- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

what is the most powerful debate to prove that god does not exsist?

#22

#20 yep,turtles all the way down

#20 yep,turtles all the way down
#24

This is my theory of how "God" was formed....
Thousands of years ago, we, of course, have no idea of the slightest science (maybe a little, but not enough). And we, as humans, naturally are curious and want answers to things. Things may have been mysterious back then, for example, we wonder how water just randomly falls from the sky (evaporation and condensation), how humans live in the first place, etc. And so, of course, we feel unsettled not knowing these answers, and the pieces "fit" together so that we believe there is god. (Because having a god of water to pour down rain, which, coincidentally, is what crops need, naturally is easier to think up of than water going through a cycle of evaporating, gathering up into clouds....you get the point).

This is my theory of how "God" was formed.... Thousands of years ago, we, of course, have no idea of the slightest science (maybe a little, but not enough). And we, as humans, naturally are curious and want answers to things. Things may have been mysterious back then, for example, we wonder how water just randomly falls from the sky (evaporation and condensation), how humans live in the first place, etc. And so, of course, we feel unsettled not knowing these answers, and the pieces "fit" together so that we believe there is god. (Because having a god of water to pour down rain, which, coincidentally, is what crops need, naturally is easier to think up of than water going through a cycle of evaporating, gathering up into clouds....you get the point).
#27

Nonexistence can only be proven within a formal set of axioms.

For example: Mathematicians can prove that no real number exists, such that the square of that number is negative. Why? Because it directly follows from the axioms, underlying the field of real numbers, that any positive real number has a positive square, while every negative real number has a positive square as well. And since all positive real numbers and all negative real numbers taken together clearly constitute ALL real numbers (except 0, which doesn't matter because 00=0 is also nonnegative), it follows that the square of any real number is nonnegative. This proves that there exists no real number with the property rr<0.
Being a real number and having the above property are logically mutually exclusive.

In science there is no such formal set of axioms (unlike mathematics), so science cannot prove the nonexistence of something. Lack of evidence of existence is not evidence of nonexistence. Even if the universe was only 1 cubic meter in volume, you still couldn't scientifically "prove" that there is not a >insert desired entity here< in it. Just because you don't see it anywhere (and have looked "everywhere") with your limited human eyes, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
One might bring forth logical/philosophical arguments, claiming that something with contradictory properties cannot exist (in a logically consistent world [but who says our world conforms to human logic?]). But if something is not said to have contradictory properties, then even in philosophy there is no way of proving its nonexistence.

There are no proofs (in the literal meaning) in science at all. All science does is to make testable hypotheses (which make predictions that can be experimentally examined) and to try to falsify them. If experiment succeeds to falsify a hypothesis several times, scientists become more and more confident, that the hypothesis is false (and if no systematic errors were made, the hypothesis indeed is false).
If however experiment fails to falsify the hypothesis (if the findings match the hypothesis's prediction up to experimental uncertainty), this doesn't mean that the hypothesis is true. If that happens over and over again, scientists become more confident that the hypothesis is not extremely false (this is not equivalent to saying it is true!). But they can never be sure.

Newton's gravitational theory (published in 1687) made predictions which were not falsified until hundreds of years later (e.g. in 1859, when its predictions regarding mercury's orbit did not match ever more precise observational data anymore, revealing a slight precession of mercury's perihelion, which newtonian gravity cannot account for). In fact, this remarkable theory of gravity turns out to be false. But only after probing it in regimes (of observational precision) which were not available at Newton's time. It's still a useful model and sufficient for many applications (sending rovers to Mars and probes to the outer planets), which require lower precision. But it's not true.
The same probably applies to most modern scientific theories. They are applicable in a certain regime of measurement (where they have been tested and seem to accurately describe nature on those scales), but will probably some day fail, when probed more precisely. That doesn't mean they are useless. But they are not necessarily fully true.

My point is: Neither "God does not exist." nor "God does exist." are testable hypotheses (what testable predictions do they make?). So science cannot address either of them.
A way more specific hypothesis (with rigorously defined terms) like: "God always grants the wishes I write in my diary (with witnesses) verbatim within the next 24 hours (while my diary is locked in a safe, secured against external manipulation), no matter how impossible they seem." could maybe be scientifically tested.
But a) nobody makes such a claim and b) a null result (not all wishes come true) would again only constitute lack of evidence for existence, not evidence of nonexistence. So there could be no conclusions drawn either way.

So "Prove that god does not exist."? That probably can't be done. Make of that what you will.

Nonexistence can only be proven within a formal set of axioms. For example: Mathematicians can prove that no real number exists, such that the square of that number is negative. Why? Because it directly follows from the axioms, underlying the field of real numbers, that any positive real number has a positive square, while every negative real number has a positive square as well. And since all positive real numbers and all negative real numbers taken together clearly constitute ALL real numbers (except 0, which doesn't matter because 0*0=0 is also nonnegative), it follows that the square of any real number is nonnegative. This proves that there exists no real number with the property r*r<0. Being a real number and having the above property are logically mutually exclusive. In science there is no such formal set of axioms (unlike mathematics), so science cannot prove the nonexistence of something. Lack of evidence of existence is not evidence of nonexistence. Even if the universe was only 1 cubic meter in volume, you still couldn't scientifically "prove" that there is not a >insert desired entity here< in it. Just because you don't see it anywhere (and have looked "everywhere") with your limited human eyes, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. One might bring forth logical/philosophical arguments, claiming that something with contradictory properties cannot exist (in a logically consistent world [but who says our world conforms to human logic?]). But if something is not said to have contradictory properties, then even in philosophy there is no way of proving its nonexistence. There are no proofs (in the literal meaning) in science at all. All science does is to make testable hypotheses (which make predictions that can be experimentally examined) and to try to falsify them. If experiment succeeds to falsify a hypothesis several times, scientists become more and more confident, that the hypothesis is false (and if no systematic errors were made, the hypothesis indeed is false). If however experiment fails to falsify the hypothesis (if the findings match the hypothesis's prediction up to experimental uncertainty), this doesn't mean that the hypothesis is true. If that happens over and over again, scientists become more confident that the hypothesis is not extremely false (this is not equivalent to saying it is true!). But they can never be sure. Newton's gravitational theory (published in 1687) made predictions which were not falsified until hundreds of years later (e.g. in 1859, when its predictions regarding mercury's orbit did not match ever more precise observational data anymore, revealing a slight precession of mercury's perihelion, which newtonian gravity cannot account for). In fact, this remarkable theory of gravity turns out to be false. But only after probing it in regimes (of observational precision) which were not available at Newton's time. It's still a useful model and sufficient for many applications (sending rovers to Mars and probes to the outer planets), which require lower precision. But it's not true. The same probably applies to most modern scientific theories. They are applicable in a certain regime of measurement (where they have been tested and seem to accurately describe nature on those scales), but will probably some day fail, when probed more precisely. That doesn't mean they are useless. But they are not necessarily fully true. My point is: Neither "God does not exist." nor "God does exist." are testable hypotheses (what testable predictions do they make?). So science cannot address either of them. A way more specific hypothesis (with rigorously defined terms) like: "God always grants the wishes I write in my diary (with witnesses) verbatim within the next 24 hours (while my diary is locked in a safe, secured against external manipulation), no matter how impossible they seem." could maybe be scientifically tested. But a) nobody makes such a claim and b) a null result (not all wishes come true) would again only constitute lack of evidence for existence, not evidence of nonexistence. So there could be no conclusions drawn either way. So "Prove that god does not exist."? That probably can't be done. Make of that what you will.
#28

Before I talk about the existence of God, I want to talk about a more earthly thing. Can any of you explain magnetism? How does a magnet work, and why? The answer is, you can’t explain it. It’s just there, as a force. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force of nature, much like gravity. However, neither of them can be explained because we just don’t know. For this reason, we can make the same argument for God. We just don’t know how he got there, or how he existed, or even if he just started to spontaneously exist and when that happened. We can’t explain how he got there because we just don’t know, and we never will. Almost everyone (including me) makes the claim that he was there forever, or he was there no matter how far back you go. This is something that we, as humans, cannot understand. Try to imagine infinity. You can’t. If you calculate the number 99^99^99^99^99^99^99^99^99^99, you are still 0% of the way to infinity. In fact, infinity isn’t even a number, it’s just a way to think of the largest number in existence. To prove that we don’t understand infinity, think of the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox, in which there is an infinitely large hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and all are filled. If someone wants to rent a room, instead of denying them you just ask everyone to move 1 room over, since there is always another room. This creates a paradox, since before all rooms were full, then after adding 1 the number hasn’t changed. In fact, if you look further at some other examples, infinity multiplied by infinity is still infinity. Nothing more, nothing less. This is exactly why we just can’t comprehend infinity, and therefore can’t comprehend the existence of God. He has been around for infinity, but since we can’t understand that, it’s easy to deny it.

Before I talk about the existence of God, I want to talk about a more earthly thing. Can any of you explain magnetism? How does a magnet work, and why? The answer is, you can’t explain it. It’s just there, as a force. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force of nature, much like gravity. However, neither of them can be explained because we just don’t know. For this reason, we can make the same argument for God. We just don’t know how he got there, or how he existed, or even if he just started to spontaneously exist and when that happened. We can’t explain how he got there because we just don’t know, and we never will. Almost everyone (including me) makes the claim that he was there forever, or he was there no matter how far back you go. This is something that we, as humans, cannot understand. Try to imagine infinity. You can’t. If you calculate the number 99^99^99^99^99^99^99^99^99^99, you are still 0% of the way to infinity. In fact, infinity isn’t even a number, it’s just a way to think of the largest number in existence. To prove that we don’t understand infinity, think of the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox, in which there is an infinitely large hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and all are filled. If someone wants to rent a room, instead of denying them you just ask everyone to move 1 room over, since there is always another room. This creates a paradox, since before all rooms were full, then after adding 1 the number hasn’t changed. In fact, if you look further at some other examples, infinity multiplied by infinity is still infinity. Nothing more, nothing less. This is exactly why we just can’t comprehend infinity, and therefore can’t comprehend the existence of God. He has been around for infinity, but since we can’t understand that, it’s easy to deny it.
#30

Convenient that you probably deny metaphysics, which is the most straightforward way of proving God's existence.

Convenient that you probably deny metaphysics, which is the most straightforward way of proving God's existence.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.