100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Reflex]

Can anyone point to even one constructive thing an atheist has said? Has even one theory been postulated by an atheist suggesting what must be in order for what is to be as it to counter the "God hypothesis"? Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I've seen is criticism from atheists that have not established an ontological ground for their criticism.

[surreptitious57]

Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity but non acceptance is not the same as rejection Rejection of the truth claim would require disproof just as acceptance of the truth claim would require proof or evidence [ it is harder to prove something then disprove it ] So as long as one is neither a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist who makes absolute claims about the existence or non existence of God no demonstration of ones position is required. I am an apatheist not a gnostic atheist so do not have to justify my position since it is not an absolute one. I fully accept in principle that the entity commonly known as God might exist. For I do not know for certain that he does not exist even though I think he does not exist. I have no problem with anyone believing he does exist. But if you are absolutely convinced that he does it is entirely reasonable to ask for evidence just as it is with any truth claim. And if you have no evidence I have no problem with that either as long as you are open about it and realise that being absolutely convinced of something without any evidence for it demonstrates nothing other
than an argument from incredulity. So please do not claim to have evidence for the truth claim and then fail to provide any when asked. No one knows whether God exists or not or even what form he is supposed to take or even if he is a he. There are atheists and apatheists and ignostics and agnostics and theists and deists and pantheists. The rather interesting variety of positions is why my own is a possible not an absolute one

[Reflex]

Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity but non acceptance is not the same as rejection Rejection of the truth claim would require disproof just as acceptance of the truth claim would require proof or evidence [ it is harder to prove something then disprove it ] So as long as one is neither a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist who makes absolute claims about the existence or non existence of God no demonstration of ones position is required. I am an apatheist not a gnostic atheist so do not have to justify my position since it is not an absolute one. I fully accept in principle that the entity commonly known as God might exist. For I do not know for certain that he does not exist even though I think he does not exist. I have no problem with anyone believing he does exist. But if you are absolutely convinced that he does it is entirely reasonable to ask for evidence just as it is with any truth claim. And if you have no evidence I have no problem with that either as long as you are open about it and realise that being absolutely convinced of something without any evidence for it demonstrates nothing other
than an argument from incredulity. So please do not claim to have evidence for the truth claim and then fail to provide any when asked. No one knows whether God exists or not or even what form he is supposed to take or even if he is a he. There are atheists and apatheists and ignostics and agnostics and theists and deists and pantheists. The rather interesting variety of positions is why my own is a possible not an absolute one

In other words, you want to avoid discussing the nature of being and existence altogether. What makes you think you are exempt from having to justify your position just because it's not absolute? What makes you so special? Every position is rooted in an ontic justification, so all you've done here is add to the long list of atheists whose only talent seems to be in criticizing without adding anything to the conversation.

[Reflex]

Faith -- hope and optimism -- is embedded in our neurons and in our genes, and it is one of the most important principles to honor in our lives. Some people put their faith in God, while others put it into science, relationships, or work. But wherever you choose to place your faith, that is your "god," your '"ultimate concern." And you must still confront a deeper question: What is your ultimate pursuit and dream?

[Belinda]

Faith -- hope and optimism -- is embedded in our neurons and in our genes, and it is one of the most important principles to honor in our lives. Some people put their faith in God, while others put it into science, relationships, or work. But wherever you choose to place your faith, that is your "god," your '"ultimate concern." And you must still confront a deeper question: What is your ultimate pursuit and dream?

When you refer to God , do mean a personification of "ultimate pursuit and dream" ?

[Londoner]

Me: Yes, if your concept of Supreme Being is coherent it will be coherent. It would then be a 'coherent concept'.
Well, the OA begins when you answer that question: is "Supreme Being" a coherent concept.

Do you regard it as such?

Once again, I do not know because I do not know what you understand by those words. But - as I have already said - I will assume it is a 'coherent concept'.

I'm trying to explain what the OA is. But we can't get premise 1 right, because people don't know the difference between a question about "conceptual coherence" and one about empirical existence. For that matter, I've never gotten an answer about whether or not you regard the concept itself as coherent.

I certainly do understand the difference between '"conceptual coherence" and one about empirical existence. That's why I keep putting 'concept' in the phrase 'coherent concept' in bold - to make it absolutely clear that we are talking about a concept and not an empirical claim.

But I can see we're going in circles.

Well, I keep confirming that I am absolutely willing to assume 'yes' is the answer to that question: is "Supreme Being" a coherent concept, which you say is the first step.

But rather than going on to step two, you circle back and ask me to confirm step one again.

The OP promises definitive proof that God does not exist, not that the OA is tenable.

That is a very mysterious sentence. But since we are never going to reach the OA I suspect it will stay a mystery.

[Reflex]

Faith -- hope and optimism -- is embedded in our neurons and in our genes, and it is one of the most important principles to honor in our lives. Some people put their faith in God, while others put it into science, relationships, or work. But wherever you choose to place your faith, that is your "god," your '"ultimate concern." And you must still confront a deeper question: What is your ultimate pursuit and dream?

When you refer to God , do mean a personification of "ultimate pursuit and dream" ?

You should be asking yourself where you place your faith and contemplating your own ultimate concern. Here's why:

MY BRAIN ON GOD

This is Your Brain on God

When I speak of "God," I refer to my personal realization of supreme value.

[Belinda]

Reflex wrote:

When I speak of "God," I refer to my personal realization of supreme value.

Why is it that " my personal realization of supreme value" is named by you 'God'? In other words, why not simply call it "my personal realization of supreme value".

This matters because if you get together with others who also name their supreme values 'God' would you not all be meaning different things by 'God'? Unless all the others subscribe to the same creed.

Most religions have creeds, that is to say, a creed is what is to be believed about God. There is a danger here in trusting that believing a creed is the only way to access God. Trusting in a creed can become hubristic certainty.


I regret that I don't listen to videos and lectures . I much prefer written material, so if there are transcripts I will read them.

[Reflex]

I regret that I don't listen to videos and lectures.

Meh. Your loss. You might have learned something.

Here's another one:

A scientific defense of spiritual & religious faith

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity but non acceptance is not the same as rejection

This explanation is one I've heard before. But I would say you need to think it through further. It doesn't actually say a whole lot, and just ducks the key question.

Unfortunately for Atheism, it opens a follow-up question: namely, "When you say 'non-acceptance,' do you mean just for yourself, or for others as well?"

If it's just for yourself, it doesn't require any evidence. But if the Atheist expects it to hold as a rational person for others as well as himself/herself, then evidence is absolutely necessary again.

So which is it? Do you "non-accept" the existence of the Supreme Being just for yourself, or do you expect other rational people to "non-accept" it?

Now, as you call yourself an "apatheist," I must assume, if I take you seriously about your view, that you "don't care" about God, and so you just want to claim, "I don't happen to believe, in any God, and/or don't want to think about such." So then, it's just personal.

But then the question also follows: "Do you just not care, or do you disbelieve on the basis of reasons?" If you just don't care, nobody needs to care that you don't care...you don't have evidence or reasons anyway, according to your position. But if you want to declare that other people owe you to join you in disbelief or apathy, then you need to say why...if you want us to care at all. In other words, you're back to a need for reasons and evidence.

In sum, the dodge that "I just non-believe" doesn't save anything. In fact, it renders your view unspeakably trivial, if we take it literally; and if you want it to be a profound view, one other people should take seriously, then you need to provide evidence for your non-belief.

[davidm]

Theists believe that God exists. Atheists lack a belief that God exists.

That God exists is a positive claim. Generally, those who make positive claims bear the burden of proof.

I also happen to lack a belief that a teapot orbits the sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. Should I then be expected to support my “ateapotism” with evidence? That would be irrational.

Rather, if someone claims that there IS such a teapot, then he or she is the one who should be expected to offer the supporting evidence for this positive claim.

[surreptitious57]

Mr Can : atheists do not accept the existence of God regardless of anything else because if they did then they would be theists. I am
an apatheist because the question of his existence / non existence can never be objectively [ that is to say empirically ] satisfied so
the point is academic. It therefore makes zero difference to me as I cannot decide either way. Discussing it is interesting but it can
never be resolved so I accept that and simply let it be. However my position is a sceptical one as I am not rejecting the truth claim
just not accepting it. A subtle distinction. Sceptical positions do not require evidence or proof for they are not truth claims per se

[Harbal]

Rather, if someone claims that there IS such a teapot, then he or she is the one who should be expected to offer the supporting evidence for this positive claim.

Some claim it is actually a coffee pot but you'll always get heretics.

[surreptitious57]

If I say God does not exist that is a truth claim so the burden of proof / disproof has to rest with me
If I say I think God does not exist that is not a truth claim so no burden of proof / disproof is needed

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Can : atheists do not accept the existence of God regardless of anything else because if they did then they would be theists.

Or, as you say, "apatheists." Maybe they just don't care and don't want to think about it...that's possible, at least for some. But not for you, apparently: it seems you want to talk and reason about it.

I am an apatheist because the question of his existence / non existence can never be objectively [ that is to say empirically ] satisfied

If that's your reason, then you ought to be able to justify it. How did you come to this statement of certainty for everyone? "Never" and "can[not]" are very strong claims, and surely to say that NOBODY has or can have evidence of a thing would require a kind of evidence or reason.

Discussing it is interesting but it can never be resolved...

I don't think you can actually believe this. You say it, but your actions don't indicate you think it's true. If you did, then I think you would not bother to discuss it at all. Rather, you must think there's, at the minimum, a point here worth discussing...even if you tend to come down on the negative side with regard to it.

I disbelieve in hobgoblins. But until this moment, I have never felt the slightest need to discuss my disbelief with anyone. But if I thought there were a case to be made regarding them, perhaps I might; but my certainty level is so high as to render any such discussion boring.

So why would a true "apatheist" talk about God?

However my position is a sceptical one as I am not rejecting the truth claim just not accepting it. A subtle distinction. Sceptical positions do not require evidence or proof for they are not truth claims per se

This is only true if by "skeptical position" you mean only,"I have no reasons, but I don't personally choose to believe X." If you expect so much as one other person in the world to have cause to agree with you, then you do require evidence or proof.

That is, unless your assumption is that people ought to make up beliefs, and refuse to believe in things, without any facts at all.