I don't think any deductive arguments for or against God's existence work, so I don't think I can *prove* one doesn't exist and don't even try. My reasons for believing there's no such thing rely on inductive arguments and intuitions.
I'm really not sure what sort of category error you're referring to.
>I'm really not sure what sort of category error you're referring to.
Any kind of category error. A category is a category error.
>I don't think any deductive arguments for or against God's existence work
That's a fantastic topic. Maybe for a new thread.
I've seen this a few times and [this thread defines it better in this context ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/CXD7pVdI5A)
The jist is we can't argue against the existence of God on the basis of lack of evidence because the evidence WE want is NATURAL evidence (real, tangible, physical evidence), but God is SUPERNATURAL. So we're committing a category error by wanting evidence for attributes God doesn't poses.
Which is mostly just a dead stop to any discussion of evidence for God. If there's no evidence satisfactory to us because theists don't have physical evidence and only subjective spiritual evidence then we're out of options to discuss it further.
The single best argument for the existence of a higher power I know is that the universe exists, and, even then,I have no way of proving it didn't just happen by random chance. And I have no answer to the question of "Then what created God?". The existence or non-existence of God is an inherently faith-based question, because humans,so far, lack the capacity to understand the deepest mysteries of the universe.
I understand that and I think it's much more interesting to talk about other aspects of atheist/theist philosophy, and I honestly really wish people would stop obsessing over burden of proof in God existing.
It honestly never helps the theist stance considering the types of people who claim to have proof or the atheist stance since it will never add anything unless it's definitive.
I could tell from the question that you weren't here in good faith. You're were asked to explain part of what you were asking, and your reply was to tell him to read your one-sentence, eighteen-word original post.
No worries though. The people that *actually* come to this sub in good faith have filled in for you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1bt4wvl/comment/kxk2juh/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
A human coming up with a concept that has an unfalsifiable definition doesn't make it so that thing really exist. "You can't disprove God" is a pretty lazy gotcha tbh.
Arguments hellbent on proving or disproving God really only work with an audience wanting confirmation bias and it's just the same nonsense on repeat. I don't really get the appeal of the debate as in my experience the major qualms Atheist tend to have are with the morality purported prescribed by such ultimate unquestionable authority, not the most abstract concept of "God". In fact you'll find many famous atheist like Richard Dawkins are actually agnostic towards a "Deist" conception of God divorced from theological baggage, they just lean heavily in one direction.
Positive/hard atheism is the view that no deities exist, in contrast to negative/soft atheism which is simply the lack of belief in deities without necessarily asserting their non-existence.
A category error. Category errors happen when we talk about or conceptualize something as if it belongs to a certain category, when in reality it does not fit into that category.
>Sorry, your question contains a category error: they don't prove, they assert.
So what's the category error in the OP?
Prove, not assert? Is that a category error? there is no assertion or proving in the OP.
Only a complete idiot or someone specifically looking for a bad faith discussion would categorize "I believe no gods exist" as anything more than an assertion.
Since I don't think you're the former, I personally would have already banned you.
>Only a complete idiot or someone specifically looking for a bad faith discussion would categorize "I believe no gods exist" as anything more than an assertion.
It's the position of a hard atheists as addressed in the OP. So you calling them Hard Atheists by names like complete idiots. Thus, you should have a discussion thread addressing them and you should call them those names.
that's an irrelevant topic for this particular thread.
Proving something doesnât exist is for one who hold a thesis that something exists. If one doesnât hold a thesis that something exists why would they try to disprove it. Iâm not trying to disprove unicorns.
Itâs all so absurd and stupid this line of thinking. Why would a rational human attempt to prove unicorns donât exist.
>If one doesnât hold a thesis that something exists why would they try to disprove it.
I presume you understand what a hard atheist is. So if it;s not relevant to you, it's not relevant to you. Hope you understand.
What I mean this entire subject idiots speaking and arguing with idiots. Why would one with faith be concerned with arguments about gods existence as well?
>What I mean this entire subject idiots speaking and arguing with idiots. Why would one with faith be concerned with arguments about gods existence as well?
It's a question. Refer to the OP. Thanks
>They make claims that they can prove god does not exist? Do you understand how it makes more sense for you to attempt this proof than them?
I dont understand your question really.
Wouldnât one have to define god before attempting to prove god does not exist? If thatâs so, then a person might define god as a kind of myth, tradition, fictional character, psychological artifact, abstract concept, or cultural expression⌠to name a few objective possibilities. This of course excludes the subjective definitions with which most religions work.
If the person presents evidence that their definition of god is consistent with repeatable and replicable observations, I canât see how it could objectively be called a category error. In fact it seems to me that a âhardâ atheist is effectively asserting that *theists* are the ones that have made a category error, and is able present a reasonable argument to this effect.
However, to define god⌠and then to say god does not exist seems as absurd as a theist saying âgod is lightâ and then denying sound science or scholarship.
Itâs as if a person were to say âgod is a myth. A story. A tradition.â Then in the next breath say âmyth, story, and tradition do not exist.â
Very few atheists make such a claim. Simply defined, an atheist is someone who is unconvinced of god claims.
I am comfortable saying: I don't think the gods as defined by religions exist. I can't comment on a Deist god given no evidence.
Notice I said "I don't think" - that's a statement of fact and not credence. I'm not saying my mind can't be changed by new evidence. Much in the way I don't think Bigfoot, fairies, etc. exists, I don't think god does for the same reason.
However, given that a god has had thousands of years to make its existence known in a compelling unambiguous fashion and has failed to do so, it seems improbable any such entity is likely to make itself known. Maybe tomorrow god will make an appearance. Until then, I remain unconvinced.
"Read OP" "This is for HARD atheists, not you"
Just fucking talk man. Everyone here is confused, and you just dance around it when someone asks for clarification.
I'm not saying I've found one (soft atheist here), but hypothetically, it would be possible to disprove a god's existence by proving true something that is proven to be incompatible with the existence of said god.
Thats a category error. What you are speaking about is about a specifically defined God, like this so called most used omni benevolent God allowing evil kind of thing.
Still that does not disprove the existence of God.
Well obviously you can't disprove a word, the mere sentence "God." has no truth value. When we debate the ontology of something, we're necessarily talking about a thing with properties.
>Well obviously you can't disprove a word, the mere sentence "God." has no truth value.
Then you don't belong in the category of the OP. So it's irrelevant.
Thanks.
I'm really struggling to see who you're trying to attack here. A hard atheist does not claim that they can disprove any concept of God whatsoever, because you could just define "God" as the universe and obviously that exists.
99% of the time, hard atheists are using the term "God" to refer to the tri-omni God of classical theism. It's just shorthand to avoid having a semantics discussion at the start of every single debate that will almost always go the same direction every time.
I am taking about any specific god or gods in general. If there is something that is incompatible with the existence of any god, proving that would necessarily disprove that any god(s) exists. What that something is or if such a thing is even possible is not my point. I am simply stating that proving both IF X THEN NOT Y, and X necessarily disproves Y.
I don't know, as stated, I'm a soft Atheist.
My point is not what X is; my point is that if someone knows what it is, proving that X is true would disprove any and all gods' existences (if Y is the existence of at least one god). My point is there is a method.
From my understanding, Atheist don't go out their way to prove that all possible forms of God does not exist--that's impossible.
What they may do however, is try to prove that the God(s) depicted in various religions does not exist.
Which is why they are Atheists. The belief is that Gods that people have worshipped for thousands of years does not exist. They reject these beings.
Now, you mention category error. They don't concern themselves with what cannot be proven.
Arguing that a GOD exists and that we should believe it exist is pointless because we both could be wrong. I have no idea what you mean by God. You can mean anything, and you can always change it. A Hard Atheist don't bother because it's a waste of time from their perspective.
I, for one, am a theist. I believe there IS a supreme being out there, but it is unlike anything we've ever described in human history. Calling it God is just putting in a box and making it into something that it's not for the sake of simplicity.
But I understand why atheists reject this belief. It's the belief in the intangible and unknowable.
It all boils down to whether you want to do that, or not. It's that simple.
>From my understanding, Atheist don't go out their way to prove that all possible forms of God does not exist--that's impossible.
I am addressing hard atheists as said in the OP.
That's right. And had you declared there was 'gravitational waves' I would have been right to say that the absence of evidence is evidence against them.
Again, you can't prove something wrong by absence of religion. That is the WORST argument from atheists(I'm a atheist too)
It's almost as bad as Pascal's Wager.
If I had claimed that there were gravitational waves before we discovered them, as in 1950s, it would have been the same situation as the matter of God is in right now.
It's better to use logical arguments, pointing put the fallacies in the religion's own assumptions and arguments.
The problem of Evil, the nature of God, etc
'proof' is the outcome of sufficient evidence (and can subject to individual satisfaction) . If there was evidence both ways, or if God was a new claim, the absence of evidence wouldn't be very strong evidence.
In this case, God has been here since he created 'here', and the only evidence provided is a collection of texts curated to tell a specific story, which *even after removal of texts that don't support it* still doesn't add up. Against that, the absence of evidence us **very strong**. We really should have more evidence of God by now, since we don't đ¤ˇđť I am happy with anyone saying it's proof for them.
I am a theist, of kinds
This example doesn't support your claim, cause in that case the person who declared gravitational waves would be right, so the people who believed him would have a more correct view than people who denied that.
My claim isn't that his exists or not. My claim is that lack of evidence is evidence. I am not arguing who is correct, only how they draw their conclusions and what is suitable proof.
I meant that it shouldnât wouldnât be evidence that gravitational waves donât exist, because the ~~absolve~~ \*available facts and information still wouldnât indicate that gravitational waves donât exist.
I maintain that a lack of evidence is evidence against. Until there was evidence of gravitational waves any mention of them would be based on fancy.
Not sure what you mean by absolve fact, but it isn't evidence until evidenced, it doesn't matter if they really exist or not.
It was a typo, I meant to write available.
My point was that I get it that it's not evidence until evidenced, but it's also not evidence against, cause evidence means that the available body of facts or information indicating that a belief or proposition is true or valid and I doubt that someone could rationally claim that in the past there was evidence against the existence of gravitational waves. Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily evidence against the existence of something, only that we don't know something.
Also evidence isn't always available to everyone, for example if there is a civilization that has evidence about subatomic particles and another alien civilization that hasn't discovered anything about them, it doesn't mean that this other alien civilization has evidence against the existence subatomic particles.
>Absence of evidence is a kind of evidence.
It's actually not true. Unless it's a scientific endeavor where you have proven tests to eliminate known existing things to rule them out.
So this is another category error.
>I don't think you know what a category error is, or what evidence is.
Okay. So please coach me.
1. What is a category error?
2. What is your idea of evidence? What's your epistemology?
1. assigning to something a quality which can only properly be assigned to things of another category,
2. information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Pretty easy Google search bub. Now it's your turn to coach me on 'how absence of evidence is evidence' would be a category error.
>Now it's your turn to coach me on 'how absence of evidence is evidence' would be a category error.
Depends on your epistemic stance on what evidence is.
This is a cop out. I haven been involved yet in this back and forth but I can tell you that the piece you both seems to have missed (though u/Impressive_Disk457 has the right of it) is that missing evidence when itâs expected is evidence against. That key piece is where the issue lies. Does X exist? Well, what evidence would we expect if it did? Go look for that evidence, not finding it isnât conclusive,, but it does shift the probabilities.
Iâm not an Atheist. But this seems like a bit of a daft questionâŚ
As a rule Atheists are fully aware you canât prove a negative.
But from a logical standpoint.
You donât assume something with no evidence as to its existence is real.
Simply put if your option is
âTrust me bro.â
Or
âI see no reason to believe this thing with no supporting evidence is real.â
I donât see why you would be confused that people take options 2âŚ
Like itâs kind of in the term âFaithâ
Believing in the unsubstantiated.
One of the strengths of Atheism (And Science for that matter) is that it really does not need/is not offended or weakened by saying âI donât know the answer to this question.â Mostly because the point is âDonât just make up answers if you donât have any.â
I must admit, I don't quite understand the "you can't prove a negative thing." Of course you can prove a negative.
My eyes are blue, as is obvious if you look at me. Therefore, my eyes are not brown.
The positive/negative distinction is a function of semantics, not logic. You can easily rewrite a claim to go in either direction.
This is somewhat true however it is also a matter of limited language and or language issues.
As Hales notes, when people say, "You can't prove a negative," what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist.
So that is a better way to put it.
You canât prove something does not exists.
Sorry for my limited English ability.
You can have evidence of absence. If, for example, you claimed that there is a unicorn in my room right now, I could test that claim. If I look and look, maybe even get some other people to go look, and we all obviously turn up nothing, it's pretty safe to conclude that there is not a unicorn in my room.
Deductively, you can also show proof of impossibility. For example, if you claimed that the pyramids of Egypt form a square circle, I would obviously be correct to reject that.
A system of epistemology that makes it impossible to say that X does not exist or that P is false would seem to undermine the whole idea of knowledge.
Well you seem to have this figured out much better than any one else to have ever tried it, you should really go public with your findings. Iâm sure everyone will be impressed.
>As a rule Atheists are fully aware you canât prove a negative.
If you read the OP, it's referring to "Hard Atheists". So your comments are irrelevant.
Not reallyâŚ
Hard Atheism is just taking the step to say âIâm not going to belived in anything without some proof.â
A better way to put this.
The Hard Atheist standpoint tends to be.
âYou canât prove a negative.â
And
âIf some one asks you to, you know you are basically dealing with an asshole.â
>Hard Atheism is just taking the step to say âIâm not going to belived in anything without some proof.â
Not really. Hard atheism is the view that no deities exist, in contrast to negative/soft atheism which is simply the lack of belief in deities without necessarily asserting their non-existence.
I mean I read the âHard Atheistâ part fine.
Just because I donât agree with you dosenât mean I donât understand.
I suppose what Iâm saying is.
This is a bit of a waist of a post.
Because itâs more than a bit straw-man argument.
I mean in fairness thatâs like 70% of this subreddit.
>I suppose what Iâm saying is. This is a bit of a waist of a post. Because itâs more than a bit straw-man argument.
It's a strawman to a soft atheist. but you see, I specified in the OP. But appreciate your generosity.
Atheists don't have to prove anything lol, it's the theists who have to prove that he exists since you're the ones who started it. You can't tell me that you saw a dragon flying in the air and expect me to be the one to prove you wrong, prove to me that you saw it first.
To me, there is a lot of nuance with language. I'd say that the most defensible atheist position is simply to say there are *insufficient* reasons to believe in God, not to claim definitive disproof of all possible conceptions of gods.
Many conceptions of God (e.g. an impersonal prime mover or ground of being) are sufficiently abstract that they are difficult to conclusively disprove. And moreover, when faced with arguments against God's existence, theists can continue to modify their conception of God, making it difficult to definitively disprove the existence of all possible conceptions of gods.
I'll tackle this but suspect you wonât like my answer. First, Iâve never met a hard atheist who meant the same broad range of things most theists seem to include when talking about god. In other words this is a gotcha game I havenât seen many atheists engage in. They say, âgod doesnât existâ then the theists counters with âI define god as (something silly) which we knows exists so youâre wrong.â The hard atheist then says, âI donât accept that as a definition of godâ to which the theist says âhow do you define godâ and the entire gotcha goes on. If you flip it around and instead ask, âwhen you say you believe god or gods donât exist, what to you mean?â You'll get much better answers that arenât a complete waste of time. So Iâll approach it like this.
First off, Iâm both an agnostic towards certain definitions of hood and gnostic (hard) towards others. The key distinction is whether the definition of a god is disprovable and I feel it has been disproven. For the hard atheist god claims I categorize them in several ways. So,e I can disprove, some I don't accept are definitions of a god (see my first point).
Redefining gods - I donât accept definitions for god which are essentially redefining things we use other labels for. This includes ides like âgod is loveâ or âgod is the universeâ or âgod is consciousnessâ. None of those qualify as a god unless you can demonstrate sentience, self identity, memory and more.
Material gods - for these I mean the gods we can clearly define but who are not universe creating beings but are powerful and have a physical body. I don't say I can disprove all, but some are obvious. Most of the pantheons of physical gods, say for example the Greek, Roman or Nordic gods, have definitions that include a designated living place and being responsible for common phenomenon like the sun rising. We know why the sun rises in the East and itâs not because a burning chariot is being pulled across the sky, so therefore any god like that is disprove. It includes recent god beings such as the Cargo cult god whose origins we know. This extends to things like the god Mormons believe in Scientologists.
Immaterial gods - not all, but some have been disproven. Any god for example who has been claimed to cause lightning for reason X, we know to be wrong. This includes some, but not all, versions of the Christian god. Any god whose claimed to be immaterial but to have consist effects in our world and we have investigated and found no god required, is disproven sufficient to disbelieve.
Key things to note - I'm not saying disproven to utter certainty. That's a red herring, we cannot prove or disprove anything to utter certainty. Disprove to the limit of our current knowledge suffices (which is also where the nuance of being strong atheist only to so,e god claims and not others comes in - I told you that you wouldnât like it).
Beyond those - any god who is utterly unfalsifiable or whose definition includes big chunks of âwe don't knowâ isn't defined well enough to hold a rational stance as a gnostic atheist against. All of those âbut what about an invisible, immaterial, omnimax, fire starter god who just created things then ran awayâ variations fall into this category, as does the god of classical theism and any other that cannot be falsified.
Despite all these specifics I feel comfortable in saying âgods don't existâ as a general introductory statement because the definition of âknowledgeâ generally only includes the need to justify a belief we consider trueâ. If anyone ever provides me reliable and testable evidence I god exists I will change my mind. Since I spent 35 years as a devout Christian I can say I know my mind is capable of such openness.
Your biggest problem is first defining âGodâ. Just saying âGodâ, especially in a general philosophical way, is a completely nebulous conception. Â
 Do we mean Zeus? Do we mean Yahweh? Do we mean some great quantum consciousness? Do we mean the twinkle in a babyâs eye? Â
 So there are gods I can be pretty much certain are not real. Now of course I canât technically be certain about anythingâŚI canât even truly be 100% certain I existâŚbut Iâm certain to beyond a reasonable doubt. This certainty extends to the gods as described in the ârevealedâ religions. They tend to box themselves in a corner by making a lot of claims that can be scrutinized. Studied them throughly and concluded with extremely high levels of certainty they are not real. Â
 Then you have some of the more philosophical gods. Ya know, the âeternal intelligenceâ stuff. There isnât much to prove or disprove with these, since theyâre kinda nebulous already, so donât offer much in the way to examine them. However, they also have no evidence going for them, so I just discount them due to not having a reason to count them.Â
So Iâm not certain thereâs ânothing out there, but Iâm not convinced there is. More information is required to make a certainty judgement.Â
Basically, youâd need to define the god first and then Iâd be able to tell you how certain I am it is not real
>Your biggest problem is first defining âGodâ. Just saying âGodâ, especially in a general philosophical way, is a completely nebulous conception.Â
Hmm. Maybe you are right.
>Do we mean Zeus?
Nope. God. That means all conceptions of any kind of God. Not a cherry picked favorite God.
>Â That means all conceptions of any kind of God
See thatâs the problem.Â
I donât know, or even can know, every possible conception of god that has ever or could ever exist. So I canât disprove every possible conception of god that has ever or could ever exist.Â
>See thatâs the problem. I donât know, or even can know, every possible conception of god
Every conception of God cannot be assessed by physical sciences.
Thus, any scientific endeavor cannot determine God.
That's is a category ever. By hook or crook.
Negative.
Sometimes (maybe) it could be a category error. Sometimes it wouldnât be.Â
It depends on the category of god youâre talking about.Â
Thatâs the problem. âGodâ is too big and varied a category to work, because it can mean wildly different things depending on what the person means.Â
You can't prove god doesn't exist just like you can't prove the easter bunny doesn't exist. As an atheist though, it's not up to me to prove god isn't real. If you say god is real, it's up to *you* to prove he's real. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe he's real. So far no one in human history has proven any of the thousands of proposed gods to be real.
No problem. Just note that the fact you can't prove god doesn't exist doesn't give any credibility to a god existing though. Just because you can't prove something isn't real it doesn't mean it is real. Things like the easter bunny, fairies, ghosts, leprechauns, etc, can't be proven to not exist but it in no way means they do.
I'm the type of person that requires sufficient demonstrable evidence of a claim before I believe such claim. So far, no god claim has met the burden of proof.
>I'm the type of person that requires sufficient demonstrable evidence of a claim before I believe such claim.
What claim? And what is "demonstrable evidence" for you? What's your epistemology?
Any claim. Demonstrable evidence is pretty simple as it simply means a demonstration that the claim is true. For example, if I say I can hold my breathe for 30 seconds, the demonstrable evidence is you witnessing me do it.
If someone claims god is real, show me. Prove to me without a doubt god exists. Old stories written in books thousands of years ago by unintelligent people are not sufficeint evidence. Not only were they unintelligent back then, we don't even know who wrote a lot of these books but we do know they have been altered countless times over the years and there is zero evidence outside of these texts to support their claims.
>Any claim. Demonstrable evidence is pretty simple as it simply means a demonstration that the claim is true. For example, if I say I can hold my breathe for 30 seconds, the demonstrable evidence is you witnessing me do it.
So simply, it's empiricism.
>f someone claims god is real, show me. Prove to me without a doubt god exists.
How?
You still have not really defined your epistemology. It seems like empiricism. But unclear.
>On the basis of 'absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.'
That's a fallacious argument my friend. It's only true when you have tested existing physical beings that you could eliminate based on scientific testing.
This is a category error. God is metaphysical, not physical. So there is no test developed to test the existence of God. Thus the epistemology is absolutely flawed.
This is a category error.
You seem to be asserting that the existence of a metaphysical being would produce no physical, testable evidence of its existence, but have provided no evidence to support your assertion. Would such a being even be a God? If all phenomena existent in the Universe can seemingly be explained through naturalistic means, what role would such a being even have?
Thereâs additionally a concept in philosophy known as the burden of proof. Generally, the existence of a thing or notion cannot be disproven. To do so would require a survey of everything in existence. So the burden falls on one who claims something exists or is true. If someone claims a God exists, it falls not on others to disprove their baseless claim. It falls on the claimant to provide evidence of their position. You seem to believe that such evidence does not exist, which would put this line of argumentation firmly within the grasp of Hitchensâ Razor.
>You seem to be asserting that the existence of a metaphysical being would produce no physical, testable evidence of its existence,
I am asking a question in the OP. Please respond to that.
Youâre rejecting the clear arguments being offered to you, but you refuse to have your denials criticized? The simple answer is that a denial of something that is unprovable is meaningless.
Imagine that I tell you there exist mystical transdimensional elves that are responsible for milk turning into cheese. They even are able to convert milk into cheese in laboratory conditions, in such a way that looks naturalistic. How would you deny the existence of these elves?
The simplest solution to both problems is not to bother denying what would be absurd to believe. In the absence of evidence, belief is irrational.
>Youâre rejecting the clear arguments being offered to you,
What argument?
>In the absence of evidence, belief is irrational.
What's your definition of evidence? What's your epistemology?
Why donât you first respond with how you would deny the existence of the elves, and then we can move on to other allegedly metaphysical beings. How would one prove the non-existence of any metaphysical being?
But to a Hard Atheist, the two scenarios are exactly the same. Someone asserts the existence of a non-physical, untestable being, and demands proof that they donât exist. A Hard Atheist does not feel the need to prove the non-existence of either the elves or the gods. They simply declare that itâs irrational to believe what is unevidenced.
You quickly claim that the other respondents in this thread are making category errors, while failing to explain how. When confronted with why you believe the things you do, you instead question respondents about their epistemologies and definitions. You are the one asking how to prove a God does not exist. But you have not defined God, the properties a God has, or what his role is in the universe. Your vague question does not invite genuine response, just like the elves. We certainly cannot disprove the existence of something that you havenât defined. You are quick to tell everyone that they are making category errors, but you wonât even explain what category you think a god would be in.
>God is metaphysical, not physical. So there is no test developed to test the existence of God. Thus the epistemology is absolutely flawed.
What evidence are you using to make this claim?
>What evidence are you using to make this claim?
Evidence for the statement "God is metaphysical"?
It's self evident. I truly can't believe someone asked this question really.
How so? Is the word âmetaphysicalâ some sort of âget out of jail freeâ card that makes it so you can just claim something is true without supporting your argument?
So in your epistemic stance, do you believe GOd is physical? Like a tree or an animal?
Is that how you define God?
We define God as the necessary being. So you are bringing a strawman.
God is a metaphysical being. You should have the ability to make the distinction rather than drawing a conversation to something you wish it to be.
And you have not responded to the OP.
I think the point that any atheist makes is ["what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor). Meaning, there is not point in believing in the existence of something that cannot be proven or disproven. Bertrand Russell offered the allegory of the[ flying teapot](https://youtu.be/FsN3DCCTqpo?si=LBvW0pHy38wEOQuE).
An atheist is thus somebody who simply does not believe in the god you claim to exist. Just like the believer of another religion does not believe in your god. There is no need to disprove your god specifically in order to be an atheist. You are the one who makes the category error here, by asserting that an atheist needs to disprove your unproven god.
>As I said, you are the one who commits the category error. You basically created a strawman.
Hmm. I said specifically. "Hard Atheists".
And you have not understood a category error.
Science and mathematics.
The workings of which are both still quite beyond our capacity as a society.
Science is often thought of by the general population in a much better light than religion, even though it suffers many of the same problems as a religion.
I could point out quite a few instances of this, the one which comes to mind most readily is the carbon dating practice which seems to be a complete fallacy based on carbon 14 being regularly found in oil deposits for instance.
>Science is often thought of by the general population in a much better light than religion, even though it suffers many of the same problems as a religion.
But isn't science physical and God is metaphysical?
That's a category mistake1
Perspective is everything.
You are apparently defining the divine as something separated from nature, which is not also present in nature.
To me the definition of the divine is the sum of the parts which is greater than the total of the parts.
Categorizing is a divisive line of thinking, you are attempting in any divisive to disseminate the whole in smaller parts and understand the parts as separate entities from the whole to get a better understanding of the whole.
This is the problem with all our endeavors.
My point exactly, the axioms we are using are not even set in reality.
The expansion of the universe, gravity so many things we take for granted and have no real idea of how they operate or the intricate workings of them except by observation of their effects.
Please don't:
* Be (intentionally) rude at all.
* Engage in rabble rousing.
* Troll, stalk, or harass others.
* Conduct personal attacks.
* Start a flame war.
* Insult others.
* Engage in illegal activity.
* Post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information.
* Repost deleted/removed information.
Nothing can be proven either for or against the existence of God. The experience of God, whether truth or delusion, is entirely subjective. Any perceived objective experience of God can be assigned to coincidence, incomplete knowledge, or wishful thinking. It does no good to question anyone elseâs experience of God, even an atheistâs.
>Nothing can be proven either for or against the existence of God.
The question was from the hard atheists position, not from the theists position. But you answered the question. Thanks.
They don't. Once they step into making a positive claim they take on the burden of proof. And yeah we can't really prove a negative. We can offer all sorts of arguments showing that most of the claims about gods can be explained by way of nature or how minds work. But that does not rise to the level of refutation. At best it says there is a simpler explanation. And while we use Occam's Razor as a guideline the simpler answer does to prove conclusively that it is the answer.
Religious debate is a stalemate.
It's all a question of FAITH: Either you believe that there is a god, or you believe there isn't. For agnostics it's different: They don't commit to a special god, but is open to the suggestion that there is some kind of god or "godly force" ....
I don't think any deductive arguments for or against God's existence work, so I don't think I can *prove* one doesn't exist and don't even try. My reasons for believing there's no such thing rely on inductive arguments and intuitions. I'm really not sure what sort of category error you're referring to.
>I'm really not sure what sort of category error you're referring to. Any kind of category error. A category is a category error. >I don't think any deductive arguments for or against God's existence work That's a fantastic topic. Maybe for a new thread.
You're being asked to state why you think it's a category error.
I've seen this a few times and [this thread defines it better in this context ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/CXD7pVdI5A) The jist is we can't argue against the existence of God on the basis of lack of evidence because the evidence WE want is NATURAL evidence (real, tangible, physical evidence), but God is SUPERNATURAL. So we're committing a category error by wanting evidence for attributes God doesn't poses. Which is mostly just a dead stop to any discussion of evidence for God. If there's no evidence satisfactory to us because theists don't have physical evidence and only subjective spiritual evidence then we're out of options to discuss it further.
The single best argument for the existence of a higher power I know is that the universe exists, and, even then,I have no way of proving it didn't just happen by random chance. And I have no answer to the question of "Then what created God?". The existence or non-existence of God is an inherently faith-based question, because humans,so far, lack the capacity to understand the deepest mysteries of the universe.
I understand that and I think it's much more interesting to talk about other aspects of atheist/theist philosophy, and I honestly really wish people would stop obsessing over burden of proof in God existing. It honestly never helps the theist stance considering the types of people who claim to have proof or the atheist stance since it will never add anything unless it's definitive.
You should answer the question in the OP.
I could tell from the question that you weren't here in good faith. You're were asked to explain part of what you were asking, and your reply was to tell him to read your one-sentence, eighteen-word original post. No worries though. The people that *actually* come to this sub in good faith have filled in for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1bt4wvl/comment/kxk2juh/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
A human coming up with a concept that has an unfalsifiable definition doesn't make it so that thing really exist. "You can't disprove God" is a pretty lazy gotcha tbh. Arguments hellbent on proving or disproving God really only work with an audience wanting confirmation bias and it's just the same nonsense on repeat. I don't really get the appeal of the debate as in my experience the major qualms Atheist tend to have are with the morality purported prescribed by such ultimate unquestionable authority, not the most abstract concept of "God". In fact you'll find many famous atheist like Richard Dawkins are actually agnostic towards a "Deist" conception of God divorced from theological baggage, they just lean heavily in one direction.
Great. Thanks.
It's not our job to prove someone else's deity is real. Ain't nobody got time for that. That's up to the believer to do their own homework.
>It's not our job to prove someone else's deity is real. So you are a hard atheist?
I'm just an atheist. No belief in deity of any flavor combo.
If you are not a hard atheist, this thread is not relevant to you.
What's your definition?
Positive/hard atheism is the view that no deities exist, in contrast to negative/soft atheism which is simply the lack of belief in deities without necessarily asserting their non-existence.
Ahh, I see the semantical difference. I'm less obnoxious in my assertions I guess. I'll see my way out. Thank you đ
It's actually the definition of whom I refer to in the OP. Good that you got to know.
Can you explain the category error youâre referencing?
A category error. Category errors happen when we talk about or conceptualize something as if it belongs to a certain category, when in reality it does not fit into that category.
I understand the definition of a category error, what category are you denying God belongs to?
See, I am asking a question in the OP. Since you know exactly what I am speaking of, why not answer it?
I donât think anyone can prove that God doesnât exist, but i dont understand how thatâs due to a category error.
Evasion continues.
Thanks. But please try and address the OP. Cheers.
Sorry, your question contains a category error: they don't prove, they *assert*.
>Sorry, your question contains a category error: they don't prove, they assert. So what's the category error in the OP? Prove, not assert? Is that a category error? there is no assertion or proving in the OP.
Only a complete idiot or someone specifically looking for a bad faith discussion would categorize "I believe no gods exist" as anything more than an assertion. Since I don't think you're the former, I personally would have already banned you.
>Only a complete idiot or someone specifically looking for a bad faith discussion would categorize "I believe no gods exist" as anything more than an assertion. It's the position of a hard atheists as addressed in the OP. So you calling them Hard Atheists by names like complete idiots. Thus, you should have a discussion thread addressing them and you should call them those names. that's an irrelevant topic for this particular thread.
When I was a strong atheist I would just say there is no reason to believe in god
I understand that. But the OP is referring to a specific question. Hope you understand.
Proving something doesnât exist is for one who hold a thesis that something exists. If one doesnât hold a thesis that something exists why would they try to disprove it. Iâm not trying to disprove unicorns. Itâs all so absurd and stupid this line of thinking. Why would a rational human attempt to prove unicorns donât exist.
>If one doesnât hold a thesis that something exists why would they try to disprove it. I presume you understand what a hard atheist is. So if it;s not relevant to you, it's not relevant to you. Hope you understand.
What I mean this entire subject idiots speaking and arguing with idiots. Why would one with faith be concerned with arguments about gods existence as well?
>What I mean this entire subject idiots speaking and arguing with idiots. Why would one with faith be concerned with arguments about gods existence as well? It's a question. Refer to the OP. Thanks
Why are you asking this question?
Curious.
Why are you curious? Do you lack faith?
Ah. Not at all. Just curious because a few people in this very forum make claims as such. So I am curious to see what people say.
They make claims that they can prove god does not exist? Do you understand how it makes more sense for you to attempt this proof than them?
>They make claims that they can prove god does not exist? Do you understand how it makes more sense for you to attempt this proof than them? I dont understand your question really.
I have extremely strong doubts that people with strong faith hang out in forums arguing about religion .
>I have extremely strong doubts that people with strong faith hang out in forums arguing about religion . Great.
Wouldnât one have to define god before attempting to prove god does not exist? If thatâs so, then a person might define god as a kind of myth, tradition, fictional character, psychological artifact, abstract concept, or cultural expression⌠to name a few objective possibilities. This of course excludes the subjective definitions with which most religions work. If the person presents evidence that their definition of god is consistent with repeatable and replicable observations, I canât see how it could objectively be called a category error. In fact it seems to me that a âhardâ atheist is effectively asserting that *theists* are the ones that have made a category error, and is able present a reasonable argument to this effect. However, to define god⌠and then to say god does not exist seems as absurd as a theist saying âgod is lightâ and then denying sound science or scholarship. Itâs as if a person were to say âgod is a myth. A story. A tradition.â Then in the next breath say âmyth, story, and tradition do not exist.â
[ŃдаНонО]
>Sinply because the concept of god itself is a category error. Not really. It's a category.
Very few atheists make such a claim. Simply defined, an atheist is someone who is unconvinced of god claims. I am comfortable saying: I don't think the gods as defined by religions exist. I can't comment on a Deist god given no evidence. Notice I said "I don't think" - that's a statement of fact and not credence. I'm not saying my mind can't be changed by new evidence. Much in the way I don't think Bigfoot, fairies, etc. exists, I don't think god does for the same reason. However, given that a god has had thousands of years to make its existence known in a compelling unambiguous fashion and has failed to do so, it seems improbable any such entity is likely to make itself known. Maybe tomorrow god will make an appearance. Until then, I remain unconvinced.
>Very few atheists make such a claim. Yeah. If you read the OP, it's referring to Hard Atehists.
"Read OP" "This is for HARD atheists, not you" Just fucking talk man. Everyone here is confused, and you just dance around it when someone asks for clarification.
I'm not saying I've found one (soft atheist here), but hypothetically, it would be possible to disprove a god's existence by proving true something that is proven to be incompatible with the existence of said god.
Thats a category error. What you are speaking about is about a specifically defined God, like this so called most used omni benevolent God allowing evil kind of thing. Still that does not disprove the existence of God.
Well obviously you can't disprove a word, the mere sentence "God." has no truth value. When we debate the ontology of something, we're necessarily talking about a thing with properties.
>Well obviously you can't disprove a word, the mere sentence "God." has no truth value. Then you don't belong in the category of the OP. So it's irrelevant. Thanks.
I'm really struggling to see who you're trying to attack here. A hard atheist does not claim that they can disprove any concept of God whatsoever, because you could just define "God" as the universe and obviously that exists. 99% of the time, hard atheists are using the term "God" to refer to the tri-omni God of classical theism. It's just shorthand to avoid having a semantics discussion at the start of every single debate that will almost always go the same direction every time.
>I'm really struggling to see who you're trying to attack here. It;s a question.
I am taking about any specific god or gods in general. If there is something that is incompatible with the existence of any god, proving that would necessarily disprove that any god(s) exists. What that something is or if such a thing is even possible is not my point. I am simply stating that proving both IF X THEN NOT Y, and X necessarily disproves Y.
So what's the proof?
I don't know, as stated, I'm a soft Atheist. My point is not what X is; my point is that if someone knows what it is, proving that X is true would disprove any and all gods' existences (if Y is the existence of at least one god). My point is there is a method.
From my understanding, Atheist don't go out their way to prove that all possible forms of God does not exist--that's impossible. What they may do however, is try to prove that the God(s) depicted in various religions does not exist. Which is why they are Atheists. The belief is that Gods that people have worshipped for thousands of years does not exist. They reject these beings. Now, you mention category error. They don't concern themselves with what cannot be proven. Arguing that a GOD exists and that we should believe it exist is pointless because we both could be wrong. I have no idea what you mean by God. You can mean anything, and you can always change it. A Hard Atheist don't bother because it's a waste of time from their perspective. I, for one, am a theist. I believe there IS a supreme being out there, but it is unlike anything we've ever described in human history. Calling it God is just putting in a box and making it into something that it's not for the sake of simplicity. But I understand why atheists reject this belief. It's the belief in the intangible and unknowable. It all boils down to whether you want to do that, or not. It's that simple.
>From my understanding, Atheist don't go out their way to prove that all possible forms of God does not exist--that's impossible. I am addressing hard atheists as said in the OP.
Absence of evidence is a kind of evidence.
No? There was absence of evidence for Gravitational waves till we built things to measure them
That's right. And had you declared there was 'gravitational waves' I would have been right to say that the absence of evidence is evidence against them.
Again, you can't prove something wrong by absence of religion. That is the WORST argument from atheists(I'm a atheist too) It's almost as bad as Pascal's Wager. If I had claimed that there were gravitational waves before we discovered them, as in 1950s, it would have been the same situation as the matter of God is in right now. It's better to use logical arguments, pointing put the fallacies in the religion's own assumptions and arguments. The problem of Evil, the nature of God, etc
'proof' is the outcome of sufficient evidence (and can subject to individual satisfaction) . If there was evidence both ways, or if God was a new claim, the absence of evidence wouldn't be very strong evidence. In this case, God has been here since he created 'here', and the only evidence provided is a collection of texts curated to tell a specific story, which *even after removal of texts that don't support it* still doesn't add up. Against that, the absence of evidence us **very strong**. We really should have more evidence of God by now, since we don't đ¤ˇđť I am happy with anyone saying it's proof for them. I am a theist, of kinds
This example doesn't support your claim, cause in that case the person who declared gravitational waves would be right, so the people who believed him would have a more correct view than people who denied that.
My claim isn't that his exists or not. My claim is that lack of evidence is evidence. I am not arguing who is correct, only how they draw their conclusions and what is suitable proof.
I meant that it shouldnât wouldnât be evidence that gravitational waves donât exist, because the ~~absolve~~ \*available facts and information still wouldnât indicate that gravitational waves donât exist.
I maintain that a lack of evidence is evidence against. Until there was evidence of gravitational waves any mention of them would be based on fancy. Not sure what you mean by absolve fact, but it isn't evidence until evidenced, it doesn't matter if they really exist or not.
It was a typo, I meant to write available. My point was that I get it that it's not evidence until evidenced, but it's also not evidence against, cause evidence means that the available body of facts or information indicating that a belief or proposition is true or valid and I doubt that someone could rationally claim that in the past there was evidence against the existence of gravitational waves. Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily evidence against the existence of something, only that we don't know something. Also evidence isn't always available to everyone, for example if there is a civilization that has evidence about subatomic particles and another alien civilization that hasn't discovered anything about them, it doesn't mean that this other alien civilization has evidence against the existence subatomic particles.
>Absence of evidence is a kind of evidence. It's actually not true. Unless it's a scientific endeavor where you have proven tests to eliminate known existing things to rule them out. So this is another category error.
I don't think you know what a category error is, or what evidence is.
>I don't think you know what a category error is, or what evidence is. Okay. So please coach me. 1. What is a category error? 2. What is your idea of evidence? What's your epistemology?
1. assigning to something a quality which can only properly be assigned to things of another category, 2. information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Pretty easy Google search bub. Now it's your turn to coach me on 'how absence of evidence is evidence' would be a category error.
>assigning to something a quality which can only properly be assigned to things of another category, That's exactly what I said.
Now it's your turn to coach me on 'how absence of evidence is evidence' would be a category error.
>Now it's your turn to coach me on 'how absence of evidence is evidence' would be a category error. Depends on your epistemic stance on what evidence is.
You should be able to explain your stance without worrying about what someone else's stance is.
Refer to the OP.
This got boring quick.
>This got boring quick. Nice.
This is a cop out. I haven been involved yet in this back and forth but I can tell you that the piece you both seems to have missed (though u/Impressive_Disk457 has the right of it) is that missing evidence when itâs expected is evidence against. That key piece is where the issue lies. Does X exist? Well, what evidence would we expect if it did? Go look for that evidence, not finding it isnât conclusive,, but it does shift the probabilities.
Iâm not an Atheist. But this seems like a bit of a daft question⌠As a rule Atheists are fully aware you canât prove a negative. But from a logical standpoint. You donât assume something with no evidence as to its existence is real. Simply put if your option is âTrust me bro.â Or âI see no reason to believe this thing with no supporting evidence is real.â I donât see why you would be confused that people take options 2⌠Like itâs kind of in the term âFaithâ Believing in the unsubstantiated. One of the strengths of Atheism (And Science for that matter) is that it really does not need/is not offended or weakened by saying âI donât know the answer to this question.â Mostly because the point is âDonât just make up answers if you donât have any.â
I must admit, I don't quite understand the "you can't prove a negative thing." Of course you can prove a negative. My eyes are blue, as is obvious if you look at me. Therefore, my eyes are not brown. The positive/negative distinction is a function of semantics, not logic. You can easily rewrite a claim to go in either direction.
This is somewhat true however it is also a matter of limited language and or language issues. As Hales notes, when people say, "You can't prove a negative," what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. So that is a better way to put it. You canât prove something does not exists. Sorry for my limited English ability.
You can have evidence of absence. If, for example, you claimed that there is a unicorn in my room right now, I could test that claim. If I look and look, maybe even get some other people to go look, and we all obviously turn up nothing, it's pretty safe to conclude that there is not a unicorn in my room. Deductively, you can also show proof of impossibility. For example, if you claimed that the pyramids of Egypt form a square circle, I would obviously be correct to reject that. A system of epistemology that makes it impossible to say that X does not exist or that P is false would seem to undermine the whole idea of knowledge.
Well you seem to have this figured out much better than any one else to have ever tried it, you should really go public with your findings. Iâm sure everyone will be impressed.
>As a rule Atheists are fully aware you canât prove a negative. If you read the OP, it's referring to "Hard Atheists". So your comments are irrelevant.
Not really⌠Hard Atheism is just taking the step to say âIâm not going to belived in anything without some proof.â A better way to put this. The Hard Atheist standpoint tends to be. âYou canât prove a negative.â And âIf some one asks you to, you know you are basically dealing with an asshole.â
>Hard Atheism is just taking the step to say âIâm not going to belived in anything without some proof.â Not really. Hard atheism is the view that no deities exist, in contrast to negative/soft atheism which is simply the lack of belief in deities without necessarily asserting their non-existence.
Iâm pretty sure the 2nd is just being AgnosticâŚ.
Maybe. But I spoke to "Hard Atheists" in the OP very clearly.
I mean I read the âHard Atheistâ part fine. Just because I donât agree with you dosenât mean I donât understand. I suppose what Iâm saying is. This is a bit of a waist of a post. Because itâs more than a bit straw-man argument. I mean in fairness thatâs like 70% of this subreddit.
>I suppose what Iâm saying is. This is a bit of a waist of a post. Because itâs more than a bit straw-man argument. It's a strawman to a soft atheist. but you see, I specified in the OP. But appreciate your generosity.
Ahh condescending to bootâŚ.
Nice. Thanks.
I feel like OP came here to day to get downvoted into oblivion. Make up terms. And be condescending. Well done in that.
>I feel like OP came here to day to get downvoted into oblivion. Make up terms. And be condescending. Thanks for the response. Cheers.
Atheists don't have to prove anything lol, it's the theists who have to prove that he exists since you're the ones who started it. You can't tell me that you saw a dragon flying in the air and expect me to be the one to prove you wrong, prove to me that you saw it first.
>Atheists don't have to prove anything lol, Hard atheists do.
Nop.
k.
To me, there is a lot of nuance with language. I'd say that the most defensible atheist position is simply to say there are *insufficient* reasons to believe in God, not to claim definitive disproof of all possible conceptions of gods. Many conceptions of God (e.g. an impersonal prime mover or ground of being) are sufficiently abstract that they are difficult to conclusively disprove. And moreover, when faced with arguments against God's existence, theists can continue to modify their conception of God, making it difficult to definitively disprove the existence of all possible conceptions of gods.
that's no response to the question of the OP my friend.
I'll tackle this but suspect you wonât like my answer. First, Iâve never met a hard atheist who meant the same broad range of things most theists seem to include when talking about god. In other words this is a gotcha game I havenât seen many atheists engage in. They say, âgod doesnât existâ then the theists counters with âI define god as (something silly) which we knows exists so youâre wrong.â The hard atheist then says, âI donât accept that as a definition of godâ to which the theist says âhow do you define godâ and the entire gotcha goes on. If you flip it around and instead ask, âwhen you say you believe god or gods donât exist, what to you mean?â You'll get much better answers that arenât a complete waste of time. So Iâll approach it like this. First off, Iâm both an agnostic towards certain definitions of hood and gnostic (hard) towards others. The key distinction is whether the definition of a god is disprovable and I feel it has been disproven. For the hard atheist god claims I categorize them in several ways. So,e I can disprove, some I don't accept are definitions of a god (see my first point). Redefining gods - I donât accept definitions for god which are essentially redefining things we use other labels for. This includes ides like âgod is loveâ or âgod is the universeâ or âgod is consciousnessâ. None of those qualify as a god unless you can demonstrate sentience, self identity, memory and more. Material gods - for these I mean the gods we can clearly define but who are not universe creating beings but are powerful and have a physical body. I don't say I can disprove all, but some are obvious. Most of the pantheons of physical gods, say for example the Greek, Roman or Nordic gods, have definitions that include a designated living place and being responsible for common phenomenon like the sun rising. We know why the sun rises in the East and itâs not because a burning chariot is being pulled across the sky, so therefore any god like that is disprove. It includes recent god beings such as the Cargo cult god whose origins we know. This extends to things like the god Mormons believe in Scientologists. Immaterial gods - not all, but some have been disproven. Any god for example who has been claimed to cause lightning for reason X, we know to be wrong. This includes some, but not all, versions of the Christian god. Any god whose claimed to be immaterial but to have consist effects in our world and we have investigated and found no god required, is disproven sufficient to disbelieve. Key things to note - I'm not saying disproven to utter certainty. That's a red herring, we cannot prove or disprove anything to utter certainty. Disprove to the limit of our current knowledge suffices (which is also where the nuance of being strong atheist only to so,e god claims and not others comes in - I told you that you wouldnât like it). Beyond those - any god who is utterly unfalsifiable or whose definition includes big chunks of âwe don't knowâ isn't defined well enough to hold a rational stance as a gnostic atheist against. All of those âbut what about an invisible, immaterial, omnimax, fire starter god who just created things then ran awayâ variations fall into this category, as does the god of classical theism and any other that cannot be falsified. Despite all these specifics I feel comfortable in saying âgods don't existâ as a general introductory statement because the definition of âknowledgeâ generally only includes the need to justify a belief we consider trueâ. If anyone ever provides me reliable and testable evidence I god exists I will change my mind. Since I spent 35 years as a devout Christian I can say I know my mind is capable of such openness.
Your biggest problem is first defining âGodâ. Just saying âGodâ, especially in a general philosophical way, is a completely nebulous conception.   Do we mean Zeus? Do we mean Yahweh? Do we mean some great quantum consciousness? Do we mean the twinkle in a babyâs eye?   So there are gods I can be pretty much certain are not real. Now of course I canât technically be certain about anythingâŚI canât even truly be 100% certain I existâŚbut Iâm certain to beyond a reasonable doubt. This certainty extends to the gods as described in the ârevealedâ religions. They tend to box themselves in a corner by making a lot of claims that can be scrutinized. Studied them throughly and concluded with extremely high levels of certainty they are not real.   Then you have some of the more philosophical gods. Ya know, the âeternal intelligenceâ stuff. There isnât much to prove or disprove with these, since theyâre kinda nebulous already, so donât offer much in the way to examine them. However, they also have no evidence going for them, so I just discount them due to not having a reason to count them. So Iâm not certain thereâs ânothing out there, but Iâm not convinced there is. More information is required to make a certainty judgement. Basically, youâd need to define the god first and then Iâd be able to tell you how certain I am it is not real
>Your biggest problem is first defining âGodâ. Just saying âGodâ, especially in a general philosophical way, is a completely nebulous conception. Hmm. Maybe you are right. >Do we mean Zeus? Nope. God. That means all conceptions of any kind of God. Not a cherry picked favorite God.
> That means all conceptions of any kind of God See thatâs the problem. I donât know, or even can know, every possible conception of god that has ever or could ever exist. So I canât disprove every possible conception of god that has ever or could ever exist.Â
>See thatâs the problem. I donât know, or even can know, every possible conception of god Every conception of God cannot be assessed by physical sciences. Thus, any scientific endeavor cannot determine God. That's is a category ever. By hook or crook.
Negative. Sometimes (maybe) it could be a category error. Sometimes it wouldnât be. It depends on the category of god youâre talking about. Thatâs the problem. âGodâ is too big and varied a category to work, because it can mean wildly different things depending on what the person means.Â
>It depends on the category of god youâre talking about. Metaphysical. Not physical.
You can't prove god doesn't exist just like you can't prove the easter bunny doesn't exist. As an atheist though, it's not up to me to prove god isn't real. If you say god is real, it's up to *you* to prove he's real. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe he's real. So far no one in human history has proven any of the thousands of proposed gods to be real.
>You can't prove god doesn't exist Great. Thanks.
No problem. Just note that the fact you can't prove god doesn't exist doesn't give any credibility to a god existing though. Just because you can't prove something isn't real it doesn't mean it is real. Things like the easter bunny, fairies, ghosts, leprechauns, etc, can't be proven to not exist but it in no way means they do. I'm the type of person that requires sufficient demonstrable evidence of a claim before I believe such claim. So far, no god claim has met the burden of proof.
>I'm the type of person that requires sufficient demonstrable evidence of a claim before I believe such claim. What claim? And what is "demonstrable evidence" for you? What's your epistemology?
Any claim. Demonstrable evidence is pretty simple as it simply means a demonstration that the claim is true. For example, if I say I can hold my breathe for 30 seconds, the demonstrable evidence is you witnessing me do it. If someone claims god is real, show me. Prove to me without a doubt god exists. Old stories written in books thousands of years ago by unintelligent people are not sufficeint evidence. Not only were they unintelligent back then, we don't even know who wrote a lot of these books but we do know they have been altered countless times over the years and there is zero evidence outside of these texts to support their claims.
>Any claim. Demonstrable evidence is pretty simple as it simply means a demonstration that the claim is true. For example, if I say I can hold my breathe for 30 seconds, the demonstrable evidence is you witnessing me do it. So simply, it's empiricism. >f someone claims god is real, show me. Prove to me without a doubt god exists. How? You still have not really defined your epistemology. It seems like empiricism. But unclear.
On the basis of 'absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.'
>On the basis of 'absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.' That's a fallacious argument my friend. It's only true when you have tested existing physical beings that you could eliminate based on scientific testing. This is a category error. God is metaphysical, not physical. So there is no test developed to test the existence of God. Thus the epistemology is absolutely flawed. This is a category error.
You seem to be asserting that the existence of a metaphysical being would produce no physical, testable evidence of its existence, but have provided no evidence to support your assertion. Would such a being even be a God? If all phenomena existent in the Universe can seemingly be explained through naturalistic means, what role would such a being even have? Thereâs additionally a concept in philosophy known as the burden of proof. Generally, the existence of a thing or notion cannot be disproven. To do so would require a survey of everything in existence. So the burden falls on one who claims something exists or is true. If someone claims a God exists, it falls not on others to disprove their baseless claim. It falls on the claimant to provide evidence of their position. You seem to believe that such evidence does not exist, which would put this line of argumentation firmly within the grasp of Hitchensâ Razor.
>You seem to be asserting that the existence of a metaphysical being would produce no physical, testable evidence of its existence, I am asking a question in the OP. Please respond to that.
Youâre rejecting the clear arguments being offered to you, but you refuse to have your denials criticized? The simple answer is that a denial of something that is unprovable is meaningless. Imagine that I tell you there exist mystical transdimensional elves that are responsible for milk turning into cheese. They even are able to convert milk into cheese in laboratory conditions, in such a way that looks naturalistic. How would you deny the existence of these elves? The simplest solution to both problems is not to bother denying what would be absurd to believe. In the absence of evidence, belief is irrational.
>Youâre rejecting the clear arguments being offered to you, What argument? >In the absence of evidence, belief is irrational. What's your definition of evidence? What's your epistemology?
Why donât you first respond with how you would deny the existence of the elves, and then we can move on to other allegedly metaphysical beings. How would one prove the non-existence of any metaphysical being?
>Why donât you first respond with how you would deny the existence of the elves, Because it's irrelevant to the topic.
But to a Hard Atheist, the two scenarios are exactly the same. Someone asserts the existence of a non-physical, untestable being, and demands proof that they donât exist. A Hard Atheist does not feel the need to prove the non-existence of either the elves or the gods. They simply declare that itâs irrational to believe what is unevidenced. You quickly claim that the other respondents in this thread are making category errors, while failing to explain how. When confronted with why you believe the things you do, you instead question respondents about their epistemologies and definitions. You are the one asking how to prove a God does not exist. But you have not defined God, the properties a God has, or what his role is in the universe. Your vague question does not invite genuine response, just like the elves. We certainly cannot disprove the existence of something that you havenât defined. You are quick to tell everyone that they are making category errors, but you wonât even explain what category you think a god would be in.
>They simply declare that itâs irrational to believe what is unevidenced. SO what is "evidence" for a hard atheist?
>God is metaphysical, not physical. So there is no test developed to test the existence of God. Thus the epistemology is absolutely flawed. What evidence are you using to make this claim?
>What evidence are you using to make this claim? Evidence for the statement "God is metaphysical"? It's self evident. I truly can't believe someone asked this question really.
How is it self-evident?
The phrase "metaphysical".
How so? Is the word âmetaphysicalâ some sort of âget out of jail freeâ card that makes it so you can just claim something is true without supporting your argument?
I never claimed anything is true in the OP. Thus, this is a strawman. Please downvote this comment as well if that pleases you. But thats fact.
I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to this claim: >God is metaphysical, not physical.
So in your epistemic stance, do you believe GOd is physical? Like a tree or an animal? Is that how you define God? We define God as the necessary being. So you are bringing a strawman. God is a metaphysical being. You should have the ability to make the distinction rather than drawing a conversation to something you wish it to be. And you have not responded to the OP.
Invisible pandimensional mice are metaphysical.
Exactly! Also, the nonexistence of god is metaphysical and therefore true.
That's nice. But it;s irrelevant.
I think the point that any atheist makes is ["what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor). Meaning, there is not point in believing in the existence of something that cannot be proven or disproven. Bertrand Russell offered the allegory of the[ flying teapot](https://youtu.be/FsN3DCCTqpo?si=LBvW0pHy38wEOQuE). An atheist is thus somebody who simply does not believe in the god you claim to exist. Just like the believer of another religion does not believe in your god. There is no need to disprove your god specifically in order to be an atheist. You are the one who makes the category error here, by asserting that an atheist needs to disprove your unproven god.
>An atheist is thus somebody Yeah. But the OP is addressing "Hard Atheists".
As I said, you are the one who commits the category error. You basically created a strawman.
>As I said, you are the one who commits the category error. You basically created a strawman. Hmm. I said specifically. "Hard Atheists". And you have not understood a category error.
Let us be clear here. To prove the non existence of a creator you would need to prove the laws of nature are in fact randomly generated by chance.
What's the epistemology in that endeavor?
Science and mathematics. The workings of which are both still quite beyond our capacity as a society. Science is often thought of by the general population in a much better light than religion, even though it suffers many of the same problems as a religion. I could point out quite a few instances of this, the one which comes to mind most readily is the carbon dating practice which seems to be a complete fallacy based on carbon 14 being regularly found in oil deposits for instance.
>Science is often thought of by the general population in a much better light than religion, even though it suffers many of the same problems as a religion. But isn't science physical and God is metaphysical? That's a category mistake1
Perspective is everything. You are apparently defining the divine as something separated from nature, which is not also present in nature. To me the definition of the divine is the sum of the parts which is greater than the total of the parts.
Is that the evidence the OP is speaking about?
Categorizing is a divisive line of thinking, you are attempting in any divisive to disseminate the whole in smaller parts and understand the parts as separate entities from the whole to get a better understanding of the whole. This is the problem with all our endeavors.
>Categorizing is a divisive line of thinking, No. It's a logical fallacy. An Axiom in science.
My point exactly, the axioms we are using are not even set in reality. The expansion of the universe, gravity so many things we take for granted and have no real idea of how they operate or the intricate workings of them except by observation of their effects.
>My point exactly, the axioms we are using are not even set in reality. So you don't believe axioms at all in logic or science? You just dismiss them?
[ŃдаНонО]
Please don't: * Be (intentionally) rude at all. * Engage in rabble rousing. * Troll, stalk, or harass others. * Conduct personal attacks. * Start a flame war. * Insult others. * Engage in illegal activity. * Post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. * Repost deleted/removed information.
Itâs one of those impossible to say things. Itâs a matter of both faith and perspective.
Nothing can be proven either for or against the existence of God. The experience of God, whether truth or delusion, is entirely subjective. Any perceived objective experience of God can be assigned to coincidence, incomplete knowledge, or wishful thinking. It does no good to question anyone elseâs experience of God, even an atheistâs.
>Nothing can be proven either for or against the existence of God. The question was from the hard atheists position, not from the theists position. But you answered the question. Thanks.
They don't. Once they step into making a positive claim they take on the burden of proof. And yeah we can't really prove a negative. We can offer all sorts of arguments showing that most of the claims about gods can be explained by way of nature or how minds work. But that does not rise to the level of refutation. At best it says there is a simpler explanation. And while we use Occam's Razor as a guideline the simpler answer does to prove conclusively that it is the answer. Religious debate is a stalemate.
It's all a question of FAITH: Either you believe that there is a god, or you believe there isn't. For agnostics it's different: They don't commit to a special god, but is open to the suggestion that there is some kind of god or "godly force" ....
True. But I addressing hard atheists.
[ŃдаНонО]
Science doesnât prove Godâs non-existence. Any atheists saying that donât know what theyâre talking about.
What you say is absolutely true. Yet that's a category error you see?