Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Prove that god doesn't exist. (Proving a negative)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It is non-essential, but it is a view that Miss Rand held and thus valid, although there are MANY here who evade that fact. I personally think the evasion of that fact is many, many times more immoral than homosexuality could ever be considered.

Yes, but it was not one of the foundations of her philosophy, it was a conclusion she made by using her philosophy. Every conclusion she may have made using her philosophy, is not the same thing as saying that all those conclusions are correct. As far as i have understood/applied Objectivism, is by looking at it from the bottom up. The critique of homosexuality is not something that lies near the "bottom" part of her philosophy, so its odd that it was singled out in a description of her. Its a bit like saying that: "Ayn Rand, novelist and philosopher, critic of the IRS, and founder of the objectivist school of metaphysics, famous for writing Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.". Sure, she probably was a critic of the IRS, but i wouldnt choose to include that fact in a short summation of her.

edit: i edited out the comments about homosexuality, as i really dont want to have this debate now....

Edited by JJJJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Uh-oh... Here we go again...

yeah, i edited them out, as i noticed that i made one of the most annoying things a "debater" can do. I said "i dont want this to become a discussion about topic X..........after which i myself discussed topic X"

So yeah, the thing i was trying to say was that the topic whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, is not at the foundation of Objectivism. Objectivism is true, even if homosexuality is moral or immoral. The only debatable thing that remains is, whether it is or not. It was a conclusion Rand made by using her philosophical foundation, but that does not equate, that every conclusion she made using her philosophy, is necessarily true.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a conclusion Rand made by using her philosophical foundation, but that does not equate, that every conclusion she made using her philosophy, is necessarily true.....

I have never claimed or would *ever* claim this. In fact, the exact opposite has almost always been true in regards to myself, i.e., what I have always thought has been explicitly stated in Miss Rand works. When I was a kid I always kind of wished that there was "some book on life" or something that explained the world as I saw it. I discovered this book (or essentially a whole library of them--the Objectivist corpus) at about the age of 24, quite by accident. I think if anyone that has ever met me in real life heard someone accuse me of not being a completely *independent thinker* they would laugh in your face. But, this is way off-topic, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never claimed or would *ever* claim this. In fact, the exact opposite has almost always been true in regards to myself, i.e., what I have always thought has been explicitly stated in Miss Rand works. When I was a kid I always kind of wished that there was "some book on life" or something that explained the world as I saw it. I discovered this book (or essentially a whole library of them--the Objectivist corpus) at about the age of 24, quite by accident. I think if anyone that has ever met me in real life heard someone accuse me of not being a completely *independent thinker* they would laugh in your face. But, this is way off-topic, of course.

I didnt mean to claim that you did claim that, and im sorry if it looked like that. I just wanted to point out that the topic of homosexuality is different to the topic of, let's say, what reality is. And i would even go as far as saying that it is fairly irrelevant to an honest Objectivist, WHAT, Rand herself thought of homosexuality.

The fact whether homosexuality is wrong or not, is based on "what is a homosexual". If you apply the Objectivist principles to decide whether it is wrong, but have faulty information of what a homosexual is, you can make a faulty judgement on the subject. However, that does not mean that Objectivism itself is wrong, just your judgement based on faulty information. Therefore Ayn Rands views on homosexuality are not in any way central to her philosophy, and her possibly having faulty information about a certain subject, has no bearing on whether Objectivism is a valid philosophy.

Therefore, i think it was quite intellectually dishonest(or just an ignorant mistake) of the person that made the wikipedia entry, to have her view on homosexuality printed, without any explanation on the foundations of her philosophy, as that makes it seem like her view on homosexuality is somehow at the foundation of what Objectivism is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...back to pantheism.

Words have meanings, God has a meaning (even if it's a completely malleable definition to almost anyone who actually believes in god), nature has a meaning, theism has a meaning. The prefix "-pan" has a meaning. I see no reason to call oneself a "pantheist" if one rejects the concept of God. God =/= nature, and God =/= universe. Using those terms interchangeably is folly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...back to pantheism.

Words have meanings, God has a meaning (even if it's a completely malleable definition to almost anyone who actually believes in god), nature has a meaning, theism has a meaning. The prefix "-pan" has a meaning. I see no reason to call oneself a "pantheist" if one rejects the concept of God. God =/= nature, and God =/= universe. Using those terms interchangeably is folly.

Eh, very well then.

Edit: Just to be safe and explain what I mean, I suppose "naturalistic pantheist" describes what I meant best. God is, at best, a personification of the underlying order of the universe. I really haven't commented on the discussion because its not really an essential thing and you all made fairly good points. I suppose it was just a very, very odd way of describing things. It didn't really matter. I have a tendency to use words strange sometimes. Sorry for the confusion, I guess?

Edited by Nyronus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It is simple to prove god does not exist, well simple after reading Ms. Rand. One need only use Ms. Rand's argument on existence. Thesist argue that god created existence, but we know existence exists, an axiom validated on every statement if only by the fact someone is making it. Without existence, there can be no consciousness; there could be no god. To quote Ms. Rand, "a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms." So god as a consciousness could not have existed prior to existence meaning the god theists defend could not exist as they define him. Existence, even this god's own, MUST have preceded consciousness meaning god could not have created existence nor been conscious prior to existence meaning this god could not exist as defined and identified by theists. So, even if some powerful entity did exist, this entity would be finite and subject to the physical laws of the universe, as Peikoff explained in OPAR. This would not be and could not be a god, nor could an infinite, omnipotent deity possibly exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all religious people are 100% ATHEIST when it comes to Shiva, Ra, and Joseph Smith, you can point that out, but that doesn't solve the core issue:

they consider their mind a "soul" outside their grasp. they have their reasons, the mind is still to be fully understood. But it belongs to reallity (that where we differ)

The irritating thing about religionists is that while they use mysticism as a defence from the unknown, they at the other hand claim to know the absolute truth: "god"

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

Just had an idea about disproving a default god figure.

premise 1: god is perfect

premise 2: god created man

premise 3: man is imperfect

question 1: if a perfect god created an imperfect man, why does man have to constantly apologize to god about his sins, although it's not actually man's fault that he's imperfect?

question 2: if it's not man's fault that he's imperfect, then it's god's fault, but how can it be god's fault if he's perfect?

conclusion 1: god is contradictory to himself

*OR*

conclusion 2: one of the premises are wrong. but which one? that god is perfect, that god created man, or that man is imperfect? either way, religion is wrong, because this means that either:

1. god isn't perfect

2. god didn't create man

3. man is perfect

now, you could debate about the meaning of "perfect", but I used it here in a religious "sin"-thing sense

Edited by crash0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually got into an argument today about the existence of a deity (the Christian God):

Me: Do you believe that existence exists, and what is outside of existence indeed does not exist?

Them: Yes, that makes sense.

Me: So in order for God to create existence, he must have been outside of existence. Therefore, he does not exist.

Them: It's a matter of faith.

Dead end.

Me: What makes you think that a God exists?

Them: I just feel it. I know it in my gut.

Me: So you think that you believing it automatically makes it so?

Them: Yes, it does for millions of people.

That was one of my "What the Fuck!" moments.

Me: Can God do anything?

Them: Of course, He's God.

Me: Can He create a mathematical equation so complicated that he cannot even solve it?

Them: No, because he can solve anything. He's God.

Me: So you're saying that he cannot create that sort of equation?

Them: It's a matter of faith.

AGAIN falls back into their 'faith'. :D

Me: [repeats "Outside of existence" explanation]

Them: If it's such a big breakthrough, why hasn't anybody thought of it before?

Me: They have. Many times. They choose not to think about it because they don't like the idea of atheism.

Them: Isn't the happiness in the idea of God more important?

Me: The reality of the situation is beautiful. Knowing in certainty has created a happiness I could have never imagined as a Christian.

Them: Well, if that works for you.

Falling into Subjectivism.

So you see, there's no way to argue with them. You cannot change their mind, because they don't regard facts as proof. Their "gut feelings" are much more important to them.

I grew up in a Catholic family. I've tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my experience - don't go too much logical with them... they just don't get it :D

BAD EXAMPLE:

atheist: god is absolutely righteous, right?

prehistoric man: yes

atheist: by being absolutely righteous, he is being absolutely objecitve, right?

prehistoric man: yes

atheist: god *wanted* to create the universe, right?

prehistoric man: yes

atheist: then in that moment, he acted subjectively, right?

prehistoric man: yes

atheist: so god is not absolutely objective, and thus not absolutely righteous, which makes him only partialy righteous?

prehistoric man: no, you see, it's all written in the bible... once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away...

zZzZ...

ps: I was raised as a catholic so it took some time until I concluded that the existence of god makes things much more complicated than the nonexistence of god. And as we can see, nature has a habit of making things less complicated when possible, so it seems natural to me that god therefore doesn't exist.

Edited by crash0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for the process of rational argument (and the associated potential persuasion) to work, the parties involved need to be rational. Arguing with an irrational person is doomed to fail, because at any point they can claim "A is B" to backup their position.

I'm convinced that it's not possible to be both fully rational and be a religionist or any other type of mystic -- which means that arguing with them is doomed to fail.

I think this is also the root cause of why religionists so often end up wanting to kill people who don't believe the same thing they do -- their irrationality works against them when they try to persuade non-believers, and in the end all that's left is violence.

I'm also convinced that the majority of humans have a very difficult time separating things like feelings, imagination and dreams from objective reality. Most people I know believe that knowledge of their surroundings can be obtained through those mechanisms. Many even believe that they can learn about far-away places, alternate dimensions, other universes, etc, that way. They combine imagination with personal desire and emotion, and construct a virtual world that becomes their "reality," and as a consequence, they also stop perceiving many details about the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post NickS. I have thought about this before and am considering it again: I would like to create a wiki in which people can list all the lines of reasoning regarding the existence of God, the counterarguments, the counter-counter arguments, etc. In comparison to Wikipedia - each article would be an argument or a response to an argument (or both). And at the end of that article would be all the responses to that article. Since it seems to me that religious responses are commonly constructed to be syntactically/grammatically correct, but are usually incoherent (e.g. "God is existence; God loves you; So existence loves you"), I I think if we finally got something like that down into writing, we could determine under what conditions the religious resort to certain arguments. You could categorize everything, and then create a category tree to see which responses are most common, which are least common, and under what conditions certain responses are made (this would lead to further categorization). Maybe we could eventually learn something about the nature of this need for God.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a much less articulate answer, here I go. There are two answers (depending on the type of god being referred to). Typically, "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian god, which cannot exist because the very concept is self-contradictory.

Wrong.

For a thing to exist, it must possess a specific identity.

Trivially true. That it possesses a "specific identity" (which, by the way, is a redundancy) doesn't mean human beings know anything about it. Something can perfectly well have an identity and be (i) unknown, and (ii) unknowable.

By contrast, the JudeoChristian god is supposedly omniscient,

True.

omnipotent,

True.

and everywhere all at once,

The word is "ubiquitous", though "omnipresent" would alliterate well with the other words.

i.e. is without limit,

Wrong. "Everywhere" doesn't mean "without limit."

thus possessing no specific identity at all,

Wrong. Gravity is ubiquitous and has an identity.

i.e. is non-existent. At this point you can expect your opponents to fall back on some variant of the "greek God", by saying that God does indeed possess a specific identity and exists somewhere in the universe but nonetheless chooses to hide himself from our detection.

The answer to this is that the assertion of that god's existence demands sensory evidence, or is to be dismissed as arbitrary.

Wrong. Most of modern physics dismisses sensory evidence as either irrelevant or at best misleading. Physics -- not the Aristotelian variety which WAS based on sensory evidence, but the hypothesis/experimental kind developed by Galileo -- got its start specifically by DOUBTING sensory evidence or dismissing it entirely. To verify this claim read Galileo's essay ("Two New Sciences").

It is not a matter of disproving that god's existence, it is a matter of dismissing the very assertion out of hand.

LOL! Yes, well that IS one way of arguing...a way that is popular with many atheists. The fact of the matter is this:

In checking through several of my logic textbooks -- standard manuals and treatises by Raymond J. McCall, Jacques Maritain, and William Stanley Jevons -- there is NOT ONE THING WRITTEN ABOUT THE SO-CALLED IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. Fact is, we do it all the time and science itself often uses that method.

The famous experiment by Michelson-Morley proved that the lumineforous aether did not exist.

The famous swan's-neck glass jar experiment by Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation does not exist.

A well known philosopher of science, Karl Popper, wrote in "Logic of Scientific Discovery" that science actually proceeds by proving that certain phenomena that the current hypothesis lead you to expect to occur cannot occur; i.e., DON'T EXIST.

Science proceeds by proving the non-existence of certain phenomena that one assumed to exist.

Finally, I should remind everyone that from the standpoint of propositional logic, it makes no difference how we phrase something grammatically. Whether we say "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" or "Dr. Smith proved that X does not exist" is a matter of grammatical choice and convenience. Logically, they mean the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong.

Wrong.

Most of modern physics dismisses sensory evidence as either irrelevant or at best misleading.

Not irrelevant, but without use in the boundaries of interest. Modern physics is concerned with sub-atomic phenomena, whereas our senses are limited to the atomic or molecular level, or to a specific range of light frequencies that are already well-researched. Having no use for something is not the same as considering it misleading. The senses are of use within their boundaries of accuracy.

Physics -- not the Aristotelian variety which WAS based on sensory evidence, but the hypothesis/experimental kind developed by Galileo -- got its start specifically by DOUBTING sensory evidence or dismissing it entirely.

You misunderstand the senses. The senses do not lie. They are particles and molecules interacting. If we misunderstand what they are telling us, however, we will be deceived.

LOL! Yes, well that IS one way of arguing...a way that is popular with many atheists.

And?

The famous experiment by Michelson-Morley proved that the lumineforous aether did not exist.

It showed that if you split a wave of light into two, send them in opposite directions, and then recombine them, there is no observed delay between the two - as expected by the ether theory. What do we have in place of the ether now? An electromagnetic field, and field theory.

The famous swan's-neck glass jar experiment by Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation does not exist.

And quantum mechanics has shown that spontaneous generation does occur, just at a smaller scale.

Science proceeds by proving the non-existence of certain phenomena that one assumed to exist.

Science proceeds by devising experiments that test unique predictions of a hypothesis, and either accepting or rejecting that hypothesis based on the results.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I should remind everyone that from the standpoint of propositional logic, it makes no difference how we phrase something grammatically. Whether we say "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" or "Dr. Smith proved that X does not exist" is a matter of grammatical choice and convenience. Logically, they mean the same thing.
I assume you're not a native speaker of English, so you may not be aware that "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" is actually ungrammatical. You might say "Dr. Smith disproved the arguments purporting to show that X exists". From the standpoint of propositional logic, it matters a whole hell of a lot how you express your claim, because the proposition "Dr. Smith proved that X does not exist" means something rather different from "Dr. Smith disproved the arguments purporting to show that X exists". Indeed, it matters where you grammatically position the "not", as in "Dr. Smith did not prove that X does exist" which is rather distinct from "Dr. Smith did prove that X does not exist".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you're not a native speaker of English, so you may not be aware that "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" is actually ungrammatical. You might say "Dr. Smith disproved the arguments purporting to show that X exists". From the standpoint of propositional logic, it matters a whole hell of a lot how you express your claim, because the proposition "Dr. Smith proved that X does not exist" means something rather different from "Dr. Smith disproved the arguments purporting to show that X exists". Indeed, it matters where you grammatically position the "not", as in "Dr. Smith did not prove that X does exist" which is rather distinct from "Dr. Smith did prove that X does not exist".

Sorry to disappoint you but not only am I a native speaker of English but I've published in the field of grammar and linguistics.

So once again:

Yes, it matters where one puts the negative particle "not"; however, my point was that there are several ways grammatically to express the same logical truth.

Let "X" = "a method to square the circle using ruler and compass alone".

The original sentence -- "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" -- becomes:

"Dr. Smith disproved that [a method to square the circle using ruler and compass alone] exists."

And this is precisely the same truth as,

"Dr. Smith proved that [a method to square the circle using ruler and compass alone] does not exist."

The last sentence, by the way, being perfectly grammatical and perfectly logical, purports to prove a negative. As I posted earlier, we do this all the time in discourse.

To "disprove" is to "refute", and it's certainly no solecism to say "Dr. Smith refuted that X exists." The sentence means "Dr. Smith proved that X does not exist."

"The attorney disproved that his client was guilty."

"The attorney proved that his client was not guilty."

"Walter Reed disproved that Yellow Fever was spread by soiled clothing."

"Walter Reed proved that Yellow Fever was not spread by soiled clothing."

Same truth; two forms.

You'll have to source your claim that "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" is ungrammatical. I can easily find many examples in books, magazines, and online articles, of well-formed sentences that are isomorphic with it (and this would include interrogatories. My first hit on Google came up with "Can science prove that God does not exist?" which is merely the question-form of the statement "Science can prove that God does not exist." A sentence with which I disagree but whose grammar is unassailable. Another Google hit for the same sentence structure yielded "Thin Type 2s Disprove That Obesity Causes Diabetes." Nothing wrong here, either.).

If the sentence "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" is ungrammatical, then so is "Dr. Smith disliked that X exists", and so is "Dr. Smith disavowed that X exists", etc. All of these sentences, however, are quite obviously grammatical.

Now, if what you're trying to say is that we should construct these sentences like this:

"Dr. Smith disproved [the assertion] that X exists" (and please substitute any other word you like for "assertion" such as "idea" or "notion" or "hypothesis" or "theory" or "position", it really makes no difference), then I won't so much as disagree with you as simply to aver that we should do the same with the verb "prove"; thus,

"Dr. Smith proved [the assertion] that X exists" (and please make the same substitutions for "assertion" as above if you wish).

And we should do the same with the verb "dislike"; viz.

"Dr. Smith disliked [the fact] that his funding had been discontinued."

Your position is not so much incorrect as it is a bit legalistic, since few people speak or write that way and for good reason: there's nothing wrong grammatically with constructing a phrase (as opposed to a single term) as a direct object of a transitive verb. In fact, it's a very common construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong.

Not irrelevant, but without use in the boundaries of interest. Modern physics is concerned with sub-atomic phenomena, whereas our senses are limited to the atomic or molecular level, or to a specific range of light frequencies that are already well-researched. Having no use for something is not the same as considering it misleading. The senses are of use within their boundaries of accuracy.

You misunderstand the senses. The senses do not lie. They are particles and molecules interacting. If we misunderstand what they are telling us, however, we will be deceived.

And?

It showed that if you split a wave of light into two, send them in opposite directions, and then recombine them, there is no observed delay between the two - as expected by the ether theory. What do we have in place of the ether now? An electromagnetic field, and field theory.

And quantum mechanics has shown that spontaneous generation does occur, just at a smaller scale.

Science proceeds by devising experiments that test unique predictions of a hypothesis, and either accepting or rejecting that hypothesis based on the results.

Wrong.

Right.

Having no use for something is not the same as considering it misleading. The senses are of use within their boundaries of accuracy.

You fail to grasp my meaning. I’ve never said that physicists declare our senses to be of no use (they’ve never claimed that to my knowledge). Since Galileo, physics has constructed a model of phenomena intentionally at variance with sensory evidence, not in accord with it; and this is as true of macroscopic phenomena as it is of microscopic. What we directly experience is something called "weight" (gravitas), not an invisible force interacting with an invisible property of matter dubbed "mass." What we actually observe are planets swirling around the sun; what Newton tells us is really going on is an invisible universal force acting on geometrically infinitesimal "point masses". No one has ever seen or experienced a point mass, and no one has ever experienced an invisible "force" called gravity. People have been falling off of high places since Day One and no one ever thought of the experience as submitting to a "force" in the sense of gravity being an active agent. That's because it wasn't observed to be such a thing at all. That was all invented by Newton, who taught us to think of the experience a certain way.

You misunderstand the senses. The senses do not lie. They are particles and molecules interacting. If we misunderstand what they are telling us, however, we will be deceived.

You misunderstand the mind. The mind does not passively receive and integrate data provided by the senses but actively influences perception. Thinking is already mixed with perception which then becomes the material for further thinking. Some might go so far as to say that thinking determines the original perception. They might be right.

LOL! Yes, well that IS one way of arguing...a way that is popular with many atheists.

And?

And that’s the reason so many atheists fail at persuading anyone except other atheists who scarcely need persuading. Though if it makes an atheist feel better merely to dismiss arguments from theists out of hand, by all means, the atheist should continue to do so. It's a very convenient way of not having to consider arguments that he may not have considered and might not be able to refute.

What do we have in place of the ether now? An electromagnetic field, and field theory.

An electromagnetic field theory by Maxwell already existed at the time of the MM experiment. What replaced the factitious ether was NOTHING. Just empty space. It was because there was nothing to replace the construct that the experiment was repeated many times by many researchers with the same result. When Einstein invented the idea of a quantum-particle of light – a photon – it was eventually realized that you don’t need an ether or medium at all, and finally admitted that the various versions of the MM experiment proved that an ether does not exist.

And quantum mechanics has shown that spontaneous generation does occur, just at a smaller scale.

The term “spontaneous generation” had always been used to explain the origin of life. It had -- and today, has -- nothing to do with the appearance of virtual particles.

Science proceeds by devising experiments that test unique predictions of a hypothesis, and either accepting or rejecting that hypothesis based on the results.

Science proceeds by first inventing hypotheses and then trying to refute them by experiment. All experiments are attempted refutations of hypotheses. If the experiment fails to refute the hypothesis (i.e., if the experiment “succeeds”) then the hypothesis is retained as a valid statement about reality. If the experiment refutes the hypothesis (i.e., if the experiment “fails”, as did the MM experiment), then the hypothesis is eventually modified or rejected. That's the gist of it, though there are other considerations such as, can the hypothesis make predictions? Can it make retrodictions? Does it lead to other, more interesting kinds of questions? etc.

Edited by Mr. Enthymeme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Galileo, physics has constructed a model of phenomena intentionally at variance with sensory evidence, not in accord with it;
When we look at a pencil appearing bent in water, our "model" says the pencil is straight. I think you're implying that our sense say that the pencil is bent. I think this is the sense -- at a simple level -- in which you imply the models are contradictory to the senses.

However, the fact is that they are not contradictory. Our senses sense what they sense correctly: it is not an illusion. They sense something very real. Senses, however, do not provide knowledge. In other words, the senses do not tell us whether the pencil is bent or straight in the first place, not in any truly valid way. There is no variance at all; the model "interprets" what we sense. A consistent model does so without contradiction.

As far as "the mind influences perception", what of it? Did anybody say that the human mind is infallible? Let's simply take for granted that human beings can make mistakes: they can misinterpret their senses, and they can be influenced by all sorts of things. So what of it? It does not follow that seeking knowledge is in vain. It does not follow that knowledge is unattainable. Even if we will always probably be making some mistakes, it does not imply that everything we know is a big mistake.

I don't see what all this has to do with God though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to disappoint you but not only am I a native speaker of English but I've published in the field of grammar and linguistics.
Interesting. I'd like to take a look at your work. What are some of your publications?
Yes, it matters where one puts the negative particle "not"; however, my point was that there are several ways grammatically to express the same logical truth.
I see, so does that mean that when you said "from the standpoint of propositional logic, it makes no difference how we phrase something grammatically", you were lying, you hadn't thought about what you wrote, you made an error -- or have we learned that 'no difference' means 'some difference'? Just curious.
If the sentence "Dr. Smith disproved that X exists" is ungrammatical, then so is "Dr. Smith disliked that X exists", and so is "Dr. Smith disavowed that X exists", etc.
Yup, those are other examples -- sorry that I mistook you for a foreigner. It's not unusual for high-functioning non-native speakers of English to be mistaken about the kinds of complementizers a verb takes, and since prove, clarify etc do take that-complements, it's not an unusual form of rationalism for them to make the error of analogizing disprove, obscure and think that then take that-clauses rather than NP-that clauses.
Your position is not so much incorrect as it is a bit legalistic
Perhaps, but ungrammatical is ungrammatical. More to the point, the logical structure of your argument is a bit legalistic. Legally speaking, it is also wrong. You grant that supposed god is everywhere all at once (ominipresent, ubiquitous) but then deny that this means "without limit". Your argument is based on the trivial straw argument that "everywhere" doesn't mean "without limit". That would be relevant if he had claimed that everywhere means without limit, but I don't find that claim anywhere except in your argument. Being everywhere means being everywhere without limit. That is what everywhere means -- no limits on the where.

Your next argument also falls apart but might be resurrected by a bit of leglism on your part -- "Gravity is ubiquitous and has an identity". Gravity depends on entities, since it is a relationship between two things. Gravity is not an independent entity. Outside of the imaginary bounding box that encloses all entities in the universe, there are no entities (that should be self-evident), and therefore no gravitational force. Thus the extent of the gravitational forms is finite and limited -- which god is claimed not to be. Your argument analogizing god to gravity thus sucks.

Of course there are myriad other arguments that show that god is a contradictory concept, but you don't address those so we can move on. Your claim that modern physics dismisses sensory evidence as either irrelevant or at best misleading is false, unsupported, irrelevant and at best misleading. It is well known that physicists depend each day on sensory evidence to support their conjectures about the universe. Modern physics does not, as you wrongly assert, intentionally construct models at variance with sensory evidence, in fact that is a scientifically meaningless claim -- a scientific model can't be at variance with a fact.

It is not true that a Karl Popper wrote that science proceeds by proving that certain phenomena that the current hypothesis lead you to expect to occur cannot occur. In fact, you might read it again and see that this is close to the opposite of what he claims. His position is that one can only proved a specific instantiation to be false, so if your model predicts a certain particle at a certain time and place, and the particle is not observed, then the prediction is false. Popperian epistemology hold that one can only know that a singular statement is true or false, and it would be forbidden metaphysics to conclude that a phenomenon cannot occur. Of course he is wrong, but that's another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...