Scientific Proof Of God

[Hermit]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

No, I do agree, it's just that such a process in the arid region of abstract logic is an unimportant codicil to the prime feature of the position of most on this forum, which is that all our actions and thoughts assume no supernatural entity...

Good to hear you agree, and yes, it is an unimportant codicil to us. It is only of consequence when theists want to trick us into attempting to say we can prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator. It's an attempt to trap us. I simply say, no, I cannot prove the non-existence of gods, but I don't live my life according to the dictates of a God (or god) for whose existence there is no convincing evidence. That returns the onus of proof to where it belongs.

[Brian Peacock]

"A swan can break a man's arm with a single flap of its wing. But a female swan can break a male swan's heart with just a glance."
-- Chinese proverb.

[JimC]

And I keep coming back to the point that our inability to prove the non-existence of a god is a quirk of logic, and irrelevant to a trenchant dismissal of gods and all the trappings of religion.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. Indistinguishable from a fiction, a fantasy, or a falsehood.

[Brian Peacock]

...
No, Brian, I am not confusing actual-factuality with logical possibility. You are. Lack of evidence does not logically lead to proof of non-existence...

I've consistently said that the absence of evidence supporting a claim justifies the conclusion that the claim is false, until or unless evidence is forthcoming. At the same time I've been very clear that 'proof' which justifies this conclusion is the absence of evidence for the claim itself.

This is a judgement about the veracity or validity of a claim, in the context of the claim. The extant status of this-or-that nominated deity is neither here-nor-there. Despite the history, scale, and scope of god-claims, and the lengths that some have have gone to make themselves and others believe them, gods have not been shown to have a direct material impact on the world.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of material evidence supporting a material claim fails the claim, materially. I don't dispute the possibility of some creative agent participating in the universe's birth, but that's a material or natural concern as opposed to an immaterial or super-natural one.

Nonetheless, I'd suggest that specific claims for specific deities with specific attributes and qualities (and importantly, with specific requirements for us) like JHWH, Allah, Ganesha, Bhandu, Heimdallr, or Pacahamama etc are the demonstrably false ancient nature-myths of primitive cultures.

Perhaps we should hold the door open for the possibility of a Prime Mover in some broad deistic sense, in the same way we might hold the door open for un-evidenced hypotheses like quantum string or quantum gravity? But to hold the door open for Allah, or Julunggul, or any of their pals specifically? Well, if so, one would have to hold the door open for so much else that there might as well not be a door there in the first place.

If you don't think that's right then, as I suggested to someone on this forum a long time ago, you can now try and prove the president doesn't have a 9-foot schlong.

[Hermit]

I've consistently said that the absence of evidence supporting a claim justifies the conclusion that the claim is false, until or unless evidence is forthcoming. At the same time I've been very clear that 'proof' which justifies this conclusion is the absence of evidence for the claim itself.

Have you now? Here is your first post in reply to the matter, quoted in full:

Didn't we deal with all that in 2009?

No.

Ok. The absence of material evidence in support of claims for supernatural entities justifiably supports the conclusion that supernatural entities do not exist.

[Brian Peacock]

I've consistently said that the absence of evidence supporting a claim justifies the conclusion that the claim is false, until or unless evidence is forthcoming. At the same time I've been very clear that 'proof' which justifies this conclusion is the absence of evidence for the claim itself.

Didn't we deal with all that in 2009?

No.

Ok. The absence of material evidence in support of claims for supernatural entities justifiably supports the conclusion that supernatural entities do not exist.

Indeed, a justifiable conclusion about a claim.

[superuniverse]

EVEN IF God were to strike you down for good you would still deny what happened...

Blind little men walking in circles. You are nothing.

[NineBerry]

I adore how Christians follow Jesus' example. Love thy enemy. Turn the other cheek. And all that stuff

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've got nothing.

[Cunt]

I adore how Christians follow Jesus' example. Love thy enemy. Turn the other cheek. And all that stuff

I like how they all follow Jesus' lead in being 'MGTOW'.

Out to a fancy, special dinner, and only a dozen dudes show up? Not suspicious at ALL.

[JimC]

EVEN IF God were to strike you down for good you would still deny what happened...

Rather illogical, that. In your hypothetical example of a god striking me down "for good" I imagine you would envision that I'm burnt to a crisp or something similar, so I wouldn't be around to affirm or deny anything...

Anyway, I suppose we should thank you for this thread. It has recently catalysed some very interesting philosophical posts on the nature of reality and the meaning of proof...

[superuniverse]

You still have no clue what is going on here...

Your little opinions on swans are curious but useless.


That is basically all you got.

We just completely obliterate you. Do you have any stronger arguments to "prove" atheism?

[Seabass]

EVEN IF God were to strike you down for good you would still deny what happened...

Blind little men walking in circles. You are nothing.

You know, Soupman, they say you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

[Seabass]

Your little opinions on swans are curious but useless.