Proofs that God is imaginary

[Masada]

Why do you hate us egotistic and smarter-than-thou teenagers?

Your not on the list, you can spell.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

God can never be proven or disproved, period.

I would disagree. If you manage to come up with something like a set of criteria for when something is to be called "God" and when not, you could eventually quite easily end up with a proof or a disproof.

Trying to do either is like living in a sealed box for your whole life and attempting to ascertain whether the sky is blue.

However, I believe suggestions can be made. The observable Universe and the laws that have been discovered governing it so far suggest that God is not exactly an active participant in this universe, if he even exists at all.

Hell, what is God anyway? Everyone seems to act like it is a coherently defined entity, including me.

And quite likely implicitly assumes his or her version of what "God" is is also _the_ version of God.

If this universe was "created" why would such a thing be called "God" ? Why can't it be some nerd in an Alien science class who created the universe? That Alien would be as much a god as the people who make a 747.

I would reject an alien as a proper God because it lacks the criterion of necessity, i.e. that which if it is removed makes everything else vanish as well. In the case of your alien here it may be true that the universe is contigent on the alien's science project, however the alien itself will live (or whatever you call it) in its own universe upon which it is contigent.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I would disagree. If you manage to come up with something like a set of criteria for when something is to be called "God" and when not, you could eventually quite easily end up with a proof or a disproof.



And quite likely implicitly assumes his or her version of what "God" is is also _the_ version of God.



I would reject an alien as a proper God because it lacks the criterion of necessity, i.e. that which if it is removed makes everything else vanish as well. In the case of your alien here it may be true that the universe is contigent on the alien's science project, however the alien itself will live (or whatever you call it) in its own universe upon which it is contigent.

And why should such a criterion be trusted? Wouldn't such criterion be inherently subjective? Wouldn't such a definition be in effect a religious statement even if couched in scientific terms? Fact is, we are inherently agnostic about the potential aspects of such an entity, where we would look, and if it exists or not.

Can you explain your second statement? Are you agreeing with the second part? lol

You assume too much about God. However, going out on a leaf, the Greek gods(equally non-falsifiable) were governed by there own laws in myth. The deist conception of god basically believes that god is an absentee landlord, that which built the universe but doesn't interfere with miracles and such.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And why should such a criterion be trusted?

I am not sure if trusting has a whole lot to do with it. It is rather that you need something to which you refer to with the word "God". You want to make a meaningful statement after all. Agreement might be an issue, trust not so much.

Wouldn't such criterion be inherently subjective? Wouldn't such a definition be in effect a religious statement even if couched in scientific terms? Fact is, we are inherently agnostic about the potential aspects of such an entity, where we would look, and if it exists or not.

But being "inherently agnostic about the potential aspects of such an entity" (if I understand you correctly here) would also make it quite hard if not impossible to make any kind of meaningful statement about, well, uhmm. In the end it might be so bad that there is nothing to look for, or to exist, or that you could even be agnostic about.

Can you explain your second statement? Are you agreeing with the second part? lol

Do you mean if I am in agreement with this:
"Hell, what is God anyway? Everyone seems to act like it is a coherently defined entity, including me."
Yes, agreed.

You assume too much about God.

It is just a matter of definition.

However, going out on a leaf, the Greek gods(equally non-falsifiable) were governed by there own laws in myth. The deist conception of god basically believes that god is an absentee landlord, that which built the universe but doesn't interfere with miracles and such.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would disagree. If you manage to come up with something like a set of criteria for when something is to be called "God" and when not, you could eventually quite easily end up with a proof or a disproof.

And why should such a criterion be trusted? Wouldn't such criterion be inherently subjective? Wouldn't such a definition be in effect a religious statement even if couched in scientific terms? Fact is, we are inherently agnostic about the potential aspects of such an entity, where we would look, and if it exists or not.

My favorite definition of god is "that which is infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging."

And since it is a definition, it becomes an assumption upon which any number of rational and irrational structures can be built. Like all base assumptions, rational or otherwise, it cannot be proven.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I am not sure if trusting has a whole lot to do with it. It is rather that you need something to which you refer to with the word "God". You want to make a meaningful statement after all. Agreement might be an issue, trust not so much.



But being "inherently agnostic about the potential aspects of such an entity" (if I understand you correctly here) would also make it quite hard if not impossible to make any kind of meaningful statement about, well, uhmm. In the end it might be so bad that there is nothing to look for, or to exist, or that you could even be agnostic about.



Do you mean if I am in agreement with this:
"Hell, what is God anyway? Everyone seems to act like it is a coherently defined entity, including me."
Yes, agreed.



It is just a matter of definition.

@ what I bolded. Bingo. Basically, we have no idea about no idea, and whether said "no idea" entity exists or not.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

My favorite definition of god is "that which is infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging."

And since it is a definition, it becomes an assumption upon which any number of rational and irrational structures can be built. Like all base assumptions, rational or otherwise, it cannot be proven.

@ bolded, isn't nothingness basically God then, according to that definition?

Anyway, forgive me for my ignorance, but why can't basic assumptions be proven? I have virtually no philosophy background and am basically using my common sense as a crutch.

 

[Atticus]

If they are proven, they aren't basic assumptions anymore. If you don't assume anything you won't get very far. In this csae Birdjaguar just chooses to call the things that are infinite, eternal etc God. So he gets rid of the burden to prove that his God is infinte, eternal etc.

On the other hand his definition can be discussed. For example your nothingness argument is such discussion. But the way I see it, Birdjaguar wanted to define God to be everything that is infinte, eternal &c. So it includes nothingness, but isn't necessary equivalent with it. And someone might want to say that nothingness is rather finite than infinite.

 

[Fifty]

My favorite definition of god is "that which is infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging."

What do you mean by "infinite" in this context? Infinitely big? Infinitely old? Something else?

 

[Atticus]

Eternal implies infintely old, so I supposed it's infinitely big. On the other hand infinitely big makes god spatial. Perhaps it means that god is unrestricted and/or unlimited. Or maybe that it's infinite in every aspect.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

If they are proven, they aren't basic assumptions anymore. If you don't assume anything you won't get very far. In this case Birdjaguar just chooses to call the things that are infinite, eternal etc God. So he gets rid of the burden to prove that his God is infinte, eternal etc.

On the other hand his definition can be discussed. For example your nothingness argument is such discussion. But the way I see it, Birdjaguar wanted to define God to be everything that is infinte, eternal &c. So it includes nothingness, but isn't necessary equivalent with it. And someone might want to say that nothingness is rather finite than infinite.

Umm... wait, how was birdjaguar's statement true, that basic assumptions cannot be proven? If you prove a basic assumption, yea, it isn't an assumption anymore. But it is potentially provable, making what he said wrong...


Anyway, I was not aware that the definition he put forth was his actual belief, I thought it was some random definition that appealed to him somewhat. If that is the case, his definition is most definitely non-falsifiable. How do you prove infinite? You can't, it is impossible.

Anyway, if you accept nothingness as equivalent to bird's definition, then nothingness is God. Which ironically enough is a paradox I think. Because god would exist as nothingness, and nothingness is non-existent.


Can we even have a conception of nothingness? Wouldn't an attempt to view it render it somethingness, since you are intruding on it? Do we even know it in fact exists? I doubt it.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

What do you mean by "infinite" in this context? Infinitely big? Infinitely old? Something else?

I think he means infinite in terms of infinite everything.

Which would mean that I am a part of god, yes?

 

[warpus]

Surely a basic assumption cannot be proven - but just because something cannot be proven doesn't make it a good basic assumption

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Surely a basic assumption cannot be proven - but just because something cannot be proven doesn't make it a good basic assumption

Alright, I don't get it, lol.

 

[Atticus]

Umm... wait, how was birdjaguar's statement true, that basic assumptions cannot be proven? If you prove a basic assumption, yea, it isn't an assumption anymore. But it is potentially provable, making what he said wrong...

Basically if you assume something, you can also prove it (if I assume that x=2 it doesn't require much to prove that x indeed is 2). So I think he meant that it doesn't have to be proven.

What is provable and what is not depends on the system you have. Everything is potentially provable.

If that is the case, his definition is most definitely non-falsifiable. How do you prove infinite? You can't, it is impossible.

You can prove something from concepts and definitions. You can for example prove that there are infintely many real numbers from the definition of the real numbers.

On the other hand you can prove that something can't exist because it's concept is contradiction. In this thread people are for example some people have defined God to be omnipotent and benevolent, and with the knowledge of our world tried to conclude that it's contradiction that such God would exist.

Anyway, if you accept nothingness as equivalent to bird's definition, then nothingness is God. Which ironically enough is a paradox I think.

Well, I concluded at first also that BJ's definition isn't very good, since there might be more than one thing which satisfy the criteria (eternal, infinite &c), but then I understood that he probably meant that God is everything that is eternal, infinite etc. This way nothingness wouldn't be God, but only part of it.

Can we even have a conception of nothingness? Wouldn't an attempt to view it render it somethingness, since you are intruding on it? Do we even know it in fact exists?

Well, the point of nothingness is that it doesn't exist

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Basically if you assume something, you can also prove it (if I assume that x=2 it doesn't require much to prove that x indeed is 2). So I think he meant that it doesn't have to be proven.

What is provable and what is not depends on the system you have. Everything is potentially provable.



You can prove something from concepts and definitions. You can for example prove that there are infintely many real numbers from the definition of the real numbers.

On the other hand you can prove that something can't exist because it's concept is contradiction. In this thread people are for example some people have defined God to be omnipotent and benevolent, and with the knowledge of our world tried to conclude that it's contradiction that such God would exist.



Well, I concluded at first also that BJ's definition isn't very good, since there might be more than one thing which satisfy the criteria (eternal, infinite &c), but then I understood that he probably meant that God is everything that is eternal, infinite etc. This way nothingness wouldn't be God, but only part of it.



Well, the point of nothingness is that it doesn't exist

@ bolded, you certainly cannot, because trying to prove infinity would require infinite time. However, it is knowledge that numbers are infinite, due to the fact that we have reached googolplex, with no sign of letting up.

Responding to your last paragraph, BJ's definition is open to interpretation.

... isn't your last paragraph a contradiction?

 

[flyingchicken]

@ bolded, you certainly cannot,

Whaddabout induction? Or is it too rasist for you?

 

[Atticus]

@ bolded, you certainly cannot, because trying to prove infinity would require infinite time. However, it is knowledge that numbers are infinite, due to the fact that we have reached googolplex,

It's the other way round: the existence of googolplex numbers doesn't prove that there are infintely many of them, what if there is googolplex+17, or googolplex*googolplex? You can't prove it by counting the numbers, you can prove it only from the concept of real numers and the concept of infinity.

It's pretty easy to prove now: suppose you have only finite number, say M real numbers. Then you can choose real numbers 1,2,3,..., M-1 , M, M+1, and notice that there's M+1 of them. So the supposition is wrong, no matter how big M you choose, googolplex, googolplex+17 or googolplex*googolplex.

You can approach the God thing similar way: that it's existence or nonexistence follows from it's definition. What is harder then, is what you said earlier: to arrive at definition.

 

[Agent327]

hey plotinus if god exists then how come nobody has found the garden of eden and how come when we blast off to outer space we never reach heaven and how can hell be beneath the ground when geology says that there is no society of demons in the center of the earth just molton metals and whatnot?

sorry plotinus but clearly u have just been brainwashed to believe in religun and have no real education on these things... i suggest u should study theology and church history and philosophy (wikipedia is a good source and also books like this one) and try to get educated on these issues b4 you go further... contrary to what u say it is far from obvious that the bible is the infallible truth.

That's funny... Plotinus actually did/does study those... not on the net, but in real life. "the bible is infallible truth"? Says who? Not Plotinus.

Why do you hate us egotistic and smarter-than-thou teenagers?

Your not on the list, you can spell.

Funny, that.

My favorite definition of god is "that which is infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging."

What do you mean by "infinite" in this context? Infinitely big? Infinitely old? Something else?

Infinite simply means without beginning or end, limitless. Although something that is "infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging" doesn't seem to fit anything existing in the universe, nor God. Also, according to the Bible/Torah God changes his opinion a number of times (first in the Garden of Eden story, where he also seems to be taken by surprise by Adam and Eve's sin), as well as being susceptible to fatigue (on the 7th day he did rest), which would suggest God being subject to emotions and strain.

 

[Fifty]

I think he means infinite in terms of infinite everything.

I don't think that is what he means. At least, I hope not, because if that is what he means than it implies that God does not exist (indeed cannot exist, because we can think of "possible infinities" that are mutually contradictory).

Frankly I'd rather have birdjaguar's statement of his own opinion rather than other people's speculation about what he means.