OK, then God exists.

If you define God as "kitchen table", God exists.
If you define God as "teh internets", God exists.
If you define God as "Snapple cap", God exists.

See how much easier this is when we know WTF we're talking about?

How right you are.

God is everything yes.

I meant that people being guilty until proven innocent would be a result of putting the burden of proof on 'deniers'.

God is everything, everything exists, therefore God exists. Flawless.

It is incorrect to claim you cannot prove the non-existence of something including god (at least as defined by most theists).

Excerpts taken from the following link - http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/ipnegep.html

Indeed, there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something.

One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). I shall refer to arguments that rely on this method as "incompatible-properties arguments." Because incompatible-properties arguments attempt to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the very concept of the thing in question, incompatible-properties arguments are deductive arguments.

Incompatible-properties arguments can also be applied to states of affairs involving several objects. In other words, it may be logically impossible for two objects to exist simultaneously. For example, some gods cannot coexist with other gods. The god of Islam (Allah) and the god of Christianity (Jehovah), despite their common origin in the god of Judaism (Yahweh), are mutually exclusive. Jehovah and Allah, at least as traditionally understood, cannot both exist at the same time. Both claim to be the Creator of the universe, but they have contradictory attributes (e.g., Christianity claims that there are three "persons" known as God but Islam claims that there is only one). Therefore, Allah and Jehovah cannot both be "God"; at least one cannot exist.

The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is, in the words of Keith Parsons, "by carefully looking and seeing." The basic idea is that some objects are said to be detectable in some way. Either their existence is directly observable or their existence is not directly observable but the object causes effects which are directly observable.

But the most decisive refutation of Adler's claim that "negative existential propositions cannot be proven" is the fact that the claim that "negative existential propositions cannot be proven" is itself a negative existential proposition. If negative existential propositions cannot be proven, then that implies there are no proofs for negative existential propositions. But the claim that "there are no proofs for negative existential propositions" is itself a negative existential proposition. Therefore, Adler could never claim to have any proof for his claim that negative existential propositions cannot be proven.

http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/sc...-non-existence
http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/wh...-is-irrational

http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?p=13261:

It is impossible for science to disprove the existence of God. This is because "God" is undefined. In effect, you are asking science to disprove that an unknowable being of unknowable characteristics resides in an unknowable realm exercising unknowable powers. Or, in a more precise way, the question is 2+x=y, solve for x,y. What is "x"? What is God? Until the theist defines God, it is absolutely useless to state that one believes in God. One might as well believe in fairies, except of course the rest of us at least know what a fairy is, or have a fairly concrete idea. If you define what you mean by "God exists," a discussion can then begin. Until then, any argument against god will fail simply because one can redefine god in any way to dodge the assault.

All of this is, however, the ultimate proof of the falsity of the claim that "God exists." Since the claim has already been presented before the claim has been defined (since there are too many differing opinions from theists), the claim is without merit. God cannot exist because we do not know what is meant by "God," and anyone wishing to prove that God does exist can now pick up a bar of soap and say "Here is God, and he exists!" in which case the word "God" is a superfluous synonym for soap and completely unnecessary.

ok, see your point now.

Aw ****! I just asked my friend (who claims leprechauns exist) and he defined leprechaun as "everything" too. Now we have two competing theories.

Obviously God != leprechaun (I mean, how DARE anybody compare GOD to a leprechaun) so we're right back to where we started.

we should turn this into a funny proof thread...

God = Life
I = Life
I = God
I = jerk, not omniscient or benevolent
therefore god = jerk, not omniscient or benevolent?

Thread title made me laugh. People bothering to answer someone who doesn't understand the burden of proof is nearly as bad.

sigh

look, just look, who is it that is looking?

God is, just as you are, just as I am. Words are just words, concepts, ideas.
We are trying to explain the unexplainable.
Be part of all that there is, why limit yourself to being who you think you are.
Your part of it anyway wether you like it or not. Why fight it? You have something to proove? To whom?

Our House,

Your friend is wise, listen to him.
Better still, try to feel what he is saying.

you have been found guilty.

thirddan,

your location explains it

Touche.

what do you mean

Nice one! rofl

This is where it jumps. There is no proof one way or the other, nor can a negative position ever be completely proven, in standard sense. Boca's post, while informative and enlightening, does not apply to a general metaphysical reality. There can, however, be evidence presented as to the validity of either position. In fact, there is, as per Rushinankil's OP, only evidence. And it is an interesting point.

There have been plenty of evidential notions in favor of a metaphysical reality, teleological, ontological, etc. The bulk of evidence against such an entity is either A) philosophical argument against a Judeo-Christian God, or against a defined theology, not a blanket argument against any metaphysical entity or reality, or B) argument in support of the superfluity of a metaphysical reality, or C) the argument that no evidence is needed to counter that which has not been "proven".

OP's point, and Rushin, forgive me if I am misunderstanding you here, is that there has actually been evidence in support of the existence of such, while the evidence in favor of a position against such tends to all fall back on the "I don't have to prove it, it's lack of proof is proof enough" theory (point C), which is more cop-out than evidence.

Most of the evidence is not really evidence against a "God", in and of itself. Certainly, none offer proof. Point A is less a refutation of existence than a refutation ofdogma. The best evidence against it seems to me to fall under the B category, as that is what evidential presumption supporting existence is, as well. In other words, if science can explain the complicated intricacies we use to attribute strictly to God, then God is no longer necessary to explain that particular point. It offers a rational alternative to counter an evidential presumption. It's the"Occam's Razor" argument, and while it doesn't in and of itself prove anything, certainly presents compelling evidence.

Many of the responses here (not just in this thread, but on this board) seem to be extrapolations on point C, which is the weakest and often the most likely to slip into a tangential and semantic argument on process, not result. Most arguments of this stripe (for instance, Russell's Celestial Teapot) are merely a point of debate about who bears such weight, or why the evidence against such a notion is validated by a lack of evidential presumption. In other words, a tangential and often semantic argument. In the end, it dismisses evidential argument as not being "proof", while allowing the counter-position to assume a "show me" attitude that does even less, with a startling lack of precision as to the original premise. It is not, in fact, an evidentially defensible position, at all.

For instance, in the previously cited leprechaun example, the argument against the existence of leprechauns is valid because there has never been serious evidence of any sort to suggest leprechauns do, indeed, exist. No cosmological arguments, for example, or ontological, which would put leprechauns into any sensible, realistic context. Which is why the arguments decrying a burden of proof while comparing God to leprechauns, or Santa Claus, or straight white guys who can dance, ultimately fall flat. There is no serious evidence to support them in the first place.

Not to mention, the embrace of such an argument can be taken to the extreme of pure solipsism, with no real evidence allowed to the contrary.

I agree with the semantic point that Our House pointed out, that God is not by consensus defined, if for no other reason than there is such a heavy emotional investment. For the sake of clarity, though, regarding this particular debate, I think most see it as I did, a metaphysical reality or entity.

For the record, I am a theist, and a Christian. My theistic beliefs are matters of fideistic introspection and experience, and my identity as a Christian is because I find it to be a path that has helped me to enjoy a certain and ongoing spiritual evolution, although I am definitely more liberal in my theological beliefs than most Christians. That said, there is one rock solid argument that has made me question my faith, and I view it as the only real evidence that can be made that God may not exist. And that is the continued existence of the designated hitter rule.

And maybe Michael Bolton.

Other than that, I'm good.

Hold on, you're using a double standard here. Almost every argument proposed for the existence of a metaphysical reality rests on certain assumed properties of that reality, and most are arguments for the existence of a particular type of God or for a defined theology. Furthermore, to my knowledge, every one of these arguments has been firmly refuted or at least identified as being dependent on a set of premises that most unbelievers don't accept in the first place.

In other words, I think nearly all the arguments for a metaphysical reality falls under category A. In fact, I can think of only one that doesn't - the argument from incredulity.

In other words, atheists have arguments in three categories that you seem to view as weak, whereas theists have arguments in only two of those same categories.

All that is necessary. The only B argument that theists have is the argument from incredulity, and that is easily countered.

Again, all that's necessary. The only things an atheist needs to defeat in order to support his or her position is the argument from incredulity. And that is as simple as Russell's teapot.

This is a bit semantic. In the sense that all religious belief is dogma, point A is a refutation of dogma. That doesn't make it any less a refutation of all religious belief.

B is actually silly, IMO. God was never necessary to explain any point, nor will God ever be necessary to explain any point. God as an explanation is a form of the argument from incredulity - which in its crudest presentation (which I use because it seems most representative to me) goes "I don't understand x, therefore God must be responsible for x." This is a pure fallacy, and logically speaking we have no need to refute it.

On the contrary. It's the strongest argument in the atheist arsenal. A theist, or as someone who believes in a metaphysical reality, is saying "of the infinite range of possibilities, I know that this particular possibility is the single correct reality." Argument C just demolishes that position and thus theism itself. This may not seem intuitive (infinity is confusing), but let's put it this way. Imagine there are 10,000 unlabeled balls in a basket, but that each ball has a number associated with it. I pick up a ball from the basket. What is the likelihood that I have ball #1?

It's very low. Unless I have a very strong reason to choose ball #1 in particular, then if I claim to be holding ball #1 my claim must be viewed as weak.

Now increase the number of balls to 10,000,000,000. Now, if I pick a ball from the basket and want you to believe that my ball just happens to be ball #1, I must have some concrete evidence to present or my claim can be dismissed automatically. Imagine now that all of a million people each pick up a ball from the basket. And each one of these people claims that their ball is ball #1.

The logical conclusion in this situation, if none of those million people have clear concrete evidence that they are holding ball #1, or that any of them have any special knowledge of the ball numbers, isn't just that any given claimant is wrong about his ball number. That goes without saying (we know that at least 999,999 of them are wrong). But the logical conclusion in this case is that not one of the 1,000,000,000 people actually have ball #1! It's probably still in the basket, just as the "true" metaphysical reality is probably in the set of realities that humans haven't discovered (or can't discover).

Extend the number of balls to infinity and you see that theism is a pale thing. The problems are that some people have multiple balls, and some balls are associated with multiple people (instead of a one-to-one correspondence there is in religion a many-to-many correspondence), but we are steal dealing with finite quantities relative to infinity, and the probability of any religion being correct in the absence of special knowledge is still 0. This reasoning can be made somewhat rigorous, and it establishes that (in this case) the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence!

Russell's teapot is an easy example of this concept for the layman - there are probably plenty of things out there in the universe that are as surprising as the existence of Russell's teapot. But we don't know what these things are. Russell's teapot itself is known to be possible. But because that claim represents such a tiny subset of all possible claims, and because there is little evidence to set it above those other claims (Russell's postulating it can be considered evidence, but it can't be considered strong evidence given the sheer number of possibilities and the lack of a clear evidentiary link between observed reality and Russell's speculations), we can't rationally give the claim any credit. It must be considered impossible for our purposes. Just as leprechauns and God.

Uh, what? Would you like me to write up a cosmological or ontological argument for the existence of leprechauns? I can do so easily. Fallacious arguments are simple to construct in support of any proposition. In most cases simply substituting the word "God" with the word "leprechaun" (and the properties ascribed to the particular God with the properties ascribed to leprechauns) will do the trick. In other cases some extra premises may be needed - and you may not accept those premises, but then nobody in their right mind accepts many of the premises underlying the formulations of arguments for God, either.

And there have been plenty of cultures who have believed in leprechauns, with claims of evidence far exceeding, imo, those of religion. If you are claiming that your religion has significantly more evidence going for it than the existence of leprechauns, then you can try to claim your religion is more plausible than the existence of leprechauns. But I don't accept that claim, and I think you have an uphill battle to support it. Furthermore, you can only argue that there is a quantitative difference in the evidence for leprechauns and the evidence for your God, not a qualitative difference. Since our "denominator" here is "infinity," no finite quantitative difference in evidence is relevant.

Pure solipsism is lovely. You should try it (three times) before you knock it, that's my philosophy in life.

With whatever properties the person wants to ascribe to it at the time. This is always true of the religous.

em, what madnak said.......

Excellent points, and I will be glad to address them later, if you will permit me a few days. Every time I have logged on today, I have been called away. I just popped online for a moment, and I have a meeting at the bottom of the hour. Like I said, I have a busy weekend (wedding on Saturday, and it's fantasy baseball draft day on Sunday, and I have yet to scout out infielders), and I do have to earn a living. But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring such an well thought out and considered response.

Not that I wholly agree with you, you understand...

Although I look forward to serious cosmological (or I guess we should be saying cosmogonist...and, yeah, I think I misspelled that)) argument for the existence of leprechauns. Notre Dame fan, are you?

Yeah, I still have to get back to your response in the other thread myself. This site can really back up on you if you let yourself slip for half a second.

I anticipate lots of talk about what is and isn't "religion" and what does or doesn't constitute a reference to a specific (as opposed to a general) belief.

I always support the team with the cuter mascot. I figure it has to help with the ladies.

Most gods are derivative of the environment where they hold sway. In the harsh and unremitting environment of the ancient Near East, a harsh, unremitting sky-centered God took hold. In the more self-sustaining environments in many other areas, more sustaining earth-centered gods held sway. This is good evidence for man having devised his gods being more likely that one of those gods devised man.

[blind faith]All true..... unless you're talking about my god.[/blind faith]

I've gotta believe this is a level.

The question shows an ignorance of the scientific method. Our understanding advances as a result of experiments. Without experimental confirmation all we have is at best theories, or often more accurately fantasies.

Scientific advancement is littered with the remains of theories that looked good at the time, but broke down when tested experimentally. In fact I would suggests that almost all new scientific theories are doomed this way. However after undergoing trail by experimentation it is often possible amend the theory so as to approach a currently acceptable theory.

So what about God. Well what we need to do, is to derive some predictions for the ‘God theory’, that we can test experientially. We can then use the result to approach an understanding of the subject. Of course until we have some solid experimental evidence all we have is a fantasy.

As I don’t have any meaning for the word god, I guess I can use it as a placeholder for any fantasy our imagination has conjured up, most of which, with a little help can be considered to not contradict current scientific theories all that much.