In the entire history of the human race and the many Gods that they have conceived and closely examined over considerable periods of time, most to the point of religious obsession, no evidence has EVER been discovered to prove that any one of those Gods is a true God.

Since it is logically impossible that all these different Gods with their contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be true, then most must be "false".

So is any one God more provable than any other? The historical answer to that is a resounding NO, were that not so we would all worship the true provable God, including me.

So every conceivable God is equally un-provable, and there are 1,000's of them including Christianity's major God and its many minor ones.

For the sake of argument lets assume that there are a 1,000 Gods conceived since the dawn of mankind, and each one is equally un- provable, then Christianity's God is only 1 in a 1,000

Those figures would also indicate, that even should a God exist, which, given the time and manpower expended fruitlessly in such searching, is itself a chance in a million.

So Christianity as a religion only has a 1 in a 1,000 of 1 in a 1,000,000 of having the right God, too long odds, even for Pascal's Wager.

So this logic dictates that God, certainly as envisaged by mankind, does not exist.

And even should he exist, it would be impossible for us to visualise him, after all he would be GOD and for us to have any real concept of him would make us minor Gods, which clearly we are not.

If he does not exist then it’s even more impossible for us to visualise him as he does not exist.

So in either case man can never have any concept of God that relates to any sort of reality.

That said, and generally speaking, the believer is actually believing in something that is NOT GOD, and therefore does not exist, so he is wrong on all counts.

The non believer is not believing in something that is NOT GOD and where he may be right not to believe, he is wrong in what he is not believing in.

While the Agnostic awaits proof of something that is NOT GOD and does not exist so could never be proven either way, so he is also wrong awaiting proof of the un-provable.

As most agnostics, believers and non believers seem to be believing, disbelieving or doubting in the WRONG God, then none of them can ever hope to be right.

Views: 29

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I've noticed that Bob often uses 'logic' where everyone else would write 'experience' ;-)
I must stop doing that
Why are we inspecting the tool and not the result. If I hammer a nail in with my shoe, should we get into a discussion on hammers or simply agree that the nail is "in" and the job is done.

However I admit to shaky logic on many occasions and accept that there are may out there who know better so I am happy to stand corrected on a point of logic. However please expand:-

Assertion:- a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason

Fact:- a truth known by actual experience or observation

In my world "it is logically impossible that all these different Gods with their contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be true" is a truth born from actual experience and observation.

Granted logic does not guarantee truth, which is why I am not depending on my suspect logic but rather the observations themselves. Remove "logically" if you wish, I am still happy with the observation and the fact that the nail is "in"
I'm not try to argue symantics but by definition atheism is "the disbelief in all gods". By said definement of the word, right or wrong is irrelevant.
It appears to me your argument (or assertion) is more philosophical or logical than it is reasonable to the greatest preponderance of evidence.
If real worl "physical" evidence of ANY god existed then I doubt many of us would cling to the label "atheist" or "non-theist". Taking Carl Sagan's famous quote into consideration, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.", it is not up to us who disbelieve in a proposition to account for our disbelief, it is strictly on the shoulders of those who make claims about the real world and it's mechanics to provide evidentiary proof of their proposition.

Assertions and conjecture have no evidentiary value. As an example; If my daughter were to wake me in the middle of the night and say, "Daddy! there's a pink giant dinosaur hiding in my closet!", due to my education in the real world I would automatically become an "Apinkgiantdinosaurist".
Of course I would be kind and walk with her back to her room, making a show that I am examining her closet for said beast and opening the closet as proof of my lack of discovery. However if she said, "Daddy! There's a man in my room!", then that is something to take more seriously because I know a) that men do exist and b) some men have the propensity for burglary and other nefarious acts based on the education of evidence for items a and b.

So, though I do understand what you're logically implying, Bob, the point really is moot. Thanks for posting anyhow.
You see thats where we may part company, to me the "the disbelief in all gods" has a taint of doubt in it, I disbelieve until proven otherwise etc. A person claiming to be a true atheist should be prepared to make a more committed statement "I KNOW deities do not exist" An atheist is totally convinced that deities do not exist no doubt not even 1 to the power of 1000000.

Why would you expect proof from those who you know cannot provide it, atheist or theist? That says more about the person expecting proof they know can't be provided than those who can't provide it.

I am not certain what I have said that could be likened to a pink dinosaur, I would be obliged for an example. Or are you suggesting that it is not a FACT that no proof of Gods has ever been found and that it is only an assertion or conjecture with no evidentiary value.

I must agree however, it is a moot point, but so are all deity debates, but life would be so boring without pointless arguments.

Your welcome, however, thanking someone for a pointless posting is a bit pointless.
Thanks read most of it, could find nothing new, general definition seems to be "atheist: one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God" My problem with this is as follows:-

A man of good standing and impeccable credentials runs into a room "there's a pink black bird outside" he shouts, I say "go away I disbelieve in the existence of pink black birds" "Its true its true" he insists "OK" say I "I'll go and have a look". I then proceed outside and observe that this man is mistaken and the black bird in question is indeed black, and there is no pink one in sight, so, having eliminated any doubt that may lurk in my mind as to the existence of the pink black bird in the aforesaid location, I return and say, you are wrong, "I KNOW there is no pink black bird outside"

My position, I have returned to the room many years ago and I KNOW God does not exist, any position of "disbelief" that may have preceded that understanding was a weaker position as there was always an implied doubt.

Not that I subscribe to pushing another's ideas, but words of Richard Dawkins page 73 The God Delusion are worth considering when defining just who is who:-

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I KNOW.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I KNOW there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
"A person claiming to be a true atheist should be prepared to make a more committed statement "I KNOW deities do not exist" An atheist is totally convinced that deities do not exist no doubt not even 1 to the power of 1000000."


FAIL: THAT argument is called "the no true Scotsman fallacy" (you're attempting to change the accepted definition of the word 'atheist'),

"No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

'Atheism' is a lack of belief in god(s) by definition. There are no claims made and no burden of proof.. SOME atheists claim conviction and certainty.I don't actually know any atheists who make such claims.(Even Dawkins admits to SOME doubt)


Perhaps you might like to familiarise yourself with the actual meaning of the word 'evidence' and some of the common logical fallacies. Just a suggestion,it's no skin off my nose either way. .It might allow you to look a little less ignorant and give you some credibility.


The links below might be a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
You now know one atheist who makes such claims, however, see a previous answer of mine and you will see that Dawkins accepts that such "disbelivers" exist.

What I can never understand is why there are not more like me, after all its just a decision making thing, I do it everyday on other matters. I weigh up all the evidence or lack of and come to a decision. Having weighed up all the evidence available to me including the possibility we are living in a virtual world created by an advanced "God like" being I have drawn a line in the sand in my mind and I KNOW deities do not exist, totally convinced, mind made up, and to use the old clichés, in exactly the same way as I KNOW the unicorn of the spaghetti monster do not exist. Why do others find that so hard? I always assumed that it is a bit of "God fearing" lurking within their genes stopping them taking that final step. If I were to say a square triangle exists, most would consider the evidence and say, with conviction, I KNOW that no such thing exists, but when it comes to God all sorts of arguments get dragged out, Its not logical to say that, you can't know for certain, you don't have any proof, etc etc and this only seems to apply to God not any other really stupid unbelievable proposal. Why is that?
"You now know one atheist who makes such claims,"

With respect, I do not know you.

You're a stranger on in internet who comes across as a willfully ignorant fool.

The rest of your post simply reinforces the impression

EG

"Its not logical to say that, you can't know for certain, you don't have any proof, etc etc and this only seems to apply to God not any other really stupid unbelievable proposal."

Actually it IS logical.Perhaps first find out a bit about 'logic' before making fatuous statements. ( and see Wiki on evidence) AND it applies to a great many other things especially metaphysical and moral propositions. EG The existence of free will and the existence of moral absolutes. I reject both as unprovable and unfalsifiable (look it up).

Thought for the day "Simple stupidity and ignorance may be irritating ,but they are not crimes.Neither is willful ignorance, but it should be" (Padraic Q Shagnasty)
Apologies, of course you don't know me and why would you want to, even though, with respect, you are a stranger on the internet who come across as an ignoramus.

It requires little effort to be polite, address what a stranger says and avoid personal attack, still no point in trying to teach an asshole to be a silk purse.

OK I get it, you are saying that logically I can't know for certain that God does not exist, so then equally logically you must think that there is a possibility that God does exist. Can't say I subscribe to that.

Anyway, I could not be bothered to argue logic with you, or anyone else for that matter, if you don't like my use of the word, to bad, get over it and move on.

And don't get your knickers in a twist, just substitute "sensible" "common sense" "right" or whatever word you think fits in the place of logical, or even better ignore me all together and do us both a favour.

Two thoughts for the day, I'll let you pick the one that suits you best.

“He who thinks himself wise, O heavens! is a great fool” Voltaire

“If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.”
Carl Gustav Jung
I am not certain what I have said that could be likened to a pink dinosaur, I would be obliged for an example. Or are you suggesting that it is not a FACT that no proof of Gods has ever been found and that it is only an assertion or conjecture with no evidentiary value.
Bob, Bob, Bob...


Please reread my post and you'll understand. I'm on your side (I think), I was merely attempting an example of assertion over evidence.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Deidre replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
6 minutes ago
Deidre replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
19 minutes ago
Freethinker31 replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
20 minutes ago
booklover commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
32 minutes ago
Deidre replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
50 minutes ago
Daniel W replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Gardening in central Texas "pan" soil in the group Godless in the garden
57 minutes ago
Deidre replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
57 minutes ago
Leon Gretsky replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
59 minutes ago
Deidre posted a status
"Happy holidays to all of you here! :)"
1 hour ago
Patricia commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Deidre replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
1 hour ago
Leon Gretsky replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service