Would this constitute evidence that there is no God?

[edhopper]

That there is no object, event or manifestation in the Universe that needs God or a godlike entity to explain it's existence.
And that any God or godlike entity is superfluous and only adds a needless layer of complexity to any organizational model to the universal construct.

[stray cat]

1. No - its hard to prove anything with negative data.

[Ian David]

2. Yes, if you can convince others your original premise is correct.

There will always be those to whom "I do not understand" and "unexplained" and "unexplainable" are all the same.

[Zoeisright]

3. Occam's Razor.

All you need.

[moobu2]

4. Yes, the problem is

believers just make up some new god rule.

[Thothmes]

5. So, your point is?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Yes, that would absolutely prove God is imaginary. nt

[tridim]

8. The Universe is much more interesting that the God man invented

That's all the proof I need.

[dcsmart]

9. no, i do not think it would

even though
"there is no object, event or manifestation in the Universe that needs God or a godlike entity to explain it's existence"
does not mean a god does not exist. god's existence would not be contingent on how well its existence could or could not explain events.

some would also say that postulating a god removes layers of complexity when determining the origins of the universe.

[edhopper]

13. That simply moves the complexity back one

to the God entity.

[starroute]

10. The problem is that doing away with a belief in God ...

... does not do away with the questions that the concept of God was originally designed to address.

The real issue is that religion doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with science. It doesn't have anything to do with objects or events or manifestations. Granted, the fundies have done their best to get religion and science all tangled up together -- but even if you get them untangled, there's still *something* left on the "religion" side of the ledger.

The real question, though, is *what*.

We humans almost universally have intimations of something going on beyond the universe we can see and feel. We may have a sense of a protective presence at moments of crisis. We may have mystical experiences of being one with something larger than ourselves. We may have sudden recognitions that real nature of the universe is vastly deeper, simpler, and more beautiful than the rather messy chaos we slog along in on a day-to-day basis.

The concept of "God" was invented to explain all of those things. I happen to think it doesn't actually do a very good job of explaining any of them and just gets in the way of real understanding. Taking "God" out of the picture may be useful because it forces us to grapple with the real questions -- but the questions are still there and we still have to grapple with them.

Those are not questions science can answer. Science may noodle around the edges with theories about brain chemistry or information theory -- but at most that provides a little context and not actual explanations.

The real questions are, and always have been, Who are we? and What are we doing here? And those are questions which neither science nor "God" has ever been able to answer.

[tridim]

11. All those questions can be pondered without inventing and injecting a "god" into the mix.

[Deep13]

15. I'm sorry but you're wrong.

It's not just the fundies. Religion began in part to explain how the world worked. The more we learn, the more real knowledge intrudes onto the previous territory of religion.

"We humans almost universally have intimations of something going on beyond the universe we can see and feel. We may have a sense of a protective presence at moments of crisis. We may have mystical experiences of being one with something larger than ourselves. We may have sudden recognitions that real nature of the universe is vastly deeper, simpler, and more beautiful than the rather messy chaos we slog along in on a day-to-day basis."

Of course this is not even an argument for, let alone proof of, a a god. All of this has its basis in the peculiarities of human psychology. The human mind is programmed to recognize patterns and to infer purpose even where none exists. It is a survival mechanism. False positives do little to ones chance at survival, yet a single false negative can mean disaster. The fact is, reality IS chaotic. Why would you reject what is obvious to your own eyes and other senses in favor of a vague feeling anyway?

"Those are not questions science can answer. Science may noodle around the edges with theories about brain chemistry or information theory -- but at most that provides a little context and not actual explanations....The real questions are, and always have been, Who are we? and What are we doing here? And those are questions which neither science nor "God" has ever been able to answer."

Science has answered those questions. I understand that many don't like those answers, but they are the answers nonetheless. And, as you say, even if science is unable to answer a question, that does not mean religion can answer it. So far ALL of our answers come from scientific means and none of them come from religion.

[Jim__]

12. Yes, if you could prove that universal negative it would constitute evidence ...

... that god does not exist. However, to prove a universal negative, you have to show that it its negation is a contradiction (e.g there are no round squares) or that it is analytic (there are no white crows where non-white is an attribute of the definition of crow).

I think an easier approach is to ask for a definition of god and then prove that the existence of such an entitiy constitutes a contradiction.

So far, I don't believe anyone has been successful in proving either there is, or is not, a god.

[Deep13]

14. partly

A god that has done all the stuff gods supposedly do would have left a lot of fingerprints including evidence of real purpose in the universe generally and in life in particular. As is it is, not only is there no evidence of that stuff, but there are counter-indications. For a god who wants to be known and worshipped or at least appreciated, he sure isn't making it easy. Add to that the human mind which has the ability to imagine nonexistant things and has the propensity to assign purpose to everything. Plus the fact that we believe what we are told even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is a survival skill in children, but man of us never grow out of it.

If you want to prove that there is no cat in a room, one gets a flashlight and looks everwhere a cat might be. Once every space has been examined and there is nowhere else a cat might hide, one has proven the negative. I am convinced that science has done this and found no gods in anyplace evidence of gods should be.

[humblebum]

16. It still boils down to "from nothing, nothing comes" and

"something cannot create itself". the only way that your premise can have any validity is by using positivist logic,which is narrowly focused and not used by the majority of scholars today because it is so narrow. However, it works great for atheists when they are attempting to make a point. It's the same thing as stating "if you cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch something, then it does not exist.

[Lerkfish]

18. actually I think you're equating empiricism with atheism, there.

although there are overlaps, I don't believe that they are equal positions.

Neither atheists nor theists can prove or unravel the "something cannot create itself" conundrum.

if one believes the big bang explosion is the origin of the universe, then what, exactly, exploded, and where did that matter come from?

[humblebum]

19. most positivists are empiricists and if one applies strictly an empirical

method to the question of diety, then science doesn't even have the capacity to address the existence nor non-existence of diety. However, if a rational-empirical argument is made then some degree of subjectivity can be added to the empirical evidence. Positivism, though, completely ignores anything non-empirical, which means it is totally limited to that perceived by the senses, period.

[edhopper]

21. So God

can be created from nothing, but the Universe cannot?

[Lerkfish]

17. no, because it makes a definition based on an unproved suppostion.

"And that any God or godlike entity is superfluous and only adds a needless layer of complexity to any organizational model to the universal construct."

that is your supposition to disprove God, but it itself is not proven.



I could use the same argument against DNA, and be wrong.

"And that any double-helical structure is superfluous and only adds a needless layer of complexity to any organizational model to the universal construct."

or, what is your proof to that statement?

[tama]

20. What needs explaining?

Why is explaining necessary?

[mikelewis]

22. What is a God?

Hasn't just about every civilization attempted to provide an answer to that question? The Aztecs and Egyptians looked up at the sun and recognized the power that the sun had over their lives and called that a Supreme God. But they also called rain a God, and death and the moon and many other natural powers represented a God. The Greeks and Romans however saw Man as the Gods of the earth and our emotions and passions became our Gods. These Gods slew the Gods of the Earth, in some respect. As the Gods of the Man's soul waged war, the idea of one conquering all powerful God began to form and the people of the earth fought for control of the answer to that question. What is God?

It does matter, you know. Regardless of what you believe, you must recognize the fact that billions more actually do believe... and you must recognize that this "non-existent" Godlike entity created through the collective beliefs of billions does have an impact on the very nature of our society. We need only look to the last 8 years to see that how we answer that question can have a serious and devastating impact on the world. God told George Bush to invade Afghanistan and Iraq... that's what he said... and people believed him and a great deal of people died because of it. How odd that such a non-existent thing could have such a terrible impact.

Also, I hardly think you can kill a God by just denying it exists. People are naturally going to feel the yearn for a God. In the absence of a proper definition, they will create their own. The conjuration of a religion within a society is an inevitable step in their development. As I stated earlier both the Aztec and the Egyptians recognized the power natural elements had over their lives and created similar God as a result... and they developed completely independent of one another separated by thousands of years and vast oceans. So even if you should manage to kill this non-existent God, it will just re-spawn. Like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, a shadow shall once again loom in the East and this dark God shall rise again.

So, even though we might hate the hypocrisy of it all, we must still strive to define the nature of "God". This in no way requires you to believe anything that you do not believe... to accept the concept that there is a quasi-magical force that is created through the faith of millions which allows them to act in unison towards a particular goal should not be a heresy towards your devout atheism. You have to admit that the definition of this force can and has influenced both positive and negative consequences on the very nature of the world we live in. Like a hurricane or Tsunami, the wrath of an angry God could devastate the world. Even though it doesn't exist, sometimes, neighbors kill neighbors, fathers kill sons, mothers kill daughters, nations kill nations because they have a nightmarish definition of God.

If man could control this God power and use it for good there's no telling what benefits could be derived. Say that our created God would want Americans to have free health care, guaranteed employment, safety and security at home and abroad and graces us with a passion for arts and music and kindness toward one another... that wouldn't be such a bad thing. But we let monsters define the nature of God and we get a monsterous God-like force tearing havoc through the fabric of our society. God may be a delusion but that delusion has immense power and is capable of either condemning the world or saving it... depending on how people see it.

I also feel that you're not going to rid people of this God idea because they naturally feel the desire to bond with that energy. Millions of people are like moths to a flame towards religion because there are certain pleasurable psychological benefits to organized religion. There is a reason Marx called it an opiate. People really do get a high from God... watch a church gathering. Some of these people in the active churches are generating a lot of energy... they're jumping and screaming and carrying on in front of a whole room of strangers (and ironically on Monday they're sitting in the cubicle next to you). Some force that this person recognizes as God, whether internal or external, real or perceived, is generating that physical interaction and that physical interaction is a reality.

Now I have not advocated for a particular God or ideology, because the concepts which I have discussed are not beings that are sentient and all-powerful in nature... the God I am talking about is a man made creation born through united belief and concerted movements which are able to be used as tools to suite an end... A god can lead a people into war and a god can lead them to peace, it just depends on the collaborative beliefs of the people who follow that God and those that define it. However, there is a possibility that it is not we who created that force of collective wills. A great deal of people believe that it is we who are created from that power source and that our understanding of the nature of that power source will either bless us or curse us as a people... but that is a wholly different topic of discussion.