Can we "know" God doesn't exist.

[edhopper]

One could argue we can't know anything. The age of the Universe, the speed of light, the certainty of evolution.
To me this is semantics, how we define scientific knowledge. What we mean by "know".

But at the level of scientific fact, however you describe that, wouldn't the existence of God fall under the same criteria as other things we "know" do not exists. The Ether that permeates the Universe, N-Rays, the Canals of Mars, the Steady-State Universe, the missing link, etc...
all ideas of a by-gone era that have been discarded because of lack of any evidence and evidence contrary to the concepts.

Thoughts?

[mountain grammy]

1. Nepal....

No god.

[GeorgeGist]

2. God is a theory ...

without the science/math to back it up.

Moreover, how did God begin?

[mr blur]

3. Not really, any more than religionistas can know that it does.

Yet you hear them claiming they "know God exists".

Of course they always miss the irony when they go on to say, "And you can't know that he doesn't!"

[edhopper]

4. Why is God different from

Unicorns or faeries or bigfoot? Can we know Satan or Shiva or Zeus don't exist?

[progressoid]

23. I'm not saying God is an alien but,

[edhopper]

26. As Epicurus would say

"Then why call him God".

[trotsky]

7. There's a particular defender of the faith here on DU...

who takes it upon herself to berate ANY atheist who comes even close to making the claim that gods don't exist, yet I have not ever seen her do the same thing to a confident believer who is CERTAIN their god exists.

But then again, that DUer is famous for her outrageous double standards.

[edhopper]

12. You will notice

I posted this here, not there.

[skepticscott]

5. So-called "strong atheism"

i.e. declaring that "god" definitely does not exist has to be taken one god concept at a time. When that's done, yes. We can know that god X (described in a certain way) doesn't exist the same way that smug agnostics know that Santa Claus doesn't exist, the same way that believers of all stripes have absolute confidence that the "gods" of some other people's religions don't exist.

To take a blanket position that there are definitely no gods of any kind, anywhere in the universe, is not an intellectually supportable position, however.

[edhopper]

8. I guess that would depend

on our definition of God or gods.

What if we confine it to the God 99% of believers believe in?

[trotsky]

6. We can definitely know that certain gods don't exist.

Basically any god about which has been made a testable claim.

So that pretty much covers most of the gods that have been postulated to this point. Only the nebulous "universal force" type gods don't fit into that category. And no, it doesn't count to retreat to that kind of god when confronted or questioned about it, then return to your personal savior whose body and blood you consume once the discussion is over.

[RussBLib]

9. No

but the lack of evidence for a god is rather overwhelming, magic books notwithstanding. And all the churches in the world do not prove anything except people like to build shit.

It's been demonstrated that the Bible was written by people around the 4th century (if memory serves), so this "inerrant word of God" is pure horseshit.

Millions of believers prove nothing either. Everyone believed the earth was flat until it was proved otherwise, so beliefs can be very fluid.

There is simply no point in my mind to devote hours to devotion/Biblical study when there is no evidence to back up the claims.

While I cannot say with certainty a god does not exist, neither can believers state with certainty that a god does exist. Why waste your time on ancient superstitions?

I will still self-identify as an atheist.

[mr blur]

10. Also, the cranks who make this nonsense up are always smart -

It's never: "Yes, God lives on top of that hill on a rock, right there!", it's never testable

It demands faith because faith is a great control tool. And negates the need for proof which, of course, can't be produced.

Which brings us to the good old "other ways of knowing". If you don't have them, you're not one of the Saved. Of course you get to keep your sanity and self-respect but they're not essential in church anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. I was about to get into that.

The problem is that the believers cannot propose a tangible definition of this god thing, in particular how it interacts with the physical universe. If the alleged deities do not interact it is as interesting a question as "does Harry Potter exist". If they do interact then we could then possibly prove the existence of gods by observing interactions that could only be explained by god. On the other hand if all of those classes of interactions can be demonstrated to be caused by other factors, if all the testable claims of "only gods do this" are falsified by providing other explanations, the best explanation of that is that there are no gods, as adding "god did it" when other simpler explanations are fully explanatory is superfluous.

Thus the hiding out in the gaps of the god-promoters, desperately hoping that they can continue to assert that their master of the universe must surely be the answer for some unknown aspect of the universe or other. Ultimately it is a dishonest game. The gods that were claimed to exist before the enlightenment destroyed the ancient cosmology were the ever-present deities of this planet, this planet was the center of a very small universe, a shell around the planet itself, and the gods managed the affairs of the world. The events that occurred on this planet were the handiwork of these gods. That world view died, well it is still dying (not quite dead yet) - it lingers on for example in creationism, in animist religions, but it is intellectually dead in the modern world.

The religious apologists have been busy for the last 500 years or so inventing ever more convoluted and dishonest arguments for why their dumb dead gods could continue to exist, and we are stuck with the exasperating task of having to admit that yes, we cannot prove absolutely that your easter bunny doesn't exist, but as proposing it does explains nothing and serves no value and hinders wider comprehension of the ever expanding reality of what we do know about the universe, it would be best for all if you would stop already with the bullshit. It isn't helping.

[edhopper]

29. That is very well said

I have been on other threads where i am told God can't be disproven because he is "outside the physical Universe.
My question is always, doesn't he interact with it, and if so, there must be evidence.

[AlbertCat]

40. he is "outside the physical Universe.

Indeed....if so how does he effect change or anything IN the universe?


And if there was magic or god and stuff like that, it would mean you could circumnavigate the laws of physics. The bread and wine CAN turn into the body of Christ. But to do so it must have or acquire the correct atoms and molecules and they must be put together in a certain way to become whatever part of some homo sapien with the DNA of Christ (His liver? His skin? His calf muscle?) And we may surmise how THAT could be done, but the 4 forces and all the quantum gobbledygook has to do whatever to allow for the molecular transformation, which I assume would require huge amounts of energy.... anyway, that isn't what happens when some priest prays over the eucharist. Nothing happens.... that doesn't conform to the laws of physics (whatever they are)

Anyway.... if there was some entity or situation where the laws of physics could be ignored or avoided.... you'd have chaos...and no universe at all.

As Victor J. Stenger says (paraphrasing) "The universe appears exactly the way it should if there were no gods at all."

[beam me up scottie]

30. Rec post.

Especially that last bit.

[whatthehey]

11. Logically self-contradictory ones only

The standard omnipootent omniscient omnibenevolent version is DOA, but to deserve the name, any god would have to be beyond human understanding. If for some reason a god wished to test human capacity to manage cognitive dissonance by implanting the concept of a benign deity in the face of seemingly random horrific diseases and natural disasters, that experiment would look an awful lot like reality. Such a god would not really be omnibenevolent of course, but all that means is most believers would be mistaken, not that a god like that is nonexistent.

Likely? Almost impossibly unllikely, but how would we prove otherwise? Does the mold in the petri dish know if the guy in the lab coat is a real PhD? Why, purely theoretically, would we be capable of disproving a god who wished to remain ineffable?

So all we can do is disprove specific god theories that are similarly impossible by either internal contradiction or incompatibility with reality. The married bachelor god is impossible. The triple-omni god is refuted by, for example, infant cancers. Bot Oogabooga the invisible Snake God spirit who implants evil thoughts into young men? Impossible to disprove. Even if we could neurologically determine the mechanics of every evil thought, how could we prove it's not Oogabooga causing those neurons and synapses and axons to do their stuff?

[edhopper]

13. Thanks

my only thought is that both the petri dish organism and the scientist share a basic, natural biological makeup.
Pretty much every god proposed by religions constitute a type of being for which there has never been any evidence. For a whole dynamic for which there is no evidence.

[whatthehey]

14. True enough. But we have to consider Flatland

An old and childish but slyly profound book. Most will know it but for those who don't it's a 3 dimensional figure trying to explain physical reality to 2-dimensional beings. Well worth a (re-)read when considering metaphysics. We understand the shared biology of mold and humanity because it is immanent in the world of our senses. There could be other biologies which are not. We cannot see UV or IR. We know they exist only because very clever people theorized, then experimented, then demonstrated. But try to explain them even to an intelligent mind like, say, Alfred the Great and you'll see a tiny sliver of the problem of humanity attempting to understand a putative god.

We are all in Flatland not just vis a vis deities but dimensions ourselves. Some physics equations, which I won't pretend to understand, only work if you posit 11 dimensions. I can't hope to explain that world. How could I hope to explain possible sentience not based on carbon?

Now let's be clear. I don't believe for a fraction of a second that some divine creator is lurking in the 11th dimension waiting to be demonstrated like infra-red light. It's so infinitesimal a probability it's not worth anything beyond idle metaphysical chit-chat like this. It's not impossible per se, and certainly not disprovable, but even if that one in a few quadrillion chance hits and some god ends up popping out of the multiverse's woodwork, I think we can safely bet it's not too worried about prayers, what we do on Sundays/Saturdays/Fridays, what some what some Levantine scribes put in the Torah/Gospels/Qu'ran, or how we use our genitalia, although the latter is likely to cause it some wry amusement.

[edhopper]

15. I''ve read Gamow

But of course every religion postulates a God that interacts with this dimension, for which, again, and after thousands of years, there is no evidence.

Can I restate my question to "Can we say we know none of the gods people have actually believed in exist?"

[Binkie The Clown]

19. I don't know fir sure that there is no god, but

I am very confident, to the point of virtual certainty, that the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god does not exist. I could go down a long list of other gods from various cultures and times and say with equal certainty that those gods are not real. But that doesn't give me license to rule out all possible gods. Consider Star Trek's "Q" for example. Could such a being exist? Would we classify that being as a "god"? I don't know. But I certainly have no solid grounds to rule it out.

[whatthehey]

25. The bugger is, not entirely no

Yes we are playing what if games with absurdity, although in talking about gods, what else is there? That said, let's say the Muslims got it almost right. Allah is the big transcendent cheese and he wants us to be charitable, go on a hajj, pray 5 times a day and whatnot. They got a few things wrong of course. Transmitted stories always do. The midnight trip was a hallucination, he couldn't give a toss about pictures of Muhammed, and there's no need to snip anything off the pork sword. But Allah is real, created the world, and wants us to worship him in a unified Islamic global community pretty much as the Qu'ran says. He is, as let's be honest such a being would likely be, not interested in getting involved in the world on a day to day basis though. The way he sees it, he guided evolution to give us brains and we have to stand on our own two feet.

How would it be even theoretically possible to disprove that? We haven't seen Allah? He doesn't get involved. No miracles? They were always made up. He just implanted the truth about himself in Mohammed who got overexcited, which is hardly implausible that he would have. Doesn't matter on earth if we follow the 5 pillars or not? Darn right, but wait till you're dead, buster. All this stuff sounds suspiciously syncretic with other ME religions? Yep surely. Allah kept trying to explain it all to Abraham and Jesus but the buggers got it all confused. Any rationalist objection falls down before absurd but theoretically plausible explanations, and what they say about absence of evidence keeps on smacking us upside the head.

The only reason this doesn't bother me is because I no more need to prove it false than I need to prove Star Wars is fiction. This is an exact analog. George Lucas could simply be an inspired astral projector who saw the truth on a OBE. It's utterly impossible to logically prove that wookies did not exist in a far far galaxy....but that doesn't mean I need to think anyone who believes they actually did isn't anything but a laughably deluded maroon. Religion's pretty much in the same bag really.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Another great post!

'We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”"

― Gene Roddenberry

[AlbertCat]

41. invisible Snake God spirit

well, is there spirit?

But if it's a "snake god", invisible or not, it must have certain attribute and anatomy to be a snake. If it has "no anatomy" then it can't be a snake.

[Curmudgeoness]

16. I know that God doesn't exist.

At least, in the same way that I know that ghosts do not exist, or that people have been abducted by aliens, or that my horoscope is real. If I was not 100% certain that there were no gods, I could not declare myself to be an atheist....because Pascal's wager.

[edhopper]

17. That's true

Somehow God, as unlikely a concept that is, gets a ultra heavy burden of disproof, as opposed to any other supernatural or paranormal idea.

[Binkie The Clown]

18. Steady State Universe?

That's one that we really don't know for sure. The big bang theory is not universally accepted, and some recent observations cast a bit of doubt on it.

One has to be very careful with the word "know" in science. Do we know that the universe is expanding? No, we don't. We observe that more distant objects are more red-shifted than closer objects. We assume that velocity is the only thing that causes red shift, and from that we deduce that distant objects are moving faster, and that therefore the universe is expanding. The weak link is the assumption that velocity is the only thing that causes red shift.

We "know" that the universe is expanding with the same degree of certainty that the 19th century geologists "knew" that continents don't drift around. But there is no final point where we can say that we know all there is to know, and tomorrow's discovery may turn today's "knowledge" on its head.

As for "god", no we can never know that there is no god. We cannot know that there are no unicorns. Perhaps on some distant planet the process of evolution resulted in what we might call a "unicorn". Until we have examined every square foot of every plant in the entire universe, we cannot "know" that there are no unicorns.

[edhopper]

27. Not really

the evidence for the Big Bang and an expanding Universe is much, much greater than what 19th Century Geologist had.
The better analogy is we can be as confident in the big Bang as we can in plate tectonics.

The recent speculation is just that, a few scientist speculating.

[AlbertCat]

42. We assume that velocity is the only thing that causes red shift

Actually...we don't.

Velocity is different from expanding space. We assume we see red shift because of expanding space, not velocity. That's why eventually things will be moving away from everything else faster than the speed of light.... because it's not velocity.

And we have math to help us realize these concepts... and we know math is real.


And the expanding is everywhere. The space between you and your PC is expanding. The space between the atoms in your body is expanding.

And space expanding is not like a balloon being blown up either. The universe is not expanding into some kind of space outside it.... it's just expanding... period. But that is almost impossible to "get" because our only experience with expansion is into the space already created by an expanding universe.

"The weak link is the assumption that velocity is the only thing that causes red shift." No more weak link!

[Binkie The Clown]

43. You're very probably right.

I was using that one example to illustrate that we never have certainty in science, and we can never prove a negative.

As for the math, yes the math works. That's what math does. But the math is a model, and if the model is wrong, the math still works. It just no longer corresponds to reality. In putting faith in "the math" you're really putting faith in the applicability of the model. Newton's math worked, until better observations showed that it didn't. Regardless, Newton's math still works. It just doesn't always correspond to reality.

[edhopper]

44. Let's leave the large cosmological questions for now.

My other examples, the Universal Ether, N-Rays, etc.. can and were disproven.

The original theories for proton decay failed, when what is predicted by a theory isn't observed, it's time to rethink the hypothesis.

The God hypothesis has failed in the observation.

[Binkie The Clown]

46. I agree on a practical level,

which is why I am an atheist.

On a deep philosophical level, however, things are not always so cut and dried, which leaves room for entertaining creative speculation. For example, given a sophisticated enough computer simulation, occupants of that simulation should not realize that they are part of a simulation programmed by a Giver Of Data, who enjoys watching his program run. Would there be any evidence of the existence of an "outside world" from inside the simulation? Is there any evidence to support the "biological brain" hypothesis from within a dream? While in a dream, go where you will, examine anything you like, and you will never find the brain that is dreaming the dream.

From the perspective of science, that's all unsupported nonsense, of course. But from a philosophical perspective, it's fun to speculate about.

[edhopper]

47. True

but it's the difference between talking about science and science fiction.

I don't mind debating Superman vs the Hulk.

There is a mindset that anything that is possible has to be considered probable. And it's not just among believers.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I can know that XYZ claims of specific gods are bullshit.

Can I know there are no supernatural entities that are sort of like the various claims of gods made by humans, and they don't want us to be able to see them? No, I can't know that for sure, but when humans make claims about gods, those gods are by definition accessible to us in some fashion or another.

I have yet to find a claim that passes muster.

[salimbag]

22. Wow!

This thread is an example of why I joined this group. Intelligent discourse and civility. Thank you.

[edhopper]

28. your welcome.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. Of course not.

And we can't know that leprechauns don't exist either, because they're little and they hide. And if you picked the whole world up and shook it, there's no telling what creatures might fall out.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Nothing to add, everyone else has already noted why it's impossible to argue the point.

But I would like to say, once again, that I love this group, you guys all rock.

[edhopper]

34. impossible to argue with believers

not impossible to show there is logically is no God.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Agreed!

[edhopper]

37. Thus i posted this here

and not there.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. I have seen no evidence that god exists.

I want evidence. Nothing but wishful thinking. So that makes me an atheist. I rely on scientific principles that explain how the world works.

[onager]

36. Same here. And all believers seem to have two gods...

God #1 - the god for the in-crowd, the god who really does work miracles. Like saving one person when a tornado hits, and killing everybody else. Go to just about any believer website and you'll see miles of posts about that god. And people dismissing his apparent arbitrary cruelty with "mysterious ways" etc.

God #2 - only makes an appearance when non-believers show up. This is the cool, rational god who invented science and is only revealing its mysteries slowly because our poor human brains can't comprehend it all. Even though, you'd think such a god might give us an answer for something useful we can comprehend. Like eliminating birth defects. You run into this god a lot in Certain DU Groups. See also "Sophisticated Theology."

Anyway, as you said, I'm still waiting for evidence.

While I'm here - these discussions remind me somewhat of the "historical Jesus" fights.

Would it matter to me if archeologists discovered that a Real Jesus existed? Complete with, say, a toe-tag from the Jerusalem morgue positively identifying him?

Not really, because I don't believe Jesus was the son of any god. Or in any other way was a supernatural being. Finding out he existed as a real person would be interesting, but it wouldn't suddenly turn me into a Xian.

Absent any other real evidence, I'd probably continue to believe what I believe right now - that the Biblical Jesus was a composite character, cobbled up from memories of the many fanatical religious leaders cluttering up Judea during the First Century CE. (Something for which we do have some evidence - the writings of Flavius Josephus, born circa 37 CE and resident of Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman Wars.)

[edhopper]

38. It's like the psychics who have

ample demonstration of their abilities, except when a skeptic shows up.

[truebrit71]

39. Isn't there a third one? You know, the one that shows up on toast...

... or a dog's arse? Never on ABC to sit down for a chat with George Stepanopolololololos... but on a pomegranate, or in a squirrels nest....

[onager]

45. LOL! That reminds me of "I, Claudius."

IIRC, Claudius is musing on the Jewish god and says something like: "Their god is always angry, and he must be very small. He hides in a box called the Ark of the Covenant and nobody is allowed to see him."

Then there's this scene, when Augustus is talking to Herod Agrippa, king of the Jews:

Herod: Caesar, it's true: Jews love gambling. But we fear our god more.
Augustus: Which one?
Herod: We have only one, Caesar.
Augustus: I've never understood that, it's quite insufficient. Why don't you take some of our gods? You know, plenty of people do.
Herod: Believe me, Caesar, the one we have is hard enough to live with.

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. No.

Nor can we "know" the non-existence of other things. All we can do is be reasonably sure that certain things do not exist based our repeated attempts to test them.

I think this has more to do with epistemology than semantics.

[edhopper]

49. That is probably a better term for it.

But you would place God in the category with faeries, unicorns, Bigfoot, ghosts, demons etc...

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. Absolutely.

I would, at any rate.

[edhopper]

51. So it would come down to how

we personally define "know" when talking about it.

Or if we have an agreed upon definition.

Without invoking "other ways"