Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by josephw
There isn't any!

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I can't prove that God does exist.

I can prove God exists to myself through experience though.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist through experience.


What do you think of that?

Jokers need not reply.

Originally posted by divegeester
Wether or not it's "much of a claim" or not, is irrelevant; it is what we are discussing.

KM was originally responding to rwingett about the nature of proof of a fact, i.e. does it have to be empirical always. Glad we agree that it "obviously" doesn't.

Originally posted by josephw
There isn't any!

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I can't prove that God does exist.

I can prove God exists to myself through experience though.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist through experience.


What do you think of that?

Jokers need not reply.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let me be clear.

There are some facts that are currently unknown - for example, there either is other sentient life on other planets besides earth, or there is not; one of those two must be a fact, and yet we currently do not know which statement is fact, because we lack evidence.

So, even though one of those two things is a fact, nobody can justifiably claim to know either fact - not without producing some evidence first.

Originally posted by bill718
Faith in the existence of God is a gift. Some have it, some do not. 😏

Originally posted by sasquatch672
That's the whole point of faith, you dope.

Originally posted by divegeester
But it's not quite the point in question SG, stick to the original premis.

Which is, that something can be "known" by person A, i.e. KM's wifes love for him, but it cannot be proven by him to person B.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The mere fact that you have to put the word "known" in quotes shows that you are using it with an uncommon meaning.

My difficulty through this discussion has been knowing what exactly you and KM mean when you use words like "know" and "proof".

I admit that I’ve lost the thread (no pun intended) of this discussion.

Suppose:

1) That whether or not a person, P, can be considered to be loving is determined by P’s exhibiting loving behavior; [definitional statement]

2) That we agree on what constitutes such behavior;

3) That I witness such behavior consistently by P toward his wife;

4) I therefore conclude that P loves his wife; [by (1) and (3)]

5) That you would also conclude that P loves his wife if you witnessed such behavior; [by (1) and (2)]


6) That you consider me to be an honest and accurate reporter;

7) I report to you P’s behavior that I have witnessed;

8) Therefore you have sufficient reason, based on my reportage, to believe that P in fact loves his wife.

In other words, does not such a chain provide an epistemically justified belief on your part? Now “knowledge” is generally considered to be a justified belief that is also true. I think it is clear that, in (4), I am epistemically justified in saying that I know that P loves his wife.

The only point in the above inference where I think that one might find the belief falsified is (6), if your consideration of me as an honest and accurate reporter is incorrect. If I am, and you have sufficient reason to believe that I am (by some similar chain of inference)—then I think that you can reasonably say that you know P loves his wife based on my testimony, unless there is some challenge to one of the premises.

This is certainly a “weaker” standard of knowledge than is absolute certainty. But then, a standard of absolute certainty may be impossibly high in all but a very restricted set of cases (e.g., that “If p, then q; p; therefore q” can never be false for any p and q).

Originally posted by divegeester
The reason "known" is in comas is because I'm quoting you, you said it not me or KM! Please try to remember what you are saying or there is little point.

You really are just being casually evasive, and I think it is you who are the "wind up" (your quote again, just in case..).

Please don't expect me to respond to any post you follow this with.

Regards and due respect.

Originally posted by vistesd
I admit that I’ve lost the thread (no pun intended) of this discussion.

Suppose:

1) That whether or not a person, P, can be considered to be loving is determined by P’s exhibiting loving behavior; [definitional statement]

2) That we agree on what constitutes such behavior;

3) That I witness such behavior consistently by P toward his wife;

4 ...[text shortened]... d set of cases (e.g., that “If p, then q; p; therefore q” can never be false for any p and q).

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's essentially what I was trying [and evidently failing] to convey. Thanks for the well-organized presentation.

I will not speak for other atheists, but when I say, "there is insufficient proof that god(s) exist", I mean inductive proof, not deductive. In other words, all the theist has to do to prove their case is show that it is more likely that god(s) exists than doesn't exist.

Originally posted by josephw
Cool! I think that's the first time I've been called a dope.

So you think faith means blindly believing in the existence of God?

Don't be a dope! 😲

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you think faith means blindly believing in the existence of God? ...…

How can believing in the existence of something despite no evidence/reasoning to justify that belief be anything other than “blindly believing”?
-after all, that is what “blindly believing / faith / blind faith (there is no difference)” generally means.

(“blind f ...[text shortened]... o a bad thing in computing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_faith_(computer_science)
)[/b]

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you think faith means blindly believing in the existence of God? ...…

How can believing in the existence of something despite no evidence/reasoning to justify that belief be anything other than “blindly believing”?
-after all, that is what “blindly believing / faith / blind faith (there is no difference)” generally means.

(“blind f ...[text shortened]... o a bad thing in computing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_faith_(computer_science)
)[/b]