Why arguments cannot prove God

[nudger1964]

just out of curiosity,
how well does it hold up just to acknoledge that this "Nothing" (might) exist outside of our universe... our universe being defined as the bubble of space/time we live in.
Its verging on mainstream cosmology that it could have come out of a higher (hierarchical) domain.
Say its WLCs nothing.
To be nothing, it has no matter, no energy, no time, no physical laws which describe it, no properties whatsoever.
It also would not be restricted to any physical laws. If WLCs nothing exists, you dont need God because nothing would be its very own universe generator.

just a thought

 

[Dean]

"Nothing" is a more awkward concept to define than it first appears. I know members of the physics community who define 'nothing' as areas that may be full of energy, but are still counted as 'nothingness'. This is because energy does not technically count as 'stuff', in the manner that matter does, and it is thus a somewhat coherent idea to define nothingness as areas in space with no matter, but (conceivably) energy. Even deep space between galaxies is supposed to be a 'nothingness', devoid of even the tiniest particles. But closer examination (and inference) seems to suggest that they might actually be full of ("Dark") Energy ...

 

[nudger1964]

well thats why people when using the argument now say.."im not talking about the lawrence Krauss nothing, i mean absolute nothing"
so i say, ok, take absolute nothing and see how far that gets you. The problem with absolute nothing is that it requires having no properties....and thats really really tough to deal with

i think what i am getting at is that the nothing argument dosnt work with either the nothing that can exist in our universe, and it dosnt work with a theoretical absolute nothing. The only way a nothing argument can work is if you have a highly fine tuned nothing...just the right ammount of nothing, but not too much

 

[Frenger]

well thats why people when using the argument now say.."im not talking about the lawrence Krauss nothing, i mean absolute nothing"
so i say, ok, take absolute nothing and see how far that gets you. The problem with absolute nothing is that it requires having no properties....and thats really really tough to deal with

And that's where their logical arguments break down because we don't really know what nothing is let alone whether it is possible. It's hard to define and it may not be possible to create (....anti create?).

They make assumptions and then use those assumptions as proof of their premises, but if you try and tell them that, they don't get it, they usually say "oh, so you say something CAN come from nothing".

The only response is :facepalm:

 

[devilsadvocate]

Master_Ghost_Knight,

This is kind of quick reply, since what I originally intended as reply to your post strayed too far from the topic of the thread. I'll make another thread later on, where I try to build at least somewhat plausible road map from doubting everything to having justified belief in the ability of scientific method to produce knowledge. I very much welcome you to shoot that endeavor full of holes. But what that same endeavor needs is what we cannot escape, it needs philosophical argumentation. Science cannot prove itself to produce knowledge. That would be circular - As would seemingly any other kind of knowledge, which makes building epistemology ground up from quite hard (but philosophy is special!).

Ok, so I try to be very terse responding to you here and I hope you don't take that as being rude. You remember my last "piece of resistance"? Well, you're doing it again. I really can't blame you, but here it is:

there is absolutely nothing you could possibly reason that would be able to tell you anything about the existence of something in the absence of appealing to some observation that is by nature more than capable of being false.

Is that an observation or a reasoned argument? If it's the former, by your own statement it can be false, if it's the latter, by the same statement, it must be false. I guess you could argue that your statement either doesn't have a truth-value, which would mean it's more of a "boo, reasoning without firm foot on empirical knowledge!", or that what your claim isn't about existence (of anything), but then I would contest it isn't about reality, either.

About the original piece of resistance you said this:

the problem is I have never proven it, because if I did then this would have been an exception to the rule and therefore I have never proven it, but if I have never proven it then it could still be true.

And it could be false, which is indeed a problem.

At this point I'd like to point out that it seems what "proven" means to you and me is very different, probably because of the language barrier and perhaps how we're used to use that word. I certainly don't use "prove" as something as absolutely proven, as in a mathematical proof. I use it quite more loosely than I imagine a person with mathematical background would use it, like as in "proof that she is guilty" or "proof that ether theory is wrong". More or less synonymous to "evidence" really.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ok, so I try to be very terse responding to you here and I hope you don't take that as being rude. You remember my last "piece of resistance"? Well, you're doing it again. I really can't blame you, but here it is:

No, it is absolutly fne.

there is absolutely nothing you could possibly reason that would be able to tell you anything about the existence of something in the absence of appealing to some observation that is by nature more than capable of being false.

Is that an observation or a reasoned argument? If it's the former, by your own statement it can be false, if it's the latter, by the same statement, it must be false. I guess you could argue that your statement either doesn't have a truth-value, which would mean it's more of a "boo, reasoning without firm foot on empirical knowledge!", or that what your claim isn't about existence (of anything), but then I would contest it isn't about reality, either.

In part you may be right when you say "that this isn't about reality", well it is about how we know things (concept forming) rather than actual things. But we are things and our thoughts live on our physical brain, but that is not here nor there and we should not confuse things with the idea of things.
There is important component that it is missing here, as far as I know there are conceptual arguments, observations and conceptual arguments based on observations. What I am saying is that the first is incapable of telling you something about reality while it is the 3rd that is actually justified to say things about physical reality. (the answer to your question is, both)
[showmore=Perhaps pointless statments that might not clarify and make things even more confusing, don't know if I should but I must]
Even though it doesn't look like on the surface there is the underlying assumption that reality does not have to necessarily align with what we think about it, that things are not the idea of things. Could I be wrong about the nature of reality and that things are indistinguishable from the ideas of things? I can then say that it is a common experience that we are very often mistaken and suggest that the idea of things are not the things themselves, also that it seems very unlikely that we will be able to think things other than thoughts. Could it be that logic is absurd? Or that our ideas have nothing to do with the actual truth value? Well yes.
As you well know a baseless statement is, well baseless and you have somewhere at some point assume something. I would suggest to grant this basic assumptions, but we must not fool ourselves to think that they are therefore proven (which they are not), and it the same sense my statement is not proven. But that is very far from saying that we are not justified to think that "it is unequivocally true and that you would be unreasonable to not grant those assumptions".
From there I can stack up my case about the fact that you have no other link between your thoughts and reality other than what you observe, that knowledge about the nature of reality does not come embedded from the moment you are capable of thinking (even if they were it doesn't mean that they would be right anyway) and given the mere possibility (this of course is also backed up by observation) that we can be wrong about the nature of reality means that therefore whatever you might think about the nature of reality can be wrong.
But who are we kidding, by what other means do you come to know about physical reality independently from experience of physical reality?
[/showmore]

About the original piece of resistance you said this:

the problem is I have never proven it, because if I did then this would have been an exception to the rule and therefore I have never proven it, but if I have never proven it then it could still be true.

And it could be false, which is indeed a problem.

Well yes, the same way you cannot prove the laws of logic; I am sorry but this is a consequence of the incompleteness theorem and there is nothing I can do about it. If you want to move on from here you have to allow for assumptions, what I am suggesting is that to take those assumptions that are not far from what you already know about logic (and that such would lead to my conclusion).

At this point I'd like to point out that it seems what "proven" means to you and me is very different, probably because of the language barrier and perhaps how we're used to use that word. I certainly don't use "prove" as something as absolutely proven, as in a mathematical proof. I use it quite more loosely than I imagine a person with mathematical background would use it, like as in "proof that she is guilty" or "proof that ether theory is wrong". More or less synonymous to "evidence" really.

I understood that you were trying to use it loosely, but I am not letting you because that would lead to a fallacy of equivocation. Loosely proof means very very convinced, and conviction has nothing to do with and true something is, especially when we are dealing with such extremes as the scope of blind though and the very nature of reality (an area where the track record of being very very convinced is more often than not, being very wrong).
None the less I submit that philosophical arguments about things that exist are not as nearly as convincing as the previous narrative would mislead us to believe, none are actually even mediocre because none has ever bridge the gap between ideas and reality and also because they are not based in anything real. Because reality is not an idea (and this more than anything sums up my point).

 

[Dean]

well thats why people when using the argument now say.."im not talking about the lawrence Krauss nothing, i mean absolute nothing"["¦]

Modern physics has no reason to suspect that such a concept is even logically plausible. Speaking of the concept of "absolute" nothingness, as posited by some religious enthusiasts, such as William Craig, among many, many others, I would imagine. Modern physics shows us the "hardest" vacuum is a chaotic, dynamic floury of uncaused, chaotic events. Unnoticeable they may be at normal human ranges, but when talking universe and "creation", and alike, we are vastly far away from anything that we might subjectively consider "normal" . . . The counter-argument that quantum chaos does not (for some reason), count as "nothing", is utterly vacuous, as I'm sure you will agree. You'd be hard pressed to find "something" in a hard vacuum without a deep understanding of modern physics, but that quantum "foam" is still there. There is no evidence that there is or can even theoretically be a "nothingness", as such people would claim. It is as non-existent as spurious mathematical constructions such as Tachyons are non-existent. Please note that energy is not technically "something". It is not "matter", or "stuff" in any useful, meaningful, or quantifiable way, and as such, to claim that a highly energetic (albeit matter-less) region is NOT nothing because it contains energy would be extraordinarily ignorant of physics, and yet theologians such as William Lane Craig do not stop making this argument, despite the fact that this has been pointed out to them a thousand times, if not more.

To phrase it slightly differently, Physics shows that the emptiest "nothing" we can find is a quantum foam. There is no evidence that there is or can be any a-temporal, a-physical "nothing", in the way that religious folks seem to want there to be. Thus, the whole structure of the argument is patently unsound, and like you said, even granting that it is true, it does not improve the quality of their arguments.

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

Ok one thing I've never understood is why are the christians so angry about atheists exactly.

Doesn't the existence of an uptic in atheism coincide with their biblical prophesy?
I will admit it's been awhile since I've read the bible and it's presently up in my attic along with all my other religious studies books but....
I thought there were prophesies of economic crashes, environmental disasters (tsunami's, hurricanes, volcanoes etc) and that christians would be persecuted for their religious beliefs.
Wouldn't all this just convince them they are right and to just STFU and let it happen?
Not that I agree with anything they believe, but if it's what they believe why the heck are their knickers in a knot over it?

 

[SuedeStonn]

Ok one thing I've never understood is why are the christians so angry about atheists exactly.

Doesn't the existence of an uptic in atheism coincide with their biblical prophesy?
I will admit it's been awhile since I've read the bible and it's presently up in my attic along with all my other religious studies books but....
I thought there were prophesies of economic crashes, environmental disasters (tsunami's, hurricanes, volcanoes etc) and that christians would be persecuted for their religious beliefs.
Wouldn't all this just convince them they are right and to just STFU and let it happen?
Not that I agree with anything they believe, but if it's what they believe why the heck are their knickers in a knot over it?

Say you wrote a book that you knew was full of shit but you had years and years to write it, rewrite it, and rewrite it again... even 2000 years ago dudes were intelligent enough to know that their bullshit would get subjected to scrutiny and eventually, slowly crushed like a car in a compactor. But this is just the beginning of the atheist era, mostly because the internet has given a 'voice' for the atheist 'masses' to put all the pieces together, or more accurately 'all the bullet-holes together'.

No argument can 'prove' a god exists because gods are necessarily outside the realm of physics. This was the first thing I realized when I became an atheist, that 'God' is an idea because there is no way he can be real. I firmly believe most people that believe in 'God' have no idea just what a 'god' really is and how the idea doesn't jive with reality. Which is funny and sad because you can ask them if Batman exists and they'll say no, they've never seen him. Ask them if Superman exists and they'll say no, it's not possible (which is true, limitations of the body, physics, etc)... but ask them if 'God' exists and it's OH YEAH! You betcha! Never mind that 'God' is OMNIPOTENT, which pretty much encompasses all powerful in every aspect we can imagine. This is patently absurd, and so is the Bible.

Humanity in a nutshell: We have a shitload of imagination but almost never prove dick. :roll:

 

[RedYellow]

Doesn't the existence of an uptic in atheism coincide with their biblical prophesy?
I will admit it's been awhile since I've read the bible and it's presently up in my attic along with all my other religious studies books but....
I thought there were prophesies of economic crashes, environmental disasters (tsunami's, hurricanes, volcanoes etc) and that christians would be persecuted for their religious beliefs.
Wouldn't all this just convince them they are right and to just STFU and let it happen?
Not that I agree with anything they believe, but if it's what they believe why the heck are their knickers in a knot over it?

Worse than that, they believe they're on the side that can't possibly lose. According to them, God will be triumphant no matter what, so why are they worried about persecution? Could it be that they really don't trust what they believe? If you fear God, as many christians believe you should, then you don't trust him. But why the 'war' between good and evil? Is it really a war if only one side can win?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As has been pointed out, if we can't prove anything outside of our own mind - despite Descartes' best efforts - how can we prove the existence of God?

Unless God were somehow intrinsic to our own mind - as it were, we create our own reality...

Even if one suspends disbelief to allow for the existence of a objective reality outside of our own mind, we cannot find evidence for God within that reality (Nature).

Only after death - assuming that there's life-after-death - would we ever discover if God exists or not.

Under no other circumstances would we know.

It's often said that "all things are possible - but not all things are probable".

Is the "nothing", which is all the rage at the moment, a state which allows all things to be possible without the limitation of probability? In other words, are all probabilities, 0.5 within "nothing"?

At least, in terms of physics - not philosophy!

Once a given quantum fluctuation occurs, with its specific stable set of six numbers, those probabilities collapse to whatever is permitted within the specific space-time continuum's laws - where the probability of each event ranges from 0 through 1.

[One of the problems I have with "nothing" is that people refer to it as "volume" and "space" - which implies three-dimensional reality. Does the primordial state necessitate a pre-existing, three-dimensional "space"? Is this the left-over of a previous fluctuation-caused universe?]

However, to return to the topic, I don't believe that arguments can prove the existence of God.

Even Thomas Aquinas, whose proofs of God have been the back-bone of the Christian Church, realised that he hadn't gained any further insight to the nature of God than could be gleaned from a literal reading of the bible. Following this insight, he stopped writing about it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

As has been pointed out, if we can't prove anything outside of our own mind - despite Descartes' best efforts - how can we prove the existence of God?

Unless God were somehow intrinsic to our own mind - as it were, we create our own reality...

Even if one suspends disbelief to allow for the existence of a objective reality outside of our own mind, we cannot find evidence for God within that reality (Nature).

Only after death - assuming that there's life-after-death - would we ever discover if God exists or not.

Under no other circumstances would we know.

Well exactly, I can expand on this.
So just thinking about it will never deliver the goods, so what is the next big thing? Well we can trust some of the information that comes through our sense, not all will be right but some might be and anyways is the only connection we have to the "reality out there". As far as we known, science is the best way go about making careful observations of the world and at the same time trying to make the least amount of assumptions as we can.
So what does science (or indeed any observational experience) have to say about God? That God is only conspicuous by its absence. There are no reliable direct records of God, no one heard, saw, taste, touched or directly and conclusively experienced him/her in any way (despite the metaphorical language employed by religious people when referring to God).
The qualities very often attributed to Gods goes contrary to the knowledge we gained from science, especially in a day and age where we understand the composition of the objects we directly experience and the forces that influence their behavior. And as far as I know the laws that govern the behavior of things do not have a clause "except by supernatural intervention", nor we expect them to have because things act much due to the nature of what they are and not on some sort of whim. If we were to base it on careful observation, God does not exist.

So what else is left for God? Well what is left are the tall tales left by other people, their reliability is already dubious but let's not forget that their information must come from somewhere. The main problem here is, everyone else appears to be in the exact same circumstances as you are, i.e. without any sort observational experience of God, and now you have pretty much ran out of ways on how that information must have comes about, except for fabrication.
So given this there are 2 choices:
1. You allow for the possibility of God, but you will have to throw observational experience out the window. And since you have neither observational experience nor can you establish the existence of God on concept alone, the mere idea of God can only exist as a fabrication and you would only be right by sheer coincidence.
2. You save observational experience, but God is most certainly (than not) just a fabrication and doesn't exist (as observational experience suggests).
Either way, God most certainly does not exist. QED

 

[prycejosh]

Philosophers such as William Lane Craig often seem content to believe that logical arguments are enough to fulfil the evidential burden of proof for God's existence. This could never be the case however, for reasons that are best explained with an analogy:

There is quite a reasonable argument that says, in order for everything we know about the behaviour of matter and to make sense of particle physics there must be a particle with the properties attributed to the Higgs boson. This seems sound enough, but it is not enough to prove that the particle does in fact exist. Scientists at CERN didn't hear this and turn off their particle accelerators in satisfied contentment that their goal had been achieved. Why is this so? Because a logical argument of this kind cannot be enough to prove the existence of the particle. This is because it makes the assumption that everything we know about particle physics is correct - when in actual fact it might not be.

The same goes for arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument - even if all the logic was sound, it still makes the assumption that the universe behaves in a particular way - which may turn out to be false. You'd still need something more on top of the argument to demonstrate it's validity - just as the argument for the Higgs boson needs something more before it is considered proven.

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, but I felt like rambling. Feel free to pick out the flaws in my argument, or express your agreement, or whatever takes your fancy...

Edited to correct a spelling error

in short god created everything and he made everything simple but good and effective weve the ones at messed up our lives because we are too busy listening to the devil.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

in short god created everything and he made everything simple but good and effective weve the ones at messed up our lives because we are too busy listening to the devil.

Wait.. what? did you just on the other topic said this?:

we aint simple in our creation and the simple things in life are whats good about it

And by your logic, since god created everything including humans and the devil. And God is all knowing, so it knew that this would happen in advance, so who's fault is it really?

And by the way, nobody is busy listening to the devil, because the devil does not exist.