Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

You Don’t Believe in God – Disprove Him!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You just expressed a profound truth.

 

This is intentional.

 

There will never be conclusive proof either way. This gives everyone total freedom to choose either to affirm or deny God. Anything less would rob everyone of that free choice.

 

There is a quality to love... in that it can only be given by our own free choice.

the rules or laws of evidence are pretty strict; either something is or it is not.

there is always proof of the attributes of a thing(existent)  , there is no reason to deny god simply because there is no reason to postulate god

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just a small point.  In existence argument,  he who asserts the existence of X,  has the burden to produce evidence for X.     He who disbelieves the existence of X or is not convinced of the existe

Isn't this more a case of mis-usage of an operating mind vs. a disease, which prohibits the mind from operating in some fashion?   Mental illness and mental imbalance suggests something is fundament

Fixed.Time for a little science. Please, sit back and observe as I put this little hypothesis of yours to the test: God Damn Jehovah Jesus God Damn Bloody Christ Virgin Mother Damn. I also worship th

the rules or laws of evidence are pretty strict; either something is or it is not.

That's right. But there is no proof either way so you get to freely choose for yourself to either affirm or deny God.

there is always proof of the attributes of a thing(existent)  , there is no reason to deny god simply because there is no reason to postulate god

I have absolutely no problem with the choice you have freely made for yourself, Tad. That is the way it should be. There is no proof either way so that you can rightfully receive the just and deserved consequences set into motion by your choice no matter what you choose... just as I do.

Edited by moralist
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's right. But there is no proof either way so you get to freely choose for yourself to either affirm or deny God.

I have absolutely no problem with the choice you have freely made for yourself, Tad. That is the way it should be. There is no proof either way so that you can rightfully receive the just and deserved consequences set into motion by your choice no matter what you choose... just as I do.

Would you be so kind as to prove that "There is no proof either way.", or are you just going to continue making that unsubstantiated assertion?
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right. But there is no proof either way so you get to freely choose for yourself to either affirm or deny God.

I have absolutely no problem with the choice you have freely made for yourself, Tad. That is the way it should be. There is no proof either way so that you can rightfully receive the just and deserved consequences set into motion by your choice no matter what you choose... just as I do.

I have just had an epiphany, I can actually tell my soul has been somehow redeemed. I realise now the true nature of existence, by God, IT IS.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Would you be so kind as to prove that "There is no proof either way.", or are you just going to continue making that unsubstantiated assertion?

There can only be unsubstantiated assertions when there isn't any proof either way. You are welcome to present anything which you regard as proof for either case. But no matter what is said, the free choice to affirm or deny God will always be a personal one and each one of us can only harvest what we planted.

 

The question of God's existence will always be completely open... because there is never any coercion in love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There can only be unsubstantiated assertions when there isn't any proof either way. You are welcome to present anything which you regard as proof for either case. But no matter what is said, the free choice to affirm or deny God will always be a personal one and each one of us can only harvest what we planted.

The question of God's existence will always be completely open... because there is never any coercion in love.

Why is this choice a special one? I could easily say by these principles that "My choice to believe in reincarnation is a personal one and we can harvest what we planted".

Link to post
Share on other sites

There can only be unsubstantiated assertions when there isn't any proof either way.

The existence of god can't even be understood. The idea of god is just totally invalid. The nature of the Western concept of god is that there is no way to even think about it. The whole definition of the Western god is basically anything you can't possibly think about - there isn't anything you can think about! I can't disprove god because as a whole the idea is invalid. Hence, god is an invalid concept. If you want to talk about it, fine, but not if you aren't actually trying to engage in the purpose of discussing Objectivism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is this choice a special one?

It's not special. It's universal. Everyone has the same opportunity to freely choose.

 

 

I could easily say by these principles that "My choice to believe in reincarnation is a personal one and we can harvest what we planted".

 

Yes, you most certainly can. For every truth is double edged and cuts both ways. No matter what we choose... everyone gets exactly what they deserve as the consequences of their choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence or non-existence of God is not a logical question. Logic can only apply to a deductive framework. Existence is not part of that. Existence pertains to perception. To be rational, one does not accept even the possibility of existence without perceptual evidence. Otherwise, we must accept the possibility of a race of starving creatures on Venus that need our help. You can only help them by contributing to my bank account. Act now! Save the starving Venutians!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone who claims the plain evidence of the senses is bogus present the following challenge.  Go to the top of the nearest tall building and jump off without a parachute.  If the person is serious about what he says, then he will have no excuse for not accepting the challenge.  If he is not serious and does not accept you can stop arguing it with him right there.  

 

ruveyn1

That's not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though. 

 

There's a minor difference between God and the external world. You can't see God every time you open your eyes.

That's not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though. The skeptic would deny that what you are seeing every time you open your eyes is indeed an external world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On what basis could sensory evidence be negated?

 

Just in a practical sense, if I get the whole internet,laptop,visual display, text thingy, then ultimately that view(sensory evidence is negatable) would have to mean that everything I 'see' is a projection(whatever the source) and that I am commenting to myself

There's nothing wrong with sensory evidence. What I was saying in that post is simply that not all beliefs have to be supported by sensory evidence. By analogy, pizza is good food, but not all good food is pizza.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with sensory evidence. What I was saying in that post is simply that not all beliefs have to be supported by sensory evidence. By analogy, pizza is good food, but not all good food is pizza.

That's true, but if a belief is to be valid, it must at least be related or connected to sensory evidence/experience at some level. A person can believe in god simply because they want to, even if there is nothing to think about except the word itself. Moralist demonstrated that quite well: he has only talked about the word god, but nothing that can be thought *about* god. Just assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence or non-existence of God is not a logical question. Logic can only apply to a deductive framework. Existence is not part of that.

 

This is why it's futile to attempt to argue issues of metaphysics.

 

Whenever I hear an atheist say that he/she intends to debate believers on the existence or non-existence of God, my first thought it always: "I hope they trounce you good!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though.

Saying "open your eyes" to someone is a begging the question fallacy? I'm not even gonna ask you to define it. Just give me one example of something that isn't a begging the question fallacy, and we'll continue the conversation.

But I have a feeling you go around calling everything "begging the question".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying "open your eyes" to someone is a begging the question fallacy? I'm not even gonna ask you to define it. Just give me one example of something that isn't a begging the question fallacy, and we'll continue the conversation.

But I have a feeling you go around calling everything "begging the question".

Saying "open your eyes" to someone is not normally a begging the question fallacy (when you're trying to prove something mundane, like the claim that your house is a certain color), but it certainly is when you're arguing for the existence of the external world itself. A skeptic would obviously reply, "but how do you know it's an external world you're seeing?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence or non-existence of God is not a logical question. Logic can only apply to a deductive framework. Existence is not part of that. Existence pertains to perception. To be rational, one does not accept even the possibility of existence without perceptual evidence. Otherwise, we must accept the possibility of a race of starving creatures on Venus that need our help. You can only help them by contributing to my bank account. Act now! Save the starving Venutians!

This is an embrace of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Oism rejects the above claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an embrace of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Oism rejects the above claim.

I disagree. I believe aleph_1's point is similar to mine in that god is arbitrary to a degree that logic can't even be applied to the invalid concept that is god. Most ideas of god cannot even be evaluated. What kind of logical conclusion can even be even made based on a nothing? Analytic-synthetic dichotomy would imply that certain facts are either contingent (ice melts at 100 degrees celsius) or not (1+1=2). There isn't a suggestion here that god is some non-contingent fact. Rather, *because* the dichotomy is invalid, ideas that pertain to a total disconnect from perception can't be evaluated in *any* manner. If someone bought into the dichotomy, they'd probably say some facts are valid and disconnected from perception, in particular mathematical concepts and god. That is, until one can make clear to them that even valid mathematical concepts can be connected to perception.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying "open your eyes" to someone is not normally a begging the question fallacy (when you're trying to prove something mundane, like the claim that your house is a certain color), but it certainly is when you're arguing for the existence of the external world itself. A skeptic would obviously reply, "but how do you know it's an external world you're seeing?"

Right, because this hypothetical skeptic wouldn't just go "How do you know that's a yellow house?". He would stick to putting the prefix "How do you know" to just the arbitrary statements of your choosing.

As for the answer to your question, it's because we named it. That's how I know. People were walking around with their eyes open, looking at things, and then one of them, pretty sure his name was Larry, went "Hey, Bob, you know all that s&*t we see around us, every time we open our eyes? Let's give it a name.". And then Bob went "Ok, how about 'external world'".

And that's the story of how I know that all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes is the external world. Since this whole "using symbols" idea Larry and Bob came up with seems to have confused you, I would suggest trying this little mental exercise: instead of "external world", always say "all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes". Then see if the statement "Well, a skeptic might say: How do you know that all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes is all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes?" makes any sense or not. If it still does, you have a serious problem.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...