Evidence that there is no God

Originally posted by ahosyney
The problem here is that you expect him to communicate with you, while you don't believe in him. So how do you think this communication could happen?
The problem that he already did communicate with you but you refuse to listen to him. You refuse to belive that he did, although it is very clear.
Note: I belive that everyone belive in Allah (GOD) one way or another, but some don't know they belive. I think you are one of them.

Make up your mind, you start by saying that the communication failed because I did not believe then state that I do believe.
When I was younger I do believe that I believed and tried to communicate without success. Part of the reason for my current lack of belief.
You are free to believe that I believe (in Allah) but I don't believe I do. 🙂

Your 'failed communication' argument does not work for me as in my opinion it implies:
1. God is not omnipotent if he has failed at something.
2. God did not really want to communicate if he used a method I would not listen to.
3. God is not just if he selectively chooses who to communicate with.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]That's precisely what most philosophical arguments for God's existence attempt to establish.

I'm ok with that. Ontological arguments are quite interesting and you know I don't deny the validity of such approaches, although I may question the arguments.

One of the presuppositions of science is that it deals only with the physical world (more p lieve in God, it is also one that theists themselves must make before making their own.[/b]

I'm ok with that. Ontological arguments are quite interesting and you know I don't deny the validity of such approaches, although I may question the arguments.

I wasn't talking merely about the Ontological Argument(s). I was also including the Cosmological and Teleological arguments.


Is your God completely absent from the physical world (except maybe in its creation)? If not, why cannot scientifically evidence exist? It's the question where I doubt the most and the main reason why I'm not anti-theist or think that theists are irrational.

And it's a question that, to me, seems to be philosophically confused (no offence to you or other good-faith atheists).

God is not a physical being; He is not like any other being we have encountered or can encounter. Science deals exclusively with physical beings and causes -- non-physical ones are completely out of its domain. Here's an analogy -- what do you think a biologist will tell you if you ask for biological evidence for the existence of shares and bonds? What do you think a physicist's explanation will be for the Great Depression?

Now, I'm not denying that God is present in the world or acts in the world, but such modes of causation are simply "filtered out" by science; its very presuppositions will exclude them. That doesn't mean they don't exist; it just means the honest scientist will tell you that it's completely out of his domain of expertise and examination.


I agree that accepting my view also involves a leap of faith, in some way, as I believe that science is based on minimal axioms that without them all reasoning would be meaningless (i.e. I exist, the universe exists outside of me, etc.). My personal conviction is that the leap of faith needed for my convictions is not only smaller than the leap of faith needed to believe in God, it is also one that theists themselves must make before making their own.

Actually, when you get down to it, "I exist" is not simply an assumption -- it's self-evident (you cannot deny it without contradicting yourself). "The Universe exists outside of me" is not an assumption required by science (remember where I said scientists can -- and I know 1-2 -- be solipsists; i.e. believe that everything exists only in their mind and that they are all that exist).

This isn't about "leaps of faith" -- it's about correctly understanding the philosophical limitations and implications of science without effectively turning it into another religion.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Now, I'm not denying that God is present in the world or acts in the world, but such modes of causation are simply "filtered out" by science; its very presuppositions will exclude them. That doesn't mean they don't exist; it just means the honest scientist will tell you that it's completely out of his domain of expertise and examination.

I disagree that any influences and external entity may have on the universe is outside the domain of expertise of a scientist. In fact many scientists look for such influences. The whole argument put forward by ID proponents is based on that. The reason that ID is dismissed as unscientific is no such influences have been identified so proponents try to 'manufacture' some, or simply make the unfounded claim that the world cannot operate without them.
Are you saying that Gods influence on the universe is invisible to all scientific analysis. For example: If Jesus was alive today do you think one could do a DNA analysis on him and if so, do you think it would identify a biological father or would he have a unique biological chemistry? If a DNA test identified Joseph (or some other man) as the father would a scientist just step back and say "its outside my domain".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'm ok with that. Ontological arguments are quite interesting and you know I don't deny the validity of such approaches, although I may question the arguments.

I wasn't talking merely about the Ontological Argument(s). I was also including the Cosmological and Teleological arguments.


Is your God completely absent from the physical wo ications of science without effectively turning it into another religion.

[/b]I don't care much for the Teleological or Cosmological argument. The first one is a non-sequitur and as for the second one, it's often self-contradictory in the sense that the Big Bang is presumed to need a cause, even if time only began with it, and God does not. Anyway, this is irrelevant for this thread and it would take us to overdone discussions.

You're muddling evidence of existence with explanation. Individual scientists may not be able to explain phenomena that other realms of science study, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't acknowledge or verify their existence. Certainly there is scientifically acceptable evidence that bonds and shares do exist, I know you're not trying to deny that, just that your analogy is flawed.

"Leaps of faith" is what I'm using to describe the acceptance of axioms. Calling science a religion is mere wordplay. Do you say it with a negative connotation? Interesting.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'm ok with that. Ontological arguments are quite interesting and you know I don't deny the validity of such approaches, although I may question the arguments.

I wasn't talking merely about the Ontological Argument(s). I was also including the Cosmological and Teleological arguments.


Is your God completely absent from the physical wo ications of science without effectively turning it into another religion.

Actually, when you get down to it, "I exist" is not simply an assumption -- it's self-evident (you cannot deny it without contradicting yourself). "The Universe exists outside of me" is [b]not an assumption required by science (remember where I said scientists can -- and I know 1-2 -- be solipsists; i.e. believe that everything exists only in their mind and that they are all that exist).[/b]
[/b]

'I exist' is not as self-evident as it appears. Like I said in another thread, the 'I' is a referent on which the property of existence can be applied. And without a definition of that referent, the expression is meaningless. The tricky part is that the referent cannot be defined in a non-circular way.

That some scientists are solipsists is quite irrelevant.

Originally posted by Palynka
'I exist' is not as self-evident as it appears. Like I said in another thread, the 'I' is a referent on which the property of existence can be applied.

"I" is a grammatical convention.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"I" is a grammatical convention.

Go on, Bosse. Don't be shy.

Originally posted by Palynka
Go on, Bosse. Don't be shy.

The first person pronoun is a grammatical convention that does not occur in every language, or so I'm told. Chinese lacks it, for instance. Of course, they're the people responsible for Zen Buddhism, with it's annoying insistence that "you" are not "real", despite the obvious fact of your physical existence (forgive the lamentable simplification / distortion, Zen Buddhists).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The first person pronoun is a grammatical convention that does not occur in every language, or so I'm told. Chinese lacks it, for instance. Of course, they're the people responsible for Zen Buddhism, with it's annoying insistence that "you" are not "real", despite the obvious fact of your physical existence (forgive the lamentable simplification / distortion, Zen Buddhists).

Chinese doesn't lack it. It might not be used often, but it exists. No?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I disagree that any influences and external entity may have on the universe is outside the domain of expertise of a scientist. In fact many scientists look for such influences. The whole argument put forward by ID proponents is based on that.

Which is why it's bad science. It may be reasonable philosophy backed by reasonable science but, in itself, it is not a scientific theory.

Are you saying that Gods influence on the universe is invisible to all scientific analysis. For example: If Jesus was alive today do you think one could do a DNA analysis on him and if so, do you think it would identify a biological father or would he have a unique biological chemistry?

Sure, one can do a DNA analysis on Jesus and I would fully expect His DNA to look pretty much like that of any other human being. And that says precisely nothing about His Divinity -- one way or the other. In fact, Christian Dogma on the Incarnation and Two Natures would strongly suggest exactly that result.

If a DNA test identified Joseph (or some other man) as the father would a scientist just step back and say "its outside my domain".

Even if a DNA test did that it still wouldn't disprove the Divinity of Christ. At best, it would be evidence against the Miraculous Conception -- but even there it's insufficient.

Originally posted by Palynka
Chinese doesn't lack it. It might not be used often, but it exists. No?

It seems my source is incorrect. Well, you're still a grammatical convention.

(Apparently the Inuit have no first person pronoun, for real).

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't care much for the Teleological or Cosmological argument. The first one is a non-sequitur and as for the second one, it's often self-contradictory in the sense that the Big Bang is presumed to need a cause, even if time only began with it, and God does not. Anyway, this is irrelevant for this thread and it would take us to overdone discussions.

ce a religion is mere wordplay. Do you say it with a negative connotation? Interesting.[/b]

Whether you "care" for either of those arguments or not is irrelevant and a subjective view, much as twh's "God's never tried to contact me" in the first post of this thread.

EDIT: I realise that's pretty harsh language above and, if I've caused offence, I apologise.

The Teleological Argument is not complete and without its flaws (especially in the Paley version that everyone seems to cite), but it makes some good points.

The Cosmological Argument is only self-contradictory when one uses a Regularity Theory of causation (and it's extremely ironic that people adopt this view of causation merely for the purposes of "refuting" this argument without realising, as Hume himself did, that such a view of causation spells the death knell for any scientific inquiry). Indeed, with the Aristotelian view of causality (aka 'agent causation'😉 a cause does not have to precede the effect in time. Indeed, philosophically, one would still have a First Cause even if the Universe extended infinitely backwards in time.

You're muddling evidence of existence with explanation. Individual scientists may not be able to explain phenomena that other realms of science study, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't acknowledge or verify their existence.

I'm not muddling evidence of existence with explanation. Go ahead -- tell me how a biologist acknowledges the existence of shares and bonds in purely biological terms. He can give us certain biological behaviours of living entities whilst they are engaged in activities that we (with our economic hats on) recognise as capital market activities, but the existence of those entities themselves cannot be "proved" or "demonstrated" within the realm of biology -- they simply are [Ed] not objects of consideration there.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It seems my source is incorrect. Well, you're still a grammatical convention.

(Apparently the Inuit have no first person pronoun, for real).

Are you saying that the Inuit language does not differentiate between the following pair of statements?

"I have a car."
"You have a car."

Or "my car" and "your car"?

Many languages may not have explicit pronouns, that doesn't mean they don't have the concept of 'person' (first, second, third). Person may be expressed in the verb or adjective or some other noun in the sentence.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
-- they simply don't exist there.

I see you are avoiding answering the question of whether God or his influence actually exists in the universe.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Many languages may not have explicit pronouns, that doesn't mean they don't have the concept of 'person' (first, second, third). Person may be expressed in the verb or adjective or some other noun in the sentence.

Yes, of course. I am poorly informed about Inuit and Chinese.