Is it possible to prove God doesn't exist?

[Led Zeppelin]

The other option is an accurate account of abiogenesis,

The other option is an accurate account of abiogenesis, rather than your deliberately lampooned strawman version.



That's neither a rebuttal nor a counterpoint. But in the interests of humouring you, with your strawman and false dichotomy...

Where is the falsehood in what I wrote? Do you not affirm that rocks exist? Do you not affirm that they collide in space? Do you not affirm space?
Where in your lampooned version is there a non verifiable component? This is where you fucked up. You provided a deliberately dishonest rendition of abiogenesis and it backfired, because even taking your deliberately bullshitted version at face value, it still fails in that every component mentioned can be verified to actually exist. Egg on face for thee.

No, I have not given you deliberate bullshit. No matter what name you give your theory of origins you must believe that Consciousness arises naturally, from the basic components available from whenever or however you think the universe first came into existence. Do you think life came before rocks?

Lets do you a favor and say the rocks could be made up of any mix of element you require. And lets say you have stars. I dont know if you believe rocks came before stars. Please tell us. Whatever it is you think happens next is what you must believe life arises naturally from. Not only life actually. But all the higher functions of life. Do you agree with this?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Let's verify the existence of 'God' now, shall we?

The floor is entirely yours.

Let's see how you answer my above post.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

1) Except when it is used at the start of a sentence or in the name of an organization, the word "atheist" is spelled "atheist," not "Atheist."

2) Except when it is used at the start of a sentence or in the name of an organization, the word "atheism" is spelled "atheism," not "Atheism."

I'll try to remember that. I have lived in Germany for so long now I think I just capitalize everything.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

So, numbers and logoc are intellectual constructs, theyre *con*cptual not *per*ceptual, yes. But our concepts are derived from that which we apprehend in the world

Well I think is possible for more than "1" of something to exist, regardless if there is anyone around to count them.

 

[*SD*]

Do you think life came before rocks?

What does it matter? It's YOUR job to prove that life came before rocks, don't try to burn down your own strawman.

Let's see how you answer my above post.

I've already answered it,

Now, the evidence that 'God' exists is....... ?

 

[Secular Theist]

Well I think is possible for more than "1" of something to exist, regardless if there is anyone around to count them.

Right but you're talking about an intellectual construct. That description of the concept of multiplicity doesn't exist where there are no beings who can think conceptually.

That is, unless you're arguing platonic forms where the sort of "master concept" exists in heaven by which all of our concepts are derived. Are you saying that or do you acknowledge that, for example "one" is a description that we make because we can think conceptually?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Right but you're talking about an intellectual construct. That description of the concept of multiplicity doesn't exist where there are no beings who can think conceptually.

That is, unless you're arguing platonic forms where the sort of "master concept" exists in heaven by which all of our concepts are derived. Are you saying that or do you acknowledge that, for example "one" is a description that we make because we can think conceptually?

I think there could still be more than 1 of something. Regardless of whether or not we ever existed.

 

[*SD*]

Now, the evidence that 'God' exists is....... ?

Let's not forget to answer this question....

 

[Secular Theist]

I think there could still be more than 1 of something. Regardless of whether or not we ever existed.

Right, but I'm talking about our concepts. The *concept* "more than one" doesn't exist in the world, it's an intellectual construct that we devise. The *concept* of multiplicity doesn't exist in the world, do you agree with that?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Right, but I'm talking about our concepts. The *concept* "more than one" doesn't exist in the world, it's an intellectual construct that we devise. The *concept* of multiplicity doesn't exist in the world, do you agree with that?

I understand what you mean and it's interesting but I have to say No.

Personally, I don't believe rocks are the origin of intellect. I believe we were created by God, who gave us the ability and intellect to make accurate statements about the universe He created. I think quantities and numbers and certain equations are actual statements of reality. I can say for certain that I don't have 2 wifes.

Do you agree that God Himself talks alot about numbers in the Bible?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Now, the evidence that 'God' exists is....... ?

By your standard of evidence, what would your concept of evidence of God, be?

Im not trying to be an asshole.

 

[ldmitruk]

I understand what you mean and it's interesting but I have to say No.

Personally, I don't believe rocks are the origin of intellect. I believe we were created by God, who gave us the ability and intellect to make accurate statements about the universe He created. I think quantities and numbers and certain equations are actual statements of reality. I can say for certain that I don't have 2 wifes.

Do you agree that God Himself talks alot about numbers in the Bible?

However, the bible was written by humans, not god. And just because there are numbers in the bible, that does not prove the existance of god. My old physics text book is full of numbers, so is my text book on dynamic stratigraphy, my worl atlas, and an old metric conversion book. Do any of these prove the existance of a god, I don't think so. What physical evidence is there for a god of any sort?

 

[Secular Theist]

I understand what you mean and it's interesting but I have to say No.

Personally, I don't believe rocks are the origin of intellect. I believe we were created by God, who gave us the ability and intellect to make accurate statements about the universe He created. I think quantities and numbers and certain equations are actual statements of reality. I can say for certain that I don't have 2 wifes.

Do you agree that God Himself talks alot about numbers in the Bible?

Well, I dont think anybody would say that rocks are the origins of intellect but, what you said is that intellectual constructs are *descriptive* and that they describe the world. You can say for ceartain that you only have one wife but if you didn't have any senses you wouldn't know that. At this stage, it doesnt matter of we're able to think conceptually because God made us that way or because we're sufficiently intelligent as a result of our evolutionary development, our concepts are still things that we construct and not a platonic form or the result of a divine revelation. Do you agree with that? Left to our own devices, without any help from God, we are able to think conceptually. We dont need divine intervention throguh revelation to do it, correct?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, I dont think anybody would say that rocks are the origins of intellect

Why? Do you think rocks came after stars? I dont understand.

but, what you said is that intellectual constructs are *descriptive* and that they describe the world. You can say for ceartain that you only have one wife but if you didn't have any senses you wouldn't know that.

At this stage, it doesnt matter of we're able to think conceptually because God made us that way or because we're sufficiently intelligent as a result of our evolutionary development, our concepts are still things that we construct and not a platonic form or the result of a divine revelation. Do you agree with that? Left to our own devices, without any help from God, we are able to think conceptually. We dont need divine intervention throguh revelation to do it, correct?

I understand your point. I think its very smart. I just disagree with it. I think you are confusing reality with convention.

I agree that we use our minds to form intellectual concepts of "things" we which dont know are always true or really exist or why they work. But we figure out that somehow this "imagined" concept we thought up is actually useful for something. I find that amazing. We built electric telegraph systems for communication before we even really knew what electricity was!

But to say that numbers are just a man made convention..I just dont see it man! No, not everything we think of is a divine revalation..

It's an interesting line of thought. I think its overly hard to give an accurate answer. So overly hard to be usefull...I think you are pushing the limits of human understanding here...

 

[Secular Theist]

Why? Do you think rocks came after stars? I dont understand.




I understand your point. I think its very smart. I just disagree with it. I think you are confusing reality with convention.

I agree that we use our minds to form intellectual concepts of "things" we which dont know are always true or really exist or why they work. But we figure out that somehow this "imagined" concept we thought up is actually useful for something. I find that amazing. We built electric telegraph systems for communication before we even really knew what electricity was!

But to say that numbers are just a man made convention..I just dont see it man!

Do I think rocks came after stars? I dont know what that has to do with the human intellect.

To your point about numbers, that's what I'm asking you. Do you think that numbers are real things that exist in some kind of immaterial plane?

Based on what you said so far, I'm going to guess not.

Let me cut to the chase.

We don't need a divine revelation in order to know how old the earth is or how organisms developed on it or that 2 + 2 = 4, or how to design a house or a car, etc. Those are things we're valuable of understanding and doing using our ordinary faculties.

Do you agree with that?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, i agree

 

[Secular Theist]

Yes, i agree

Okay, cool. Then, I would submit that, when we talk about *God* in the theistic sense, being a divine being whose will and nature we need a divine revelation to understand, we are necessary talking about something unfalsifiable. We are necessarily talking about something that is so far outside our ordinary experience that we literally need a miracle to understand it.

We can describe why belief in a caused cosmos is reasonable and we can describe why we think that that cause is a being. But, descriptions of the nature of the cosmos or human nature or anything else that we can apprehend with our ordinary faculties can only ever justify deism.

The justification for theism is faith, which according to the Christian religion is a spiritual virtue and a gift from God. Faith can't be justified by the facts about world. That doesn't mean, (in my opinion anyway), that faith is bad or wrong or invalid, im actually open to believing things based on faith and divine revelation, but with great claims come great responsibility. We can't, on the one hand acknowledge that our belief in God and the western Christian tradition is an article of faith and on the other hand that we can just look at nature in order to *demonstrate* what is, necessarily an article of faith.

Doss that make sense?

Am I making any sense?

 

[*SD*]

By your standard of evidence, what would your concept of evidence of God, be?

Im not trying to be an asshole.

I know you're not, it's all good.

Let's shoot for anything that would actually qualify as evidence by any reasonable standard. So, not feelings, imaginings or plain old assertions. Not trees, birds or sunsets. Not tide comes in tide goes out. Not hallucinations or the insane ravings of primitive savages. Not how remarkable the eye is. I mean, presumably you think there IS at least some evidence for God, so wocha got?

 

[*SD*]

Do you agree that God Himself talks alot about numbers in the Bible?

I know @Idmitruk (who I can't tag for some reason) already addressed this but he's right. You keep begging the question. I don't think you're doing it deliberately, I think you're probably just used to talking to people who won't spot the error. The question assumes too much, it assumes God exists in the first place, and that he wrote stuff, neither of which is granted thus far in this conversation.

If God doesn't exist and never did, it necessarily follows that he didn't write or talk about anything, because things that don't exist can't do either. It's not usually even a controversial point to note that even if God existed/exists, he/it/whatever didn't write the Bible, people did, this is very widely accepted among atheists and theists alike, it's not oft argued that God actually wrote the book even by those who believe in him/it/whatevs.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I know @Idmitruk (who I can't tag for some reason) already addressed this but he's right. You keep begging the question. I don't think you're doing it deliberately, I think you're probably just used to talking to people who won't spot the error. The question assumes too much, it assumes God exists in the first place, and that he wrote stuff, neither of which is granted thus far in this conversation.

If God doesn't exist and never did, it necessarily follows that he didn't write or talk about anything, because things that don't exist can't do either. It's not usually even a controversial point to note that even if God existed/exists, he/it/whatever didn't write the Bible, people did, this is very widely accepted among atheists and theists alike, it's not oft argued that God actually wrote the book even by those who believe in him/it/whatevs.

Yes, of course I understand that. I am probably just more fascinated by how people answer questions than I am in debate these days. People really are fucking brilliant.