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

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

I have been looking at Objectivism for a long time now but I still have a slew of questions about it. I don’t think I actually know any objectivists so I’m glad I found this forum.

My first question pertains to something that I have been seeing in this forum that has been bothering me. I have seen many “objectivists” make posts that say something like “…the fact that god does not exist…” and the statement seems to be a contradiction of objectivist principle.

I have always been taught that a theory is simply something which is not proven. The commonly held definition is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” By definition, it does not necessarily have to be a good theory and it doesn’t even have to make sense. Of course a theory gains support through experimentation, the means be which the theory is made credible, but even theories that have little or no support still remain theories. For example most scientists now reject Darwin’s theory of evolution because they have found significant support for a new theory: the modern theory of evolution. So then, a theory is a prediction based on observations of the world around us and a credible theory has experimental data to support it.

A fact on the other hand is much harder to come by. The theory of gravity has overwhelming evidence to support it but it still remains a theory in the science textbooks. Things denser than air fall when you drop them – that is a fact. Information based on real occurrences. Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware). A fact can only be made so will real evidence, not based on lack of evidence. I do not believe that these terms should be used loosely.

Additionally, I have read some of Rand’s essays in which she states that she does not believe in God, but have never found one in which she claims it to be a fact that God not exist. Drop me a line if you know of one, I would like to read it.

In summary, I would say you may consider god an ill-supported theory, an illusion, or an absurd idea but I fail to see how you can consider god’s non-existence a fact. But let me know if I need to check my premises.

Also, if you do have a proof I would be interested in hearing you out. I would prefer not to hear the “A is not A” argument though. I do not understand it. :pimp:

Thanks for reading.

2

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. Its that simple to prove god doesnt exist. Plus there is no reason to believe in god since no proof has been put forth. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

3

Thanks for the fast reply. I would like to make it clear that I am not arguing for the existence of God, merely that I do not understand how it can be considered a fact that God does not exist.

So in response, when it comes to discussing religion and science I believe that some words may be getting lost in their meaning. Science operates on the foundation that in order for something to exist it must be part of something, namely the physical universe. Religion, on the other hand, believes that there is something beyond the physical universe (Note that ‘something,’ as used here, is a misnomer since it is nothing in the physical universe, there is no word for what it really is). The two views do not coincide so you cannot disprove one with the other.

Secondly, concepts are not part of the physical realm. Do they not exist? I think that there are a lot of things that we cannot, see, hear, taste, touch, or smell.

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.

4

The concept of God contradicts known facts of reality, e.g., the law of identity. Just try to give him an identity. Let’s say he’s a scientist on Mars. Or a supercomputer at the Earth’s core. No real theist would recognize these as God.

5

Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware).  A fact can only be made so will real evidence, not based on lack of evidence.  I do not believe that these terms should be used loosely.

I’m God. And that’s a fact. Case closed.

Now, you may be tempted to say, “No, you’re not God.” In that case, prove that I’m not God!

And you better have some damn good evidence if you want to convince me that I’m not God. Because if you pull that “onus of proof” nonsense on me, I’m gonna have to smite you.

6

Secondly, concepts are not part of the physical realm. Do they not exist? I think that there are a lot of things that we cannot, see, hear, taste, touch, or smell.

concepts arent comparable to the god situation we are having. You are saying that I cant state “god doesnt exist.” If he “exists” beyond the natural realm, he therefore doesnt exist. All things that are exist in the natural realm. And I would like to know a few of examples of things that lack physical properties that we think exist? What did you mean by that statement?

7

I have always been taught that a theory is simply something which is not proven. The commonly held definition is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

It is unfortunately true that there is a lot of muddle-headed teaching out there about what theories are. A theory has to be more than just some arbitrary statement: it must identify correctly something. And therefore it has to have some observations that support it. But a theory can be proven, meaning validated to the point that there is no reason at all to disbelieve the theory. You may want to recognise that special status (in contrast to, say “string theory” which is not validated beyond the possibility of rational disbelief) with some added word like “proven”, but the heliocentric theory of the solar system is still called a theory.

By definition, it does not necessarily have to be a good theory and it doesn’t even have to make sense.

I don’t know what you mean by “good” here. If it’s wrong, then it isn’t good, at least in my book. So in fact I would say that a theory must be good, to some known extent.

A fact on the other hand is much harder to come by.

Time to put up the :pimp: . A “fact” is a metaphysical state of affairs, for example the fact that it’s raining right now. That isn’t hard to come by. Outside of Objectivist circles, the term “fact” is sometimes used to refer to something very different, namely “certainty that proposition X is a fact”. The questions you are asking really are about one thing: how do you achieve certainty? My existence is a fact; god’s existence isn’t.

The theory of gravity has overwhelming evidence to support it but it still remains a theory in the science textbooks.  Things denser than air fall when you drop them – that is a fact.  Information based on real occurrences.

The theory of gravity has a rather different status from the dropping things generalization, since “gravity” refers to a specific physical equation set forth by Newton, as a law. The density / falling statement isn’t in the same league: it’s certainy not a law. The unfortunate thing (for Newton) about Newton’s law of gravity is that it is not actually correct, and we are certain of that now. Thus the real distinguishing characteristic of the cases has to do with certainty.

Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware).

What are your standards of “proof”? If you demand the typical a priorist’s “deductive proof with no metaphysical chance of error”, you can’t prove anything (which is why it’s a ridiculous concept of “proof”. But even so, the standard definition of god is contradictory (omnipotence is an intrinsically contradictory concept), which should suffice to prove that god does not exist.

A fact can only be made so will real evidence, not based on lack of evidence.  I do not believe that these terms should be used loosely.

What does that mean?

8

Hmm…. A much better explanation of “A is A” Daniel. But I would have to disagree with the approach you are taking.

In the law of identity, Aristotle showed that everything must have an identity and that identity is the concept that refers to the aspects of something, or its particularities and specific characteristics, if I am not mistaken. And most every religion has, in fact, fulfilled these requirements for their god(s) by giving them particular attributes.

But even so I still hold the argument that this law of identity is a physical law that can only be applied to something in the physical universe. The “something” that theists refer to as God cannot actually be described by the word “something.”

In case you would bring up the argument that an object cannot have two identities I will go ahead and say that every religion cannot be right, and maybe none of them are right. But even still, God would not be an object.

9

david,

I enjoyed reading your argument. Would you mind telling me how omnipotence is an intrinsically contradictory term? I just would like you to clarify that, so I might be able to show that argument to a theist friend of mine.

10

David,

The observations of theists that have led them to believe God exists is the world around them. Primitive the conclusion may be, it still meets the basic requirements for a theory. That was what I was trying to get at. And I also agree that a theory can be proven.

By “good theory” I merely meant something that reasonable people would accept. I would agree that a theory must be good to some extent, but some people seem to accept just about anything.

And about facts - Now I think you may have misunderstood me… I did not say that facts are hard to come by, I said they are harder to come by than theories. I could make up a theory about anything. I would also agree that God’s existence is not a fact.

When I said, “Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware).” that was my question. My standard of proof is reason, but before I had not I had not heard reasoning for the statement “God does not exist.” It was only stated. I asked the question for people to answer it.

As for your last question, I made a typo: will = with

11

There really is no “fact” that there is no god. That would mean something positive is to be found in reality showing his nonexistence. Atheism simply means not-theism; it is just the denial of a particular view, i.e., that there is a supernatural being in control of the universe.

To quote Dr. Peikoff:

Objectivism advocates reason as man’s only means of knowledge, and, therefore, it does not accept God or any variant of the supernatural. We are a-theist, as well as a-devilist, a-demonist, a-gremlinist. We reject every “spiritual” dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence. We reject idealism. To put the point positively: we accept reality, and that’s all.

12

Would you mind telling me how omnipotence is an intrinsically contradictory term? I just would like you to clarify that, so I might be able to show that argument to a theist friend of mine.

The idea of omnipotence is that the being has no limit on what he can do – otherwise, the being would have a limited potency. So what is the largest rock that god can create? One that he can life? But can he make one bigger than that – one so heavy that he cannot lift it? Of course not. The usual huffy reply from the god types is that of course god can’t be contradictory. But they can’t tell me whether his limitation is in terms of stone creation, or stone lifting. You can plug in a zillion variants, such as “can god made a crossword puzzle so hard that he can’t solve it”. Or, given the principle that god is omnipresent, does god lack the power to withdraw from some part of the universe?

13

The observations of theists that have led them to believe God exists is the world around them.

Actually, they saw God and then started believing.

14

And about facts - Now I think you may have misunderstood me… I did not say that facts are hard to come by, I said they are harder to come by than theories.

Uh, no. Try again.

15

And about facts - Now I think you may have misunderstood me… I did not say that facts are hard to come by, I said they are harder to come by than theories. I could make up a theory about anything.

I believe I did understand you, and what I was saying is that it facts are actually vastly easier to come by than theories. You are surrounded by facts. What is hard to come by is a theory that expains the facts.

When I said, “Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware).”  that was my question. My standard of proof is reason, but before I had not I had not heard reasoning for the statement “God does not exist.” It was only stated. I asked the question for people to answer it.

Apart from the fact that god is a contradictory concept, there are reasons to disbelieve the existence of god. It is an extension (in form) of the argument that there are no winged horse like Pegasus. We know a lot about the evolution of life on Earth and how wings developed. Such an animal would have to have developed from a 6-legged creature (remember that Pegasus’s wings were not just loose skin attachments, they were actually feathered flappable attachments.) But there are no 6-legged vertebrates now or ever. In other words, we have a scientific basis for saying that a flying horse does not exist – it is not simply a matter of our failure to find a flying horse. Though please don’t ask me to try to recapitulate the details of how limbs evolved.

God is in a vastly worse position: even if he just extremely big and extremely strong etc., there is nothing known to exist that is even marginally like this supposed god character. The sometimes given counter-argument “But maybe you don’t know everything” is a covert demand to abandon reason. This response blatantly tells you to ignore observation, and accept as real something that has no basis in observation. The lack of a shred of evidence in support of god, and the immense scientific improbability of a gargantuan sentient non-corporeal being is enough reason to say that gods existence has been disproven.

16

When I said, “Just like you cannot prove a god exists you cannot disprove that a god exists (as far as I am aware).”  that was my question.

But I can prove that you cannot prove that I cannot prove that God does not exist. And that’s all that matters.

17

Just to clear things up when I said “before,” I meant before I posted this thread.

18

god is a contradictory concept

that is enough to to say that God does not exist. End of argument.

19

Science operates on the foundation that in order for something to exist it must be part of something, namely the physical universe.

That’s not the “foundation” of science. For something to exist it must have identity. Existence is Identity.

And you cannot speak of “outside” the universe, because you have not even proven such a thing exists. You are asserting arbitrary claims. You might as well posit The Matrix as real, then claim that we cannot disprove the existence of Neo.

20

Can God let loose a fart so foul that even He has to leave the room?

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)