There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    So why do people still believe in God?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am god
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I don't read the Bible for scientific knowledge though...nobody does,
    Young Earth Creationists obviously do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAdviser)
    According to your logic if something is unable to be observed it doesn't exist. So multiverses doesn't exist and nothing existed before the universe and god does not exist as they are unable to be observed. I have revision to do so say something that is worthwhile and meaningful as I may not reply.
    Nope. I even clarified that "I did not say that things that WE are not able to observe do not exist.", after saying that I meant observable in the scientific sense.

    Again, we do not yet know whether or not we are in a multiverse or whether or not anything preceded the universe: but either way, they are possibilities based on our understanding. In the case of a supernatural being such as god however, we do know that they do not exist and that they do not have any effect on reality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Nope. I even clarified that "I did not say that things that WE are not able to observe do not exist.", after saying that I meant observable in the scientific sense.

    Again, we do not yet know whether or not we are in a multiverse or whether or not anything preceded the universe: but either way, they are possibilities based on our understanding. In the case of a supernatural being such as god however, we do know that they do not exist and that they do not have any effect on reality.
    How do we know this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    How do we know this?
    Because things that have no observable effect on reality do not exist and do not have any effect on reality. If such a thing was to be observed, it would be an oxymoron, so it is safe to say they do not exist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Because things that have no observable effect on reality do not exist and do not have any effect on reality. If such a thing was to be observed, it would be an oxymoron, so it is safe to say they do not exist.
    This doesn't logically follow. Looks like you're arguing for metaphysical naturalism via appeal to ignorance - a fallacious argument. You're making an absolute claim by asserting X does not exist; surely you can formulate a deductive syllogism for your position.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    This doesn't logically follow. Looks like you're arguing for metaphysical naturalism via appeal to ignorance - a fallacious argument. You're making an absolute claim by asserting X does not exist; surely you can formulate a deductive syllogism for your position.
    Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.
    Not really, no. The scientific method applies only to the physical world. Science, therefore, has nothing to say about anything other than the physical world, including whether or not anything other than the physical world exists. By bringing the scientific method into this you're just showing your ignorance of what the scientific method is, and what it's designed for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.
    Not so simple, I'm afraid. Knowledge of metaphysical naturalism bears a stronger burden of proof than mere "lack of belief" in the supernatural.

    The scientific method makes no claims about the ontological status of any unobservable entity.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Not so simple, I'm afraid. Knowledge of metaphysical naturalism bears a stronger burden of proof than mere "lack of belief" in the supernatural.

    The scientific method makes no claims about the ontological status of any unobservable entity.
    An existing thing that is unobservable (i.e. is not a part of the chain of cause of effect of the physical world) is an oxymoron


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    An existing thing that is unobservable (i.e. is not a part of the chain of cause of effect of the physical world) is an oxymoron


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Unless you're begging the question and assuming metaphysical naturalism (which isn't well-defined in contemporary philosophy anyway), not really.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Unless you're begging the question and assuming metaphysical naturalism (which isn't well-defined in contemporary philosophy anyway), not really.
    Things only exist by virtue of effects, no effects =/= no existence
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Things only exist by virtue of effects, no effects =/= no existence
    Who said so?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Who said so?
    It just seems self-evident to me. Like for instance, a thing doesn't precede its properties, a thing is the properties. And properties are defined soley by effects (or changes), i.e. the speed of a thing is defined by change of position over time, shape of a thing is defined by changes in the motion of other things around it, etc.
    Properties cannot be defined without change.
    In absence of properties there are no things.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    It just seems self-evident to me. Like for instance, a thing doesn't precede its properties, a thing is the properties. And properties are defined soley by effects (or changes), i.e. the speed of a thing is defined by change of position over time, shape of a thing is defined by changes in the motion of other things around it, etc.
    Properties cannot be defined without change.
    In absence of properties there are no things.
    There may be a more fundamental flaw than this, but I would point out that even if this were true these examples relate to physical objects only. No one believes God to be a physical object. This is just a category error. If physical objects exist by their effects, then so be it. God isn't a physical object.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    There may be a more fundamental flaw than this, but I would point out that even if this were true these examples relate to physical objects only. No one believes God to be a physical object. This is just a category error. If physical objects exist by their effects, then so be it. God isn't a physical object.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    God must have physical properties in order to exert physical effects.
    And if God is only made up of some form of abstract properties, then he is powerless and therefore not God.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    God must have physical properties in order to exert physical effects.
    And if God is only made up of some form of abstract properties, then he is powerless and therefore not God.
    Your first sentence is an assumption I'm not sure you can sustain. Who says you must have physical properties to exert physical effects? No theist does, given that, as an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, theists would argue that a transcendant creator (without physical properties - since no physical world existed) created everything in the physical world. There is also no way of testing your assumption, since it lies beyond the reach of the scientific method.

    From having 'abstract properties' it does not follow that God is powerless. Given that they are argued to have created the physical world, it is easy to see them as being superior to any physical property possible.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Your first sentence is an assumption I'm not sure you can sustain. Who says you must have physical properties to exert physical effects?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It follows from properties being defined by effect/changes. It's self-evident, not something that requires empirical evidence.

    From having 'abstract properties' it does not follow that God is powerless. Given that they are argued to have created the physical world, it is easy to see them as being superior to any physical property possible.
    If you follow my argument, the most that God can be is a first effect, the first change from nothing to something. Else God cannot be defined in any meaningful way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    It just seems self-evident to me. Like for instance, a thing doesn't precede its properties, a thing is the properties. And properties are defined soley by effects (or changes), i.e. the speed of a thing is defined by change of position over time, shape of a thing is defined by changes in the motion of other things around it, etc.
    Properties cannot be defined without change.
    In absence of properties there are no things.
    Putting aside the fact that platonists would disagree with your materialism and that the very notion of change, time and physical property could be emergent phenomena in theoretical physics, what makes you think changes must be confined to the physical world we observe?

    I don't think you've met the burden of proof required to rule out supernaturalism.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Putting aside the fact that platonists would disagree with your materialism and that the very notion of change, time and physical property could be emergent phenomena in theoretical physics, what makes you think changes must be confined to the physical world we observe?

    I don't think you've met the burden of proof required to rule out supernaturalism.
    Define a non-physical change?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.