Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the "There is a god" game
#26

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 01:32 AM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 12:57 AM)Free Wrote:
(03-13-2020, 10:14 PM)epronovost Wrote: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

Yes.

1. For every positive, exists an equal negative. 
2. The negative is an existence equal in value to a positive.
3. Negative evidence is an equal existence to positive evidence.
4. Therefore, the absence of any evidence to support the existence of God is, in of itself, an existence of evidence.
5. That negative evidence is taken as equal in value to positive evidence of the non existence of God.
6. Negative evidence is equal in value to positive evidence.

Evidence of Absence

[Image: dVJNUJlVS6yeyEYhtJIL_Confused%20Mark%20Wahlberg.gif]

You will be okay. Just take it easy and let it sink in. You'll get it.

Proving a Negative

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#27

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 01:55 AM)Free Wrote: You will be okay. Just take it easy and let it sink in. You'll get it.

Are you sure?

[Image: 19399573.jpg]
No gods necessary
Reply
#28

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 02:45 AM)brunumb Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 01:55 AM)Free Wrote: You will be okay. Just take it easy and let it sink in. You'll get it.

Are you sure?

[Image: 19399573.jpg]

Trust me, I'll save you!
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#29

the "There is a god" game
(03-12-2020, 04:18 AM)epronovost Wrote: Here is a little game/thought experiment for atheists and theists.

Let's imagine there is at least one god; that there must be at least one god. Let's also assume that there are no religious scripture and revelation or at least none of consequences as if hte world was virgin of all organised faiths and religions. Who and what would be this go or gods; what would he be, what would he want if anything from us, what would he offer, what kind of "person" would he be? Why do you think it make sense and could convince people (even thought it might be totally false)?

Imagine that one of your intestinal bacteria tried to plumb the depths of your psyche. It has better odds of figuring you out and those are still bugger all.
Reply
#30

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 12:57 AM)Free Wrote: 1. For every positive, exists an equal negative.

Only in the extremely high magical field of the Discworld.

The rest of us mundanes who live in the really real world get privatives. Hunger, silence, death. They are all the lack of something, not the opposite or negative.

I exist.
Non-existence is the lack of existence.
Negative existence would require anti-existence, whatever that would be like.
And as much as I'd like to smack certain people into anti-existence that just isn't how the world works.
Reply
#31

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 03:58 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 12:57 AM)Free Wrote: 1. For every positive, exists an equal negative.

Only in the extremely high magical field of the Discworld.

The rest of us mundanes who live in the really real world get privatives. Hunger, silence, death. They are all the lack of something, not the opposite or negative.

I exist.
Non-existence is the lack of existence.
Negative existence would require anti-existence, whatever that would be like.
And as much as I'd like to smack certain people into anti-existence that just isn't how the world works.

There is no such thing as "nothingness," as contradictory as that sounds.

But I am not speaking as though materialism is the only existence either. But if something is not there, then that is positive evidence of its non existence. Yes, non-existence is evidence of non-existence because it is self-evident in the exact same way that positive evidence of existence is self evident of its existence.

Since the non-existence of something can be used as positive evidence of its non existence, we can conclude mathematically the non existence of God.

Each time throughout history that any religious nut has attempted to prove the existence of God and has failed, a negative has been produced. If, for example, we had 1000 nuts failing to prove the existence of God and all have failed, we have 1000 negative results.

If you add up those negatives such as -1 + -1 = -2 and so on, you have -1000. That's like 1000 trials in an attempt to prove the existence of God with 100% failure rate. This demonstrates proof of impossibility.

Religious nuts just keep adding to the evidence of the non existence of God every time they try to prove its existence. Basically, they have already proven the negative with repeated testing.

I have been screaming "There is no fucking god!" since I was a kid. I have always been a 7 on the Dawkin's Scale, and can't understand why anyone would bother being anything less.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#32

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Free Wrote: Each time throughout history that any religious nut has attempted to prove the existence of God and has failed, a negative has been produced. If, for example, we had 1000 nuts failing to prove the existence of God and all have failed, we have 1000 negative results.

If you add up those negatives such as -1 + -1 = -2 and so on, you have -1000. That's like 1000 trials in an attempt to prove the existence of God with 100% failure rate. This demonstrates proof of impossibility.

No. The Proof of Impossibility is a formal, logical proof that shows that certain things must be impossible because they produce logical contradictions otherwise. It isn't empirical and doesn't rely on trials.

Quote:Religious nuts just keep adding to the evidence of the non existence of God every time they try to prove its existence. Basically, they have already proven the negative with repeated testing.

No, they really just demonstrate their own inability. It doesn't mater how many negative results they produce. All you need is a single positive.
Reply
#33

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 04:58 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Free Wrote: Each time throughout history that any religious nut has attempted to prove the existence of God and has failed, a negative has been produced. If, for example, we had 1000 nuts failing to prove the existence of God and all have failed, we have 1000 negative results.

If you add up those negatives such as -1 + -1 = -2 and so on, you have -1000. That's like 1000 trials in an attempt to prove the existence of God with 100% failure rate. This demonstrates proof of impossibility.

No. The Proof of Impossibility is a formal, logical proof that shows that certain things must be impossible because they produce logical contradictions otherwise. It isn't empirical and doesn't rely on trials.

You needed to scroll down to Natural Science:

"In natural science, impossibility assertions (like other assertions) come to be widely accepted as overwhelmingly probable rather than considered proved to the point of being unchallengeable. The basis for this strong acceptance is a combination of extensive evidence of something not occurring, combined with an underlying theory, very successful in making predictions, whose assumptions lead logically to the conclusion that something is impossible.

Two examples of widely accepted impossibilities in physics are perpetual motion machines, which violate the law of conservation of energy, and exceeding the speed of light, which violates the implications of special relativity. Another is the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts the impossibility of simultaneously knowing both the position and the momentum of a particle. Also Bell's theorem: no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

While an impossibility assertion in science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined."



Quote:
Quote:Religious nuts just keep adding to the evidence of the non existence of God every time they try to prove its existence. Basically, they have already proven the negative with repeated testing.

No, they really just demonstrate their own inability. It doesn't matter how many negative results they produce. All you need is a single positive.

Natural Science
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#34

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Free Wrote: ...I have been screaming "There is no fucking god!" since I was a kid. I have always been a 7 on the Dawkins Scale, and can't understand why anyone would bother being anything less.

Being an ignostic, I guess I'm a "10" on the Dawkins Scale.     Chuckle

BTW, there's no need for us to be running around screaming that there're no gods;  in the same way
people don't run around screaming that there're no unicorns...   well, not where I live anyway LOL.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Free
Reply
#35

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 09:46 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Free Wrote: ...I have been screaming "There is no fucking god!" since I was a kid. I have always been a 7 on the Dawkins Scale, and can't understand why anyone would bother being anything less.

Being an ignostic, I guess I'm a "10" on the Dawkins Scale.     Chuckle

BTW, there's no need for us to be running around screaming that there're no gods;  in the same way
people don't run around screaming that there're no unicorns...   well, not where I live anyway LOL.

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
The following 1 user Likes Free's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#36

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 09:46 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Free Wrote: ...I have been screaming "There is no fucking god!" since I was a kid. I have always been a 7 on the Dawkins Scale, and can't understand why anyone would bother being anything less.

Being an ignostic, I guess I'm a "10" on the Dawkins Scale.     Chuckle

BTW, there's no need for us to be running around screaming that there're no gods;  in the same way
people don't run around screaming that there're no unicorns...   well, not where I live anyway LOL.

The problem is, unicorn believers are not plotting a take over of the government run strictly along the lines of Unicornism theology.  Whacking at the toxic Christians who are achieving their goals under the GOP and Trump is a whole other can of worms.

Demonstrating the weakness of the case for god and Christian theology then has a good payoff.  Not so for slagging off on Unicornism.    With the rise of atheists and agnostics, Nones, and "Nothing in Particulars", these efforts may be paying off and are worth pursuing.  The de-moronification of America project must proceed.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Free, SYZ
Reply
#37

the "There is a god" game
(03-14-2020, 04:58 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(03-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Free Wrote: Each time throughout history that any religious nut has attempted to prove the existence of God and has failed, a negative has been produced. If, for example, we had 1000 nuts failing to prove the existence of God and all have failed, we have 1000 negative results.

If you add up those negatives such as -1 + -1 = -2 and so on, you have -1000. That's like 1000 trials in an attempt to prove the existence of God with 100% failure rate. This demonstrates proof of impossibility.

No. The Proof of Impossibility is a formal, logical proof that shows that certain things must be impossible because they produce logical contradictions otherwise. It isn't empirical and doesn't rely on trials.

Quote:Religious nuts just keep adding to the evidence of the non existence of God every time they try to prove its existence. Basically, they have already proven the negative with repeated testing.

No, they really just demonstrate their own inability. It doesn't mater how many negative results they produce. All you need is a single positive.

To elaborate a little further:

"While an impossibility assertion in science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined."

A counter-example would be any kind of evidence demonstrating the existence of any supernatural entity at all, since the god that is being claimed to exist has been described as supernatural.

But we all know the existence of anything supernatural has also never been proven, despite the innumerable claims by such people as ghost hunters etc. And even if any kind of proposed example was presented, it must then be demonstrated that the only explanation of it would be supernatural, as opposed to any scientific natural explanation.

Therefore, because no counter example has ever been presented, we can dismiss the whole damn thing the same way we dismiss a garage dragon.

"Now ... what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire ... and no dragon at all?"


It just doesn't exist.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#38

the "There is a god" game
The whole notion of supernatural can be found in Xenophanes (but not by that label).

"God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind.The whole [of god] sees, the whole perceives, the whole hears. But without effort he sets in motion all things by mind and thought.” –Xenophanes (fragments 1-3)

Xenophanes' claims about God are not founded on any empirical foundations, but are metaphysical, pulled out of his ass as it were.
It is a perfect being theology, a maximized God, mere speculation. This whole idea had some roots in earlier Greek theological theories, but Xenophanes took it to it's logical speculative ends. His ideas have been since then, very influential, whether the ancients agreed with him or not. He was an important influence on Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, neo-Platonists and finally, Christianity.

This idea of the existence of a supernatural realm that was the basis of everything is a bad theory that has nothing except speculation as its foundations. Xenophanes hated Homer and Hesiod's foolish, immoral Gods and various kinds of anthropomorphisms.

“But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man’s clothing and have human voice and body. But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own—horses like horses, cattle like cattle.” –Xenophanes (Fragments 5-6)

We see that in the ancient Israelites. Somewhere, somebody started to hate the buffoonish myth tall tales, El and his 70 sons and the shaggy dog stories we find in the Nuzi texts, and started creating a new and different species of mythology less puerile. about the same time the Greeks were beginning to question their old myths, the Jews were creating a less disgusting God in the time of the prophets.

But underneath it all is empty speculation, the biggest gap to stuff the biggest God imaginable, which today's theologians are still struggling to explain away the problems these concepts create. In the end it is, and always has been, wishful thinking. Still trying to prove Xenophane's maximalist God really exists.

Accordingly there has not been a man, nor will there be, who knows distinctly what I say about the gods or in regard to all things, for even if one chances for the most part to say what is true, still he would not know; but every one thinks he knows. All are free to guess.
- Xenophanes
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V, Free
Reply
#39

the "There is a god" game
Quote:The problem is, unicorn believers are not plotting a take over of the government run strictly along the lines of Unicornism theology.


Nor did they ever tie them to stakes and set them on fire.

[Image: d8a6266d7de8ca63155f93782ddfb549.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • SYZ
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)