Knowledge is contextual.
One can know that god does not exist because it is contradictory or metaphorical or unable to be defined due to lack of concrete, essential characteristics.
God is impossible and is already proved so.
It is impossible to demonstrate that god is non-existent scientifically.
Science doesn't negate the existence of what we already define as supernatural.
Science only tells us about what is, here in the real world.
We can prove with reason and logic, that god does not exist.
Is this what you said?
How can you copy my words down and then ask me if they are mine? Yes I wrote that. Science depends on the same logic that can demonstrate without doubt that god is impossible. Science doesn't tell us there is no god. We shouldn't be asking for a scientific proof of something we already know doesn't have the necessary characteristics to be subject to science.
MCT: I failed to be specific, I meant to ask if these concepts are what you meant, not what you wrote. Not as a criticism, only to clarify. I agree with you. On each sentence. I would go further and say science cannot prove god does not exist because science is a different domain than religion.
Religion evolved from primitive peoples who wanted to understand existence and the only way they could do that was tell stories that seemed to make sense to them. If new evidence appears, many religious cannot change, i.e. from believing the Earth is 6,000 years old to 4.55 Billion; some explain away evidence of fossil records and methods of dating them; or god created Adam out of dust and Eve out of Adam's rib; or that homosexuality is a sin to be cured or punished instead of it being a conidion of nature that needs no treatable . To me, and I assume you, these are ridiculous claims and not worthy of discussing and certainly not worthy of arguing over.
Science, on the other hand, has evolved from not knowing to knowing through evidence. When/if evidence changes or is increased with new evidence, then the scientist is obligated to change accordingly.
I often have difficulty understanding what you mean, MCT. I hope my attempts for clarity can work for you as well as me.
One more question: why do some brilliant scientists continue to believe god exists? i.e. Francis Collins, etc.? I listened to his response to that question and sent it yesterday to Atheist Nexus. It appears to me he is able to pick and choose between writings and is able is discount views of creationism while maintaining a faith that god exists. Whether Collins prays to god or not is not clear.
Keep in mind, intelligence is not properly applied to a person as a whole. It is a descriptor of a level of skill. In some ways I am highly intelligent, in other ways, I am not. Calling someone smart or dumb, can be inaccurate, unless they are so 'across the board'. I understand that scientists tend more towards atheism than non-scientists, because science depends on reason and reason leads to atheism. But the proper arrival at an atheist position does not come from science itself. Science and atheism share a common foundation, that of rationality. But, just because someone uses reason in one area of philosophy does not mean that they use it in other areas. In the same comment, you state that god is not subject to scientific inquiry and then act surprised that some scientists are not atheist. I would be more surprised if an objective epistemologist believed in god. Think of a wedding planner. Are you surprised that a wedding planner may believe in god, even though to plan a wedding, you need to use reason and logic. To navigate safely in today's society, you must exercise extreme reason. Everyone that is alive and well, in a general common sense, is constantly using reason and logic. It is the only path to knowledge and the key to moral choice. How then, can a rational human believe in god? Well, when the concepts are highly abstract, they are dependent on previously stored lower level concepts made over a lifetime, which is commonly indoctrinated, arbitrarily defined and emotionally charged. It is very difficult to unwire a brain that doesn't want to be rewired. Changing my mind about god if god appeared is what I call an invalid counter-factual. It is an impossible scenario, you are presenting. You are basically asking me if I would still think something to be impossible if I saw it, when it is already impossible. The same as asking me if I would still be certain that invisible pink unicorns cannot exist if I saw one, when in no way shape or form can I see an invisible pink unicorn, lest it would not be an invisible pink unicorn, if I saw it. Or what if I saw that 2+2=5, is it then true? No, that is impossible. I cannot ever be presented with a manifestation of something impossible. If I thought I saw something impossible, I would find out where my incorrect premise was and I would do that using something that precludes the existence of anything without physical attachment to this world in an identifiable way. I cannot go about identifying an incorrect premise if god is possible, the law of identity would not be valid. God's existence precludes validation, cognition and existence itself. 'But, don't you have to change your convictions if you then saw it'? No. One cannot see it.
Are you suggesting that I cannot be 100% sure that I am not in Miami? Anytime anyone invokes the phoneme or graphic of god, I assert that there is zero chance whatever they are talking about doesn't exist or else is something else in reality that exists that we likely have a name for already. One can call a chair god and my assertion won't apply. But, that doesn't count, if one cannot define or describe it objectively with a noncontradictory essential characteristic, it doesn't exist. Also, god already has a necessary contradictory essential characteristic of being supernatural, imo. 'Yeah, but you don't know what I mean when I say god', someone might say. And I say, 'unless you can give me a quality, then it cannot properly be considered as existent'. And a metaphor describing god as something else and more complex in reality, doesn't work either. Any way you skin it, it is not possible for a god to exist, as a god, or anything else (unless we are going to throw the language out the window, then cars are trees and nostalgia and not).
Why is there no obverse figure of speech for "devil's advocate"?
"Are you suggesting that I cannot be 100% sure that I am not in Miami?"
….IF ...that's it's REAL name.
"Anytime anyone invokes the phoneme or graphic of god, I assert that there is zero chance whatever they are talking about doesn't exist …"
Show me the math.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Yeah, Miami is real. The law of identity is proof enough. We don't need to do any more experiments.There is a zero chance that something that exists violates the law of contradiction.
"There is a zero chance that something that exists violates the law of contradiction."
Some one should tell that to Roger Penrose, David Susskind, and all those other counter-intuitive particle physicists and quantum theorists, …bunch' time-wasters! Thick as a planck, aren't they?
You should be able to express it mathematically, Bayes' Theorem for example, would put some of those literal pantheists in their place! Probably be a Nobel in it for you as well.
So, …where's the math to prove this "zero chance".
Your claim, …ball's in your court, burden of proof lies with you, …do share the proof with us please, pretty please?
I'm not impressed. Yes, your beloved 'scientists' are out of their league. Their underlying philosophical foundations make them draw the wrong implcations of their science. They think they can use their science to comment on epistemology. They are wrong. Their science does not refute what itself depends on. The uncertainty principle demonstrates the limit of our perception, not that things can, not just appear to us limited humans, but actually be random. A proper understanding of the epistemological foundations of cognition and science is the proof. Science isn't needed. Nor do you need a mathematical equation to show that without a concrete noncontradictory identity that impacts the causal chain, a thing cannot be. That is the proof. It is so simple and close to the basics that proof really isn't a great word for it, but people who think theism and atheism are subjects of scientific inquiry keep asking for proof. It's almost self-evident. Causality is universal. http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/someone-tell-stephen-haw...
"Causality is universal"
That's what I keep hearing from theists...
It is a necessary corollary of the law of identity. Things do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure, position and momentum and things are only what they are made of. This is a self-evident axiom that is the foundation of proof. The concept of proof would not exist without it. You asking me to prove anything implies its validity. After knowing about epistemology and what we have learned scientifically, I have zero reason to doubt the validity of that which serves as a foundation of all thought and reason, but I have seen many other weak philosophical systems develop from the denial of this. Causality is necessary to compare one thing to another in order to find whether something is true or false as it compares to some aspect of reality.
"It is a necessary corollary of the law of identity."
Take, ...Myron Schmecklestein for instance?
The dogmatic adherence to applying (or misapplying) bronze-age axioms as disproof of anything that has yet to be fully understood is laughable. Like the cartoon above… Or the insistence that something can't come from nothing..
"people who think theism and atheism are subjects of scientific inquiry keep asking for proof."
Science doesn't address any theistic concepts that have anything to do with supernaturalism, …in it's literal sense, but this proof?
A ≡ A (A if-and-only-if A,) only works if you can define all possible A's. You haven't done that yet, …at all, and you'll never be able to, unless you're omniscient, …too many singularities.
Yet you invoke it as a universal disproof.
I can see where it does apply though, you can call bullshit a "meadow muffin", …it's still bullshit though, isn't it?