violate those laws as a matter of philosophic PRINCIPLE, then yes I am a superior debater here (in comparison to you). However, demonstrating that fact was not the purpose of my post (as you well know, which is why you ARE an arse for asserting the contrary), but is simply an EFFECT of my position.

------------------------------------------

One last thing - don't think that your long smoke and mirrors post served to make everyone forget the contradiction of your initial position - which you do not address

""As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the...human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable."

Since reason is the process of applying logic to the evidence of the senses, your claim that limiting one's self to what one can determine (via logic) from the senses is UNreasonable is a BLATANT contradiction.

IF you want to respond to ANYTHING that has been written so far, THAT is where you need to START. If you do NOT, then NOTHING else you say will mean anything, because it PROCEEDS from a contradiction - which is the UNREAL - and thus makes everything BASED upon it UNREAL - and therefore UNADDRESSABLE rationally.

Since this is a site DEVOTED to reason, any attempt to AVOID correcting that contradiction will be viewed as a rejection of reason - and therefore of the standards of this site.

[RadCap]

"But if you’re going to endeavour to find the first cause, you will have to first discover such facts first."

And of course such an endeavor is doomed from the start, since there is no "first cause" for existence.

[MisterSwig]

Basically, what I'm saying is, I am not suggesting that human logic be thrown out the window, or that people should just forfeit all rights to decision making, but that people should continue to live as they have been living (making assumptions they believe are true, and acting upon them as such), keeping in mind that the possibility for being "wrong" is a very real one.

It's refreshing to hear someone stand up for man's ability to achieve absolute certainty.

[Bondolon]

You take the existence of disagreement to mean no one can think rationally - no one can correctly identify the facts of reality and act in accordance with them.

You see this? right here at the beginning of your rebuttal? this is where your argument fell apart. I never claimed that it is impossible for a human to think rationally, just that most humans are "dipshits". And not once in my little "dissertation" did I make the statement that any singular group is right or wrong, I merely said that because of the nature of the fact of the disagreements that people have, somebody must have a different (incomplete, hackneyed, etc..) viewpoint on the same situation than someone else. Is either one of them wrong? almost assuredly. Are both of them wrong? there's a good chance. If I judge either of them as wrong, is there much of a chance of me being right? not really.

The reason your argument fell apart is, you did the exact same thing in this rebuttal that you have done in every other one. You presumed to tell me what I believed. You have replied to me (I believe) 4 times, and not one of those times have you chosen to merely go on what you believe, as much as try to get me to change the definition of what I believe, so that you can tell me how wrong I am.

[RadCap]

Quitter

You need to go to another forum where people acctually accept your perverions of concepts like inherent and reason and logic and human nature. Your continued rejection of a valid iddentification of those concepts and your continued shifting and refusal to admit your position WHEN identified is a CLEAR and UNACCEPTABLE rejection of identification and of reality.

Explaining your ideas DIFFERENTLY every time you are caught in a fallacy is NOT rational.

Goodbye.

--

MS

Sorry but that tactic is not going to work on Quitter. It will only work on someone who accepts that contradictions do not exist. And his 'arguements' have demonstrated he has NO respect for identity, and thus no qualms in violating the law of contradiction at all.

His entire premise is:

"As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the...human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable."

I have asked him numerous times to correct this contradiction. He ignores it and instead makes SPECIOUS and SHIFTING claimes about what his actual position might be onn the related topics. But he has not ONCE actually rejected this principle - even after the contradiction was made explicit:

"Since reason is the process of applying logic to the evidence of the senses, your claim that limiting one's self to what one can determine (via logic) from the senses is UNreasonable is a BLATANT contradiction."

Since it has been pointed out to him that this foundation is a contradiction - and he still rests his ENTIRE POSITION upon it, PURPOSEFULLY IGNORING that contradiction, he has demonstrated himself to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. He has demonstrated himself to be PURPOSEFULLY irrational.

Your tactic can ONLY work on those who have at least a VESTIGE of rationality. Quitter does NOT possess even that vestige. He is an IRRATIONAL troll - nothing more.

[MisterSwig]

MS

Sorry but that tactic is not going to work on Quitter ...

I didn't expect it to. But, hey, other people read this stuff. And it was the only tactic I could think of that you hadn't tried already.

[Michelangelo]

I don't have anything to add to this discussion because I have just started reading Ayn Rand, but I'd like to comment that reading your posts (especially RadCaps) are very educational and really inspire me to further my education in logic and philosophy.

[MisterSwig]

[1] But on to the issue.  You would rather not have to talk to people that you disagree with than to even risk the possibility of questioning your own, meaningless beliefs?

[2] edit: And the premise is that a total, egotistical confidence in one's own cognative abilities is completely and utterly ignorant, and completely characteristic of a non-thinking, non-sentient, animalistic human

1. RadCap may have dismissed you. But I think you are funny. I guess you must think my beliefs are meaningless, too, since I agree with RadCap on this issue.

I'd like to know how certain you are that our beliefs are meaningless. Are you 100% certain? Or might you be full of shit? Maybe we are making sense, and you are wrong.

2. I guess you are also calling me an egotistical, ignorant animal, since I side with RadCap. And since you seem very confident in your own assertions, I guess that makes you one, too. Welcome to the club, "dipshit"!

[Bondolon]

1. RadCap may have dismissed you. But I think you are funny. I guess you must think my beliefs are meaningless, too, since I agree with RadCap on this issue.

I'd like to know how certain you are that our beliefs are meaningless. Are you 100% certain? Or might you be full of shit? Maybe we are making sense, and you are wrong.

2. I guess you are also calling me an egotistical, ignorant animal, since I side with RadCap. And since you seem very confident in your own assertions, I guess that makes you one, too. Welcome to the club, "dipshit"!

[1] If you will ever die, there is a high likelihood that your beliefs are meaningless... however, who knows? maybe there is some higher purpose to your, singular, very important life.

edit: I'm not targeting any single person, I think every person's beliefs are meaningless

[2] I refuse to disagree with you on this one