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 RobML)
    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.
    God can be defined as the formless Cause of all causes; under occasionalism for example, all effects in the physical world are actualised directly by God, who is thought to be the Sustainer of the laws of nature.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Define a non-physical change?
    You've already provided a plausible example, but I don't have to. Again, arguments from ignorance are not enough to establish metaphysical naturalism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    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.
    "Only" the physical world? The physical world is "only" everything that exists, everything that is capable of being observed. If you have anything to say about anything else, it would be utterly meaningless.
    Offline

    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.
    Yes it does. Hypotheses must be possible explanations of the observable (including in the case of null hypothesis). "God" does not work as a hypothesis because there are no specified traits (e.g. omnipotence, omnipresence etc.) that are possible. Unless god is redefined, we can conclude it does not exist based on the evidence. Even if god as an explanation was a hypothesis and the null hypothesis was its non-existence, we would conclude that god does not exist based on the evidence. That is the extent of the situation: god does not even qualify to be dismissed in such a fashion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    God can be defined as the formless Cause of all causes; under occasionalism for example, all effects in the physical world are actualised directly by God, who is thought to be the Sustainer of the laws of nature.
    It could be defined that way, but it wouldn't be based on anything observable.
    Offline

    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?
    Within observable Reality, everything that has any meaningful effect and is observable are physical manifestations. It isn't a matter of who says it must be that way, it is more that anything which is observable is necessarily a natural phenomenon. (A supernatural phenomenon would be an oxymoron: if such an phenomenon was alleged to have taken place, it would necessarily have been a natural phenomenon).

    I think rather than people such as myself limiting the power of the supernatural (as I have been accused of), it is people such as yourself who are limiting the power of the natural.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Yes it does. Hypotheses must be possible explanations of the observable (including in the case of null hypothesis). "God" does not work as a hypothesis because there are no specified traits (e.g. omnipotence, omnipresence etc.) that are possible.
    Who's proposing God as a "hypothesis" for the observable? Hypotheses are posited to *explain* some range of phenomena; the question of existence itself however isn't concerned with that since one can reject cosmological and design arguments (which sometimes posit God as a hypothesis) without necessarily rejecting God's existence itself.

    How are the listed traits not possible? Can you expand on this? If you're arguing that God cannot exist because the concept thereof is incoherent, then that is far more interesting. That would qualify as an atheological proof against the existence of God; you would've met your burden of proof insofar as God is concerned, but you'd struggle to extrapolate your reasoning to the supernatural in general.

    Unless god is redefined, we can conclude it does not exist based on the evidence.
    No, we can't. At best we can lack belief in the existence of God; you still haven't met your burden of proof to be able to say "we know the supernatural doesn't exist". Appeals to ignorance won't help. This is basic epistemology.

    Even if god as an explanation was a hypothesis and the null hypothesis was its non-existence, we would conclude that god does not exist based on the evidence. That is the extent of the situation: god does not even qualify to be dismissed in such a fashion.
    Hypothesis testing is a highly practical and rigorous way to scientifically analyse data and is widely used in the social sciences. Anyone who has learned hypothesis testing, however, should be able to tell you its limitations and why it loses applicability outside of highly controlled, scientifically collected data.

    Simply put, applying the idea of null hypothesis testing to non-scientific, philosophical questions like theism is silly. I can get similar absurd conclusions when applying it to other philosophical questions: My alternative hypothesis could be that a world external and independent of our own minds exists and my null hypothesis is that it doesn't. Since there is no scientific measure that can be used to determine the statistical difference between the two hypotheses, I am left with the unrejected null hypothesis that external reality does not exist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    It could be defined that way, but it wouldn't be based on anything observable.
    It need not be based on observation for it to be internally consistent. It could be based on revelation, gnosis via enlightenment, or simply an axiom that underpins their worldview, which would include methodological naturalism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Within observable Reality, everything that has any meaningful effect and is observable are physical manifestations. It isn't a matter of who says it must be that way, it is more that anything which is observable is necessarily a natural phenomenon. (A supernatural phenomenon would be an oxymoron: if such an phenomenon was alleged to have taken place, it would necessarily have been a natural phenomenon).

    I think rather than people such as myself limiting the power of the supernatural (as I have been accused of), it is people such as yourself who are limiting the power of the natural.
    This presupposes that science can explain all observable phenomena, and that anything that science cannot explain, cannot possibly exist. But there's no reason to accept this.

    Let's consider a typical example of a supernatural occurrence: a possible ghost sighting - a smokey and hazy figure is observed. Obviously, this would involve the production of light, which will travel along space in the form of photons and interact with our eyes to create the visual perception of the ghostly figure. The ghost (and the photons) seemingly materialised out of nowhere, so how might a naturalist respond to this apparent violation of conservation of energy? He could say that the laws of nature are incomplete but the phenomenon could in principle be explained via science. A "matrixist" could argue that the such phenomena may be glitches in the matrix, and although it cannot be explained by the laws of nature in our universe, it could be explained in terms of computer science in the meta-universe. These are all logically valid possibilities. Likewise the supernaturalist could respond by affirming the validity of known laws as inductive generalisations that work fine most of the time, but sometimes said laws could be violated for a brief period of time - the phenomenon would be observable but nonetheless inexplicable in terms of science. All three lines of thought are ontological valid; which one you take depends on your prior metaphysical views.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=sf3XGql8wAY

    I think you guys should watch this
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=sf3XGql8wAY

    I think you guys should watch this
    You are wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=bupmrEtxv5w

    Please watch.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are wrong.
    Glad you found that useful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    This presupposes that science can explain all observable phenomena, and that anything that science cannot explain, cannot possibly exist. But there's no reason to accept this.

    Let's consider a typical example of a supernatural occurrence: a possible ghost sighting - a smokey and hazy figure is observed. Obviously, this would involve the production of light, which will travel along space in the form of photons and interact with our eyes to create the visual perception of the ghostly figure. The ghost (and the photons) seemingly materialised out of nowhere, so how might a naturalist respond to this apparent violation of conservation of energy? He could say that the laws of nature are incomplete but the phenomenon could in principle be explained via science. A "matrixist" could argue that the such phenomena may be glitches in the matrix, and although it cannot be explained by the laws of nature in our universe, it could be explained in terms of computer science in the meta-universe. These are all logically valid possibilities. Likewise the supernaturalist could respond by affirming the validity of known laws as inductive generalisations that work fine most of the time, but sometimes said laws could be violated for a brief period of time - the phenomenon would be observable but nonetheless inexplicable in terms of science. All three lines of thought are ontological valid; which one you take depends on your prior metaphysical views.
    If you can't simply look at the sun without squinting your eyes, then how do you expect so see the Almighty God?
    You can barely see his creation but yet want to see the creator. How ironic
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    amazing discussion...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    If you can't simply look at the sun without squinting your eyes, then how do you expect so see the Almighty God?
    You can barely see his creation but yet want to see the creator. How ironic
    Absolute non-sequitur. Why would God be blindingly bright just because the sun is? Light is a part of physical reality but God is claimed not to be.

    And why pick just the sun? What about the millions of things (still claimed to be God's creation) that we have no problem looking at?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Absolute non-sequitur. Why would God be blindingly bright just because the sun is? Light is a part of physical reality but God is claimed not to be.

    And why pick just the sun? What about the millions of things (still claimed to be God's creation) that we have no problem looking at?
    Are you actually serious? What kind of answer is that!
    Of course you can't see God, He is a spirit, not some form of LIGHT!
    And why not the sun? Whats wrong with the sun?

    Why argue so blindly...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Y'all need Jesus
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=RrtRhGOpeNY

    We tell you the truth, but your shallow minds just cant comprehend it.
    Wait its not that, you just dont want to admit there is a creator of this gigantic universe, so you want to devise theories that will make you feel better.
    Everyone knows there is a God, but because of pride and guilt you just cant confess it.
    Its amazing how you easily reject that which has saved your life.
    You dont need a million pounds from a plane that is about to crash from 30,000 feet. But you do need a parachute...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    Are you actually serious? What kind of answer is that!
    Of course you can't see God, He is a spirit, not some form of LIGHT!
    And why not the sun? Whats wrong with the sun?

    Why argue so blindly...
    So you're refuting yourself then. If God cannot be seen then the point about squinting at the sun is irrelevant.

    I just asked you why you picked the sun to make that point when the majority's of things can actually be looked at easily without having to squint.
 
 
 
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.