Arguments and empirical evidence that no god exists

[Scott]

As I use the term, an omnipotent being could not make 2 + 2 = 5.

What an omnipotent being could do to the actual concepts of 2, +, =, and 5 is not the issue. It seems clear to me that any being who you or I would be willing to call "omnipotent" would, at the very least, be able to make you believe, and view as self-evident, that 2 + 2 = 5.

No, he couldn't. That's my point. So-called a priori knowledge is not actually knowledge of anything about the world; it's a reflection of meaning. The statement, "The bachelor is unmarried," is not really true in the sense a usual statement, by which I mean an a posteriori proposition, is true or false. An a priori statement contains no information that could be wrong or right; it has nothing to do with evidence or informational beliefs. We use the label '2 + 2' and the label '4' to both refer to the same concept. The concept 'unmarried bachelor' is the concept 'bachelor.' It's meaninglessly redundant in the way a non-concept 'married bachelor' is completely meaningless (by being the opposite of redundant). We literally cannot disbelieve a so-called a priori truth, as an a priori statement is so-called true (i.e. redundant) by the nature of the concepts (i.e. categorizations of percepts) we created and the meaning of the symbols (namely words) we use to label and reference those concepts. For the concepts to be concepts and have meaning; saying that they have meaning is simply different words for alleging the presence of logic and the so-called truth of a priori statements--as logic and so-called a priori truth are simply words for particular types of synonymousness that is there no matter how delusional or misinformed a person is or what a god does. A series of words may mean a true statement in English and mean a false statement in some other language, but changing the meaning of the words does not change the truth of what was originally meant. A god could make us speak a different language, but it's utter nonsense to suggest anything at all could make a priori statement be false. A priori statements and deductive logic refer to redundancies of meaning. An omnipotent being, as I use the term, cannot make one mean what one doesn't mean or do any non-things. If you are suggesting he can, then we do not disagree, we are simply having an illusion of disagreement resulting from a misunderstanding resulting from equivocation over the word 'god' and the word 'omnipotence.' I am using those words to refer to concepts not to pseudo-refer to non-concepts/non-things--e.g. the terms as I use them can't refer to something like 'unmarried bachelor' because the words 'unmarried bachelor' do not refer to a concept or thing and thus there is no 'thing' (i.e. that to which the words would refer) to have qualities like fictionality, existence, blue hair, being a wife-beater, etc.

Marabod, I am not posting just to try and get a rise out of you, I am posting what I believe to be legitimate considerations about the topic of discussion. If you do not want to talk to me, then you are free to stop.

My original point was that most people would consider an asteroid, which is as of yet undiscovered and may never become discovered, to nevertheless exist, and for this existence to be a fact--even if it may only be proven or disproven hypothetically.

When I personally assert the existence of something A to someone, I usually mean to indicate that phenomena strongly correspond to A as an explanation of the world. But that's an unusual sense of "existence," and clearly not what's being used in this discussion (neither in this thread or in general).

Likewise, I do not think your definition of existence fits this discussion, as it seems clear to me that most people who believe in God view His existence to be epistemically similar to the existence of one particular asteroid on the other side of the universe: A fact that humans are probably never going to verify.

Most people... Would most people vote for you to talk on their behalf? What do you think? What sort of an argument is this - to refer to "most people"? This argument, you use, contains a subjective assumption that you are aware of what most people think and feel, and there is 6 billions around! See what I mean? Most people do not take part in our conversation, and even do not express any interest to it!

Whatever the other "most people" (who believe in God) think, concerns me not because in my view neither God nor asteroid are existing. Moreover, I do not even understand how the brain functions, which can believe in something which is simply not here to see it. I cannot put myself in their place and look with their eyes, because my brain sure functions different way.

Those people who think God and asteroid existing, are not the people who developed the definition of Objective and Subjective Realities, they do not see the difference between them two. For them virtual God or virtual asteroid, existing entirely within their Subjective realities, must also exist in the Objective Reality - same way as for you it is like that, and the reason is the same, you cannot distinguish which Reality is Objective and which is Subjective. Tell me that I am wrong!

You managed to get yourself engaged in a philosophical discussion WITHOUT knowing what Objective Reality is, and without having any urge to find this out (as far as I can see). The subject was fully clarified in the Philosophy already 200 years ago and since is in the practical use, say in Psychiatry - it cures those who cannot distinguish between these two Realities, objective and subjective, as the severe form of this confusion is called "a delusion". Inability to know things subjective from things objective presents a medical case! "I believe in God" is a soft form of such delusion, while "I am Napoleon" is an aggravated form. People with God (or asteroid) delusion are still maintaining some residual contact with Objective reality - they work, eat, procreate, even write the books and discuss philosophy. All what makes them strange is they can see something which the others cannot see - ghosts, virgin Mary, God or an asteroid.

Pity you did not live in 19th century - if young Marx heard your asteroid theory, he would've died laughing, and we could be saved from Communism, which is yet another delusion, though not a religious one.

We literally cannot disbelieve a so-called a priori truth, as an a priori statement is so-called true (i.e. redundant) by the nature of the concepts (i.e. categorizations of percepts) we created and the meaning of the symbols (namely words) we use to label and reference those concepts.

Would you assert that, for example, even someone who is mentally ill would never honestly identify the concept of 2+2 with the same concept as 5, rather than that of 4?
______________________

Most people... Would most people vote for you to talk on their behalf?

I appeal to popularity on matters of definition, since that determines the way the question is framed in the first place. I am not arguing that your definition is wrong, per se, but rather that the original question is likely to mean something different than you suppose, because you're using an unpopular definition of "existence."

From the dictionary (selected for relevance):

existence - 1 to have being or reality
2 to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur

objective - 1 not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
2 of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality

real - true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent

I believe the definitions I've marked as "1" are closer to how I would interpret the question, whereas those marked with "2" are closer to how you seem to interpret the question (assuming existence is equivalent to having objective reality). The "2" definition for existence is just the closest I could find to yours in a real dictionary; I still think it means the practically undiscoverable asteroid exists. Granted, there are definitions of "objective[ly] real" that it does not hold up to.

Once again, these definitions are not definitions I advocate personally, they are just the most likely explanation of what people mean when they ask, "Do you think God exists?" I'd appreciate it if you avoided making assumptions about my interest in objective reality, as my interests are irrelevant to this discussion.

Meleagar wrote

We aren't talking about "religion"; the argument is theism vs atheism. What an atheist or a theist regime commits atrocities "in the name of" is irrelevant; the question which is more dangerous. We cannot know what is in the mind of those people who commite atrocities; all we can do is associate number of atrocities/murders with atheistic and theistic regimes.

Mel, but the argument is not about theism or atheism! It is about the empirical proofs of God's existence. When you bring in a subjective assessment of the large groups of people by their ideology, it belongs to another type of a discussion - at the moment you are practically trying to derail this particularly thread!

However by vigorously attacking the atheism and atheists, you deliver yet another indirect proof that there is... no God! As the God of the theists is hopeless in dealing with those who do not believe in him, and has to appoint YOU to weed them out. He is so well hidden that can't leave his shelter and insist on own existence and divine rights! Do not you find this ridiculous?

[Scott]

[Moderation note: Off-topic posts have been moved into a new thread. The OP makes it very clear this thread is NOT for thread about the merits of atheism or theism; This thread is NOT for why one would believe or not believe in god despite or in the absence of evidence. This is thread is NOT for discussing whether atheism is a dangerous belief. Please read the OP again before posting anymore in this thread. Any posts in this thread must either be the presentation of evidence that no god exists or be an attempted rebuttal of or question about an argument that god does not exist that has been posted in this thread.]

***

Alun,

We literally cannot disbelieve a so-called a priori truth, as an a priori statement is so-called true (i.e. redundant) by the nature of the concepts (i.e. categorizations of percepts) we created and the meaning of the symbols (namely words) we use to label and reference those concepts.

Would you assert that, for example, even someone who is mentally ill would never honestly identify the concept of 2+2 with the same concept as 5, rather than that of 4?

Yes, that is pretty much what I am asserting. People can mis-use words to refer to concepts most of us do not use those words to refer to. They can also misinterpret or mistranslate words/symbols (which in arithmetic is called miscalculation and in deductive logic is called fallacy). For instance, when he gets older I could teach my son that the word 'pig' means what you and I refer to as 'bird.' My son then may say, "most pigs can fly." But we mustn't mistake the symbols we use to label/refer to a concept, e.g. the words we use to mean something a.k.a. attempt to communicate an idea, for the idea itself. The statement, "most pigs can fly," could be true wherein it means exactly what you and I mean when we say, "most birds can fly." A series of words or symbols or labels is not true or false. What it means if it it means something can be true or false. An omnipotent being could make what we call pigs fly, regardless of whether or not we called them pigs or not in this new world. An omnipotent being could make the idea we now call '2' be called '3' or that the idea we now call 'less than' be called 'equal to' as those things are just words and an omnipotent being could change what we use words to refer to. But, as we use the words now, the words '2 + 2' refer to the same thing as the word '4' or the words '1 + 1 + 1 + 1.' The word 'bachelor' refers to the same idea as the words 'unmarried bachelor' just as the German word for we call 'door' isn't the same word as the English word 'door' but they may refer to the same thing. It's not that we have induced from experience that all bachelors happen to be unmarried or that there is some natural law (like gravity or Newton's laws) that bachelors are unmarried--experience-based beliefs, called a posteriori, like that could indeed be manipulated by some god or the truth of some metaphysical possibility (e.g. a Truman show-like or Matrix-like possibility). Rather, the words 'there is a bachelor' refer to the same proposition as the words 'there is a bachelor who is unmarried.' The meaning of a priori statements are so-called 'true' in a way that is inherent to their very so-called meaning; in fact it may be more clear to simply call them 'redundant' and reserve the titles true/false for a posteriori statements but that's not what we do. Deductive logic is thus comparable to translation and/or summary. It's a function of meaning that cannot be changed.

But I digress. The simple fact is I use the word 'god' and the words 'omnipotent being' to refer to a being that still cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. If you use the word 'god' or 'omnipotent being' to 'refer'* to a 'thing'* that would be 'capable of making 2 + 2 = 5,' then you are talking about 'something'* different than I and please realize my arguments or statements and questions about what I call god and what I call omnipotent being in this thread do not apply to 'it'*. So when I say "X is evidence god does not exist" I do not mean X is evidence against the existence of whatever 'thing'* you 'refer'* to when you say 'god exists' or 'an omnipotent being exists' whatever that 'means'*. I am not trying to present evidence against the existence of such a 'thing'*.

*Contradictions and meaningless series of words/symbols do not actually refer to any idea or thing as I have already explained. So I think it would be more correct for me to say something like "If you use the word 'god' or 'omnipotent being' to pseudo-refer to a non-thing..." but instead I have simply put asterisks next to such words.

Now, that we have that cleared up, can you re-review the syllogisms I posted in post #3 but this time while reading in your head replace the word 'god' with 'god who cannot violate the rules of deductive logic or make a priori propositions false' and replace 'omnipotent' with 'all-powerful but only to the extent that adheres to the rules of deductive logic and a priori truth, e.g. still not able to make 2 + 2 = 5' and then tell me for each premise whether you believe it is true, probably true, about equally likely as not, probably false, or false or whether you don't understand it as written and need me to clarify what it means. Depending on which premises you disagree with we will see whether you are rejecting it as evidence regardless of whether it is true or rejecting the evidence as true. (A presentation of evidence always makes two claims, first that some fact is true and second that the truth of that fact would be evidence of the conclusion at hand, which is why I have presented mine as syllogisms. Thus an attempted rebuttal of evidence either doubts its relevance which takes the form of the major premise or its credibility/truth which takes the form of the minor premise in a conditional syllogism.)

Scott,

For whatever it's worth, I do not think there is any guarantee that meaning is immutable in the way that you're arguing, nor that it is meaningless to consider otherwise. It seems to me that if a being had control over the physical operations of my brain, it could make me genuinely believe that "2 + 2" refers to the same concept as "5," without misusing the words insofar as that belief does not misuse them. That is, if someone or something could control our brains, it could change what constitutes "logic" to us.

As I said before, most of the time this possibility just does not matter at all. But in the case of metaphysical worldview, there can be emotional reasons to consider something that has an unknowable degree of power.
_____________________

That said, I can still interpret your argument as if 'omnipotence' does not include the power to distort meaning (in the above way or any other way).

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent creator god, we would be very intelligent designed.
Premise 2: We are not very intelligently designed.
Conclusion: There is not an omnipotent creator god.

I think my rebuttal to this particular argument mostly stands as it was: Even if the god is very logical, and incapable of intruding on our logic, it's still impossible to fathom what he might consider a good idea for a design. Sure, you can think of many standards of success which life on earth and which the rest of the universe does not meet, but how do you decide what standard of success god must use? So I disagree with the premises, as before.

scientific studies of the effectiveness of prayer can help us figure out whether or not a god exists (premise 1). Scientific studies have repeatedly found that prayer is utterly ineffective regardless of who prays, of which god they pray to and of what they pray about (premise 2).

Similar answer: There is really no way to know whether god cares to answer prayers. Or whether he, e.g., rewards for them in an afterlife. Thus both premises are problematic.

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent or otherwise supernaturally powerful god, he would not cause or let utterly, unproductively awful things such as the holocaust which entailed the mass-murder of children to occur.
Premise 2: Utterly, unproductively awful things like the holocaust have happened.
Conclusion: Neither an omnipotent nor otherwise supernaturally powerful god exists.

Again, we don't know what god considers evil, or if evil now ends up having better or compensatory effects in some other way. However, I think this argument still shows that god, if he exists, is in a way very alien to us. Again, neither premise is guaranteed.

The same can be said for the last two arguments: We do not know if 'bad' things really are unproductive, purposeless, etc., and we do not know if god cares if they are bad, unproductive, purposeless, etc.

Without the possibility that god is illogical, there are only so many possible gods who could be posited, and who could then theoretically be ruled out. The problem remains, however, that nearly comprehensive knowledge of existence is needed to rule out the popular ones. As it stands, you can only rule out gods who have very specific purposes--e.g., a logical god who does not want any human being to ever have an appendix does not exist. Any general purposes may yet be explained by what we don't know of the universe; e.g. a 'good' logical god may have created future compensation, trans-dimensional compensation, etc., for apparently 'bad' things in the world.

Without the possibility that god is illogical, there are only so many possible gods who could be posited, and who could then theoretically be ruled out.

Alun, but God is illogical! Argument "God" presents a logical fallacy, as it is an irrational argument - the one for which "true" and "false" exist simultaneously. God is "here" and the same time God is "there", this is enough to prohibit Logic operating with it. All "logical" chains, containing God argument are invalid, it is the same as in Math to divide zero by infinity. Logic only operates with the rational arguments, same as Mathematics. Read more on "Formal Logic"!

a logical fallacy, as it is an irrational argument - the one for which "true" and "false" exist simultaneously. [skip] this is enough to prohibit Logic operating with it. [skip] Logic only operates with the rational arguments, same as Mathematics. Read more on "Formal Logic"!

One could swear you speak about QM and the non-locality principle... (See Schroendinger's cat)
I developed the very same arguments... against your stance and belief that QM was perfectly sound and logic.
You clearly have a double standard approach, again.

How can't you realize that?

a logical fallacy, as it is an irrational argument - the one for which "true" and "false" exist simultaneously. [skip] this is enough to prohibit Logic operating with it. [skip] Logic only operates with the rational arguments, same as Mathematics. Read more on "Formal Logic"!

One could swear you speak about QM and the non-locality principle... (See Schroendinger's cat)
I developed the very same arguments... against your stance and belief that QM was perfectly sound and logic.
You clearly have a double standard approach, again.

How can't you realize that?

Persi, that you worship a virtual Schroedinger's cat is no news - Egyptians few thousand years ago already worshiped the cats! "See Schroedinger's cat" is easy to say - but try showing where it is, in which Zoo! Did you personally see it? The same thing as with God, it is here and it is there, and both here and there are well outside of any Quantum Mechanics - so keep developing, please!

Yes, Persi, it should be really hard to talk about something which you do not know! I appreciate your effort though, but it may be more interesting for you to live if you print out the entire Wikipedia and thoroughly read it through - if you do not want to read a textbook, of course.

Alun, but God is illogical!

Scott said he was only talking about a logically consistent idea of God. I have no problem with the possibility that God is illogical.

God is "here" and the same time God is "there", this is enough to prohibit Logic operating with it.

Really? The universe is here with me, but also right behind you. Does this prohibit logic operating with the universe? I am unfamiliar with any sort of formal logic which takes the singularity of location to be axiomatic.

Alun, but God is illogical!

Scott said he was only talking about a logically consistent idea of God. I have no problem with the possibility that God is illogical.

God is "here" and the same time God is "there", this is enough to prohibit Logic operating with it.

Really? The universe is here with me, but also right behind you. Does this prohibit logic operating with the universe? I am unfamiliar with any sort of formal logic which takes the singularity of location to be axiomatic.

Universe is also not a rational argument, and you correctly explained why. Mathematically Universe is Infinity, and the operations with Infinity are limited - back to RRR, mate!

So the universe does not exist in the same way God does not exist? Right.

What were you saying about your non-specialized definition of existence?

So the universe does not exist in the same way God does not exist? Right.

What were you saying about your non-specialized definition of existence?

Universe does exist, but due to its being the entire totality of all existence it has no distinctive coordinates, it is "here and there" - and this makes it an irrational argument from the Logical point of view.

Similar way, Objective Reality cannot be used in strict logical chains as a total. Parts of it though can be. Another example is a doctor which cannot study an abstract "disease" and help against it, this doctor needs to identify it first.

God issue falls completely out of all this, as in addition to its irrationality, we also do not have any proof of its existence at all, neither do we have a clear definition what exactly God is. This places God in the Subjective Realities of the people, and such "location" certainly cannot make God a logical argument!

Anyone who knows the difference between Objective Reality and Subjective Realities of the Observers, would without a second of doubts say that god does not belong to our Objective Reality, as it is impossible to specify its size, shape, coordinates or copy/photograph this God anyhow. Thus being fully Subjective, God belongs to people's inner worlds on personal level and cannot even be discussed without immediately causing the mutual misunderstanding. You may think God is one thing, and I may think it is another thing, there is no way to express or verify this.

How is the statement, "The universe exists," making an irrational argument? Explain to me how it is that existence requires a specifiable location, rather than repeatedly asserting it.

Once again, the lack of proof is by no means proof of absence. You cannot argue that god must not exist simply because his existence has not been proven, or even because it cannot be proven. If you do the latter, you must explain how existence must be provable.

Our idea of God is usually subjectively defined, certainly. But I do not see how you can conclude from this that any god may only exist subjectively. Just because a young boy cannot explain to you how he walks does not mean the child cannot walk.

How is the statement, "The universe exists," making an irrational argument? Explain to me how it is that existence requires a specifiable location, rather than repeatedly asserting it.

Once again, the lack of proof is by no means proof of absence. You cannot argue that god must not exist simply because his existence has not been proven, or even because it cannot be proven. If you do the latter, you must explain how existence must be provable.

Our idea of God is usually subjectively defined, certainly. But I do not see how you can conclude from this that any god may only exist subjectively. Just because a young boy cannot explain to you how he walks does not mean the child cannot walk.

Please show me where I was saying that God must not exist because his (her? its?) existence had not been proven! I was talking about the concrete examples - prove to me that god exists, and I am fully with you!

On the blue stuff - once again, please show an example from the practical life that God exists objectively. No point in accusing me in something - just provide the substantiation to your own words! God exists? OK! Where?