Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are however some subtle problems. The largest and most glaring problem of all is that there is no such physical entity as "The Bible". Instead "The Bible" is a hypothetical entity whose reality can only be guessed at and is constantly under dispute. There are several ways I could try to find out the contents of the true "The Bible" none of which I f ...[text shortened]... and there is no clause in your logic that explains why it should only work with the Bible.

hey where you been?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…lol, dear Mr. Hamilton, WHO else made them?
. .… (my emphasis)

“WHO”? or “WHAT”? -you make the assumption (not based on reason) that it must be a “WHO” in the question which makes the question flawed. You might as well ask “what deity made them?” or even “what god made them?” . How do you know it was a “WHO” that made the Earth, sun, etc a limit to the “complexity” of what can be created through natural processes? -answer -none.[/b]

===========================
The fact there are more complex things than houses that come from natural processes is irrelevant.
Is there any law of physics or any logical reason at all that says that there is a limit to the “complexity” of what can be created through natural processes? -answer -none.
=====================================

Hmmm.

Do you afford the same assumption for things possibly created by a "Who"?

Does this little inquisition work both ways - for an intelligent source as WELL as a non-intelligent source? Is there a law in physics forbidding that a "Who" could also not create any level of complexity?


And isn't a "Who" also a "What"? I mean not every non-intelligent source is a "Person". But clearly every personal intelligent source is also a noun, a "what".

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
To date, nothing substantive has been offered or found which undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is known as real.
. .…

I think what you meant by the word “substantive” above is “objective”? if so, then your intended statement is:

“…To date, noth ...[text shortened]... assumed to be vanishingly small -examples: 1, evolution 2, relativity 3, the Earth is round.[/b]

I think what you meant by the word “substantive” above is “objective”? if so, then your intended statement is…
No, I meant substantive, as in usefulness or having substance.

Firstly, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa. So does that mean we should think there probably is a Santa?
I suppose the easy response is that no one has seriously suggested that Santa (as currently described) is anything more than legend.

-how can it be “KNOWN as real” if it is not only unproven but there is no logic/evidence to suggest that it is even probable?
You’re confusing your own arguments with my responses. When I say known as real, I am referring to that which has been established. For example, we know that certain classifications of organic material responds in a fairly consistent manner when exposed to certain other organic materials. We have a fairly good grip on some aspects of nature and that grip is not challenged by anything relayed in the Bible.

Firstly, do you mean logical CONTRADICTION? -if so, given that many of the verses are vague and there is disagreement of which interpretation is the correct one, how do you rationally and logically verify in your own mind that it is free of logical contradiction?
To that I would have but one response: the Constitution of the United States of America. Here is a document with less than a tenth of the historical longevity of the Bible, application to a limited amount of people, and yet this piece of legislation has yielded entire realms of study dedicated to its many interpretations. Starting with its opening sentence and continuing on through the amendments all the way to its thus-far final commencement regarding pay raises for Congress, the Constitution is a document in the midst of constant turmoil.
If man can so easily twist and turn the words of other men--- themselves straining mightily toward complete transparency and concision--- how much more can man mangle the words of God for their own supposed gains?

So it is a “loose APPROXIMATION” that Saturn has moons?
So far, yes. It wasn’t that long ago that man was unswervingly of the mind that the earth stood still.

And it only “TEMPORARILY passes as fact” that the Earth is round?
Uh, actually, the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================
The fact there are more complex things than houses that come from natural processes is irrelevant.
Is there any law of physics or any logical reason at all that says that there is a limit to the “complexity” of what can be created through natural processes? -answer -none.
===================================== a "Person". But clearly every personal intelligent source is also a noun, a "what".[/b]

…Do you afford the same assumption for things possibly created by a "Who"? ..…

If I have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that something is created by a "Who" then, obviously, I would RATIONALLY assume it is possible -this does not apply to the universe as a whole because I do NOT have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that it is created by a "Who".

…Does this little inquisition work both ways - for an intelligent source as WELL as a non-intelligent source?..…

Yes.

….Is there a law in physics forbidding that a "Who" could also not create any level of complexity? .…

No -just as there is no law in physics forbidding that a "what" (that is not a “who&rdquo😉 could also not create any level of complexity? .… [/b]

….And isn't a "Who" also a "What"?..…

Technically, yes. But what I obviously mean by a “What” in this context is specifically a “What that isn’t a “Who“ ”.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] I think what you meant by the word “substantive” above is “objective”? if so, then your intended statement is…
No, I meant substantive, as in usefulness or having substance.

Firstly, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa. So does that mean we should think there probably is a Santa?
...[text shortened]... ILY passes as fact” that the Earth is round?[/b]
Uh, actually, the earth is an oblate spheroid.[/b]

…No, I meant substantive, as in usefulness or having substance. ..…

Sorry for the misunderstanding -my apologies 🙂

…Firstly, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa. So does that mean we should think there probably is a Santa?
I suppose the easy response is that no one has seriously suggested that Santa (as currently described) is anything more than legend.
..…

Suppose somebody seriously DID suggested that Santa is real?
Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
Would that then mean that, because nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa, we should think there probably is a Santa?

….Firstly, do you mean logical CONTRADICTION? -if so, given that many of the verses are vague and there is disagreement of which interpretation is the correct one, how do you rationally and logically verify in your own mind that it is free of logical contradiction?
To that I would have but one response: the Constitution of the United States of America. Here is a document with less than a tenth of the historical longevity of the Bible, application to a limited amount of people, and yet this piece of legislation has yielded entire realms of study dedicated to its many interpretations. Starting with its opening sentence and continuing on through the amendments all the way to its thus-far final commencement regarding pay raises for Congress, the Constitution is a document in the midst of constant turmoil.
If man can so easily twist and turn the words of other men--- themselves straining mightily toward complete transparency and concision--- how much more can man mangle the words of God for their own supposed gains?
.…

-so, I assume you believe that the Bible is free of logical contradiction? -if yes, then if I am reading you correctly where you say “…how much more can man mangle the words of God for their own supposed gains? …“ you are expressing the opinion that the reason why there is more than one said interpretation of many verses in Bible is because the verses are being misinterpreted by people
-I have no doubt that is true because, when each one was originally written, the human writer obviously had only ONE interpretation in mind!

But, and this is the problem, some of those interpretations may mean that one particular interpretation of a particular verse may logically contradict a particular interpretation of another verse -so how would you know that those two interpretations are not in fact the INTENDED interpretations of the people that wrote them and that the two interpretations logically contradict simply as a result of one writer either overlooking or misinterpreting what the other wrote previously?
( -obviously, if that is the case, that would mean that the words are not coming from a all-knowing deity that isn’t supposed to ever make mistakes let alone logical contradictions!)

-this is why I asked you: “how do you know that the Bible is free of logical contradictions?” (or words of that effect)

….So it is a “loose APPROXIMATION” that Saturn has moons?
So far, yes.
..…

Err, no. it is not a “loose APPROXIMATION” that Saturn has moons. It is a “FACT” that Saturn has moons. The proof of this fact is in the form of people seeing these moons through a telescope.

…It wasn’t that long ago that man was unswervingly of the mind that the earth stood still. ..…

-and know it is a FACT and NOT a “loose APPROXIMATION” that the Earth does NOT stand still.

….And it only “TEMPORARILY passes as fact” that the Earth is round?
Uh, actually, the earth is an oblate spheroid.
..…

An oblate spheroid is rounded. What is meant when people say “the Earth is round” in everyday English is that it rounded like a ball but obviously not a perfect sphere because of mountains and the way its spin effects its shape etc.
Ok, if you want to be pedantic:

Does it only “TEMPORARILY passes as fact” that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid than, say, a flat sheet of paper?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Do you afford the same assumption for things possibly created by a "Who"? ..…

If I have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that something is created by a "Who" then, obviously, I would RATIONALLY assume it is possible -this does not apply to the universe as a whole because I do NOT have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that it is created by a "Wh ly mean by a “What” in this context is specifically a “What that isn’t a “Who“ ”.[/b]

=============================
If I have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that something is created by a "Who" then, obviously, I would RATIONALLY assume it is possible -this does not apply to the universe as a whole because I do NOT have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that it is created by a "Who".
==============================

Does EVIDENCE in this case mean to you "a reason totally and absolutely void of the slightest reasonable doubt?"

In this case of a Creator does EVIDENCE = TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT?


=================================
…Does this little inquisition work both ways - for an intelligent source as WELL as a non-intelligent source?..…

Yes.
=================================

Fair enough.

=========================================
….Is there a law in physics forbidding that a "Who" could also not create any level of complexity? .…

No -just as there is no law in physics forbidding that a "what" (that is not a “who&rdquo😉 could also not create any level of complexity? .…
===========================================

Is there a probability that unintelligent sources could in some way, given enough time, produce the Operating System code to a Crey Super Computer?

===================================
….And isn't a "Who" also a "What"?..…

Technically, yes. But what I obviously mean by a “What” in this context is specifically a “What that isn’t a “Who“ ”.
=====================================


Do you consider human intelligence as the most capable of all intelligences on the planet?


How about in the solar system?

How about in the local group of galaxies?

How about in the whole universe?

How about in the whole universe PLUS anything of any unknown realm (possible or unimaginable) BEYOND the universe ?

In these four above spheres is it possible that there could be an intelligence whose capacity exceeds that of human beings?

Thanks

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
If I have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that something is created by a "Who" then, obviously, I would RATIONALLY assume it is possible -this does not apply to the universe as a whole because I do NOT have REASON or EVIDENCE to believe that it is created by a "Who".
==============================

Does EVIDENCE ...[text shortened]... could be an intelligence whose capacity exceeds that of human beings?

Thanks[/b]

…Does EVIDENCE in this case mean to you "a reason totally and absolutely void of the slightest reasonable doubt?"

In this case of a Creator does EVIDENCE = TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT? …

The answer to both questions is that it depends on the nature of the evidence and whether or not there are any holes in it etc.

….Is there a probability that unintelligent sources could in some way, given enough time, produce the Operating System code to a Crey Super Computer?
….

I assume not because there is no logical REASON nor EVIDENCE to believe this (unlike with the formation of life etc).

…===================================
….And isn't a "Who" also a "What"?..…

Technically, yes. But what I obviously mean by a “What” in this context is specifically a “What that isn’t a “Who“ ”.
=====================================

Do you consider human intelligence as the most capable of all intelligences on the planet? ..…

Yes.

….How about in the solar system? ..…

Yes.

…How about in the local group of galaxies? ..…

Don’t know.

….How about in the whole universe? ..…

Don’t know.

…How about in the whole universe PLUS anything of any unknown realm (possible or unimaginable) BEYOND the universe ? ..… (my emphasis)

Don’t know.

…In these four above spheres is it possible that there could be an intelligence whose capacity exceeds that of human beings? . . .…

Yes -so your point is…..?

-and what has this got to do with anything I just said?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Does EVIDENCE in this case mean to you "a reason totally and absolutely void of the slightest reasonable doubt?"

In this case of a Creator does EVIDENCE = TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT? …

The answer to both questions is that it depends on the nature of the evidence and whether or not there are any holes in it etc.

….Is the

Yes -so your point is…..?

-and what has this got to do with anything I just said?

[/b]

=====================================

Do you consider human intelligence as the most capable of all intelligences on the planet? ..…

Yes.

….How about in the solar system? ..…

Yes.

…How about in the local group of galaxies? ..…

Don’t know.

….How about in the whole universe? ..…

Don’t know.

…How about in the whole universe PLUS anything of any unknown realm (possible or unimaginable) BEYOND the universe ? ..… (my emphasis)

Don’t know.

…In these four above spheres is it possible that there could be an intelligence whose capacity exceeds that of human beings? . . .…

Yes -so your point is…..?

-and what has this got to do with anything I just said?
==========================================

Don't look now, but you have just changed from an atheist to an agnostic.

OR .... do you have any particular bias to NOT calling an intelligence possibly " ... in the whole universe PLUS anything of any unknown realm (possible or unimaginable) BEYOND the universe ?" ... "G O D?"

You say honestly in essence "I don't know if such an intelligence in that realm exists".

Well then, if you are agnostic about that and admit that you don't know - IF such an intelligence as that DOES exist, what is your particular beef with labelling it "God" ?

Would "FOO" or "GUMBA" or "SHUMWAY" be more agreeable to you?

Originally posted by jaywill


=====================================

Do you consider human intelligence as the most capable of all intelligences on the planet? ..…

Yes.

….How about in the solar system? ..…

Yes.

…How about in the local group of galaxies? ..…

Don’t know.

….How about in the whole universe? ..…

Don’t know.

…How about in the whol ]"God" ?

Would "FOO" or "GUMBA" or "SHUMWAY" be more agreeable to you?[/b]

…Don't look now, but you have just changed from an atheist to an agnostic. …

How so? -lets continue…

….R .... do you have any particular bias to NOT calling an intelligence possibly " ... in the whole universe PLUS anything of any unknown realm (possible or unimaginable) BEYOND the universe ?" ... "G O D?"
….

-we are a possible intelligence -in fact, we exist!
-do I have any particular bias to NOT calling humans "G O D”?
-answer -yes! -for our intellect and powers have limits.

…IF such an intelligence as that DOES exist, what is your particular beef with labelling it "God" ?

..…

Dir, I was OBVIOUSLY speaking of possible alien intelligence i.e. extraterrestrials with intelligence (and NOT a deity).
Why should you or I want to call such extraterrestrial intelligence "God" any more than our own intelligence?

If some sapients evolved on another planet with greater intellect than our own, should we call them “God”? yes or no?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Don't look now, but you have just changed from an atheist to an agnostic. …

How so? -lets continue…

….R .... do you have any particular bias to NOT calling an intelligence possibly " ... in the whole universe PLUS anything of any unknown realm (possible or unimaginable) BEYOND the universe ?" ... "G O D?"
….

-we are a poss ther planet with greater intellect than our own, should we call them “God”? yes or no?[/b]

==================================
Dir, I was OBVIOUSLY speaking of possible alien intelligence i.e. extraterrestrials with intelligence (and NOT a deity).
Why should you or I want to call such extraterrestrial intelligence "God" any more than our own intelligence?

If some sapients evolved on another planet with greater intellect than our own, should we call them “God”? yes or no?
===================================

I might. But other things might come into consideration.

Okay. Do you object to calling an intelligence which is without limit a deity?

Or is your attitude "Anything BUT ... a deity" can exist. And this is known by you, that no deity [b]can exist, as an indisbutable fact.
[/b]
Would that discribe your philosophy?


Is limitless intelligence a possibility in your philosophy?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
Dir, I was OBVIOUSLY speaking of possible alien intelligence i.e. extraterrestrials with intelligence (and NOT a deity).
Why should you or I want to call such extraterrestrial intelligence "God" any more than our own intelligence?

If some sapients evolved on another planet with greater intellect than our own, shou cribe your philosophy?


Is limitless intelligence a possibility in your philosophy?

….Do you object to calling an intelligence which is without limit a deity? ….[/b]

No. By definition it would be a "deity".

…Or is your attitude "Anything BUT ... a deity" can exist. And this is known by you, that no deity can exist, as an indisbutable fact. ..…

Close but not quite - My “attitude” (actually, not “attitude” but "logic" ) is that we should regard the probability of any existential claim to be true in the absence of any supporting evidence/reason to be vanishingly small.

Anyway, I was talking about the possibility of extraterrestrials evolving a greater intelligence than our own -I assume neither you nor I would think that evolution can make a limitless intelligence!!!? -that surely is and always will be one thing we can never give evolution credit for.
-so I see no point of confusing the issue of the possibility of extraterrestrials evolving a greater intelligence than our own and the issue of whether or not there is a deity.

….Is limitless intelligence a possibility in your philosophy?.…

-only if its existence is confirmed by sufficient evidence/reason (just like all existential claims) else we should regard the probability of it to be vanishingly small (and for all PRACTICAL purposes -zero).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…No, I meant substantive, as in usefulness or having substance. ..…

Sorry for the misunderstanding -my apologies 🙂

…Firstly, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa. So does that mean we should think there probably is a Santa?
I suppose the easy response is that no one has seriously ...[text shortened]... as fact” that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid than, say, a flat sheet of paper?

Suppose somebody seriously DID suggested that Santa is real?
Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I have no doubt that is true because, when each one was originally written, the human writer obviously had only ONE interpretation in mind!
The Holy Spirit was the 'breath in' for the entire Bible; those 40 or so men who wrote it down were the 'breath out.' Meaning, the intent of the Author is the only concern.

It is a “FACT” that Saturn has moons. The proof of this fact is in the form of people seeing these moons through a telescope.
You assume too much, relying on the veracity of both the instrument and interpretation tainted by man. As we have seen time after time, both are suspect.

and know it is a FACT and NOT a “loose APPROXIMATION” that the Earth does NOT stand still.
Again, as far as we can tell.

Does it only “TEMPORARILY passes as fact” that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid than, say, a flat sheet of paper?
This particular category of knowledge appears to be well in hand. The point was not to be pendantic. Rather, it was to point out that the "knowns" of your illustrations were either not fully established or more recently established as the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Suppose somebody seriously DID suggested that Santa is real?
Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I have no doubt that is true because, when each one was originally written, the human writer obviously had only ONE interpretation in mind!
The Holy Spirit was t illustrations were either not fully established or more recently established as the same.[/b]

….Suppose somebody seriously DID suggested that Santa is real?
Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
….

So what is you answer to my original question?
Reminder of my question:

…Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
Would that then mean that, because nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa, we should think there probably is a Santa?
..…

And, remember, this was in response to:

….Firstly, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa. So does that mean we should think there probably is a Santa?
I suppose the easy response is that no one has seriously suggested that Santa (as currently described) is anything more than legend. ...…

I would really look forward to your reply.

…It is a “FACT” that Saturn has moons. The proof of this fact is in the form of people seeing these moons through a telescope.
You assume too much, relying on the veracity of both the instrument and interpretation tainted by man. As we have seen time after time, both are suspect.
…

So is it “suspect” that Saturn has moons?

And in what sense is the instrument and interpretation “tainted” by man?

….and know it is a FACT and NOT a “loose APPROXIMATION” that the Earth does NOT stand still.
Again, as far as we can tell. ..…

Can you give just one fully explained credible example of how it could be the case that the Earth stands still despite all the reasoning and evidence to the contrary?

…Does it only “TEMPORARILY passes as fact” that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid than, say, a flat sheet of paper?
This particular category of knowledge appears to be well in hand. The point was not to be pedantic. Rather, it was to point out that the "knowns" of your illustrations were either not fully established or more recently established as the same.
..…

-So it is clearly not a “passing fact” -and it is not "pedantic" to say so because there is no simplier way of saying it!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So is it “suspect” that Saturn has moons?

And in what sense is the instrument and interpretation “tainted” by man?

It must be noted that we have sent spacecraft to Saturn, photographed the moons and even landed a spacecraft on one of them.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….Do you object to calling an intelligence which is without limit a deity? ….

No. By definition it would be a "deity".

…Or is your attitude "Anything BUT ... a deity" can exist. And this is known by you, that no deity can exist, as an indisbutable fact. ..…

Close but not quite - My “attitude” (actually, not “attitude” but "logic" ...[text shortened]... gard the probability of it to be vanishingly small (and for all PRACTICAL purposes -zero).[/b]

=========================================
….Do you object to calling an intelligence which is without limit a deity? ….

No. By definition it would be a "deity".
=========================================

Okay.

===================================
…Or is your attitude "Anything BUT ... a deity" can exist. And this is known by you, that no deity can exist, as an indisbutable fact. ..…

Close but not quite - My “attitude” (actually, not “attitude” but "logic" ) is that we should regard the probability of any existential claim to be true in the absence of any supporting evidence/reason to be vanishingly small.
======================================

When you speak of evidence/reason do you think that it is possible for a person to rationalize perpetually that he has not been given evidence or reason for a certain thing?

I mean we all saw Star Trek's Mr Spock and marveled at how logical and reasonable this alien was. But we human beings have occasionally displayed a tendency to deny perpetually that we have seen evidence or been given reason for something.

Is your beef for the existence of God weak reasons weak evidence or none at all of either?

==============================
Anyway, I was talking about the possibility of extraterrestrials evolving a greater intelligence than our own -I assume neither you nor I would think that evolution can make a limitless intelligence!!!?
================================

Well, I think the whole idea of "Where is Evolution Going?" (if it is happening) is interesting.

Perhaps a more adaptable creature would be dumber and dumber rather than wiser and wiser.

I mean your Evolution has now produced upon the planet an organism (mankind) which is smart enough to destroy the entire eco-system in a war of hydrogen bombs.

I wonder if Natural Selection might have to make him a little less intelligent in order to allow him to survive.

Let's play chess sometime. I'll challenge you. I'm easy to beat.