There is no evidence that god doesn't exist

Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world – raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are 'wired' for religion – a study suggests.

The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilizations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of 'religious universalism' – that humans are naturally predisposed, or 'wired', to believe in gods.

Yes, I will whistle my next comment.

SkepticalOne wrote:

If it seems I’m not taking you very seriously,

I dont care if you got your feelings hurt because I didn't reply with bullet points on some other thread. Most of what you quoted wasnt even addressed to me.

LOL, I didn’t get my feelings hurt, I couldn’t give a rat ass about your childishness, I’m just letting you know why I don’t take you seriously. You can deflect with bullshit about “bullet points”, but the question was, and is, what do you mean when you say, “God doesn’t exist”. If you don’t even know what you mean then your contention that you have proof, is not serious.

When it comes to definitions of god(s), I typically use a default definition that applies to my former beliefs (ie. The Christian god), but I can also work with a deistic definition (an omni god) and other god concepts. I am happy to defer to believers definition of god so long as it is consistent and coherent. Generally, one of the above works.

OK, if you were a Christian, if Theism is a “former belief”, then you must have heard the words “faith” and “transcendence” a lot. It’s not just Christians by the way, almost all religious adults claim belief is a matter of “faith”, and almost all that involve a God, conceive of that God to be “transcendent”, this idea of it being a matter of “faith” and “transcendence” is not really a secret. Atheists who pretend they don’t know that these two principles are fundamental to the discussion are either hopelessly uninformed about the subject matter, or they have an agenda and this deliberate misrepresentation is nothing but a tactic.

In this thread,

Oh please, you are still deflecting, you started two threads claiming a proof that God doesn’t exist, this thread was an extension of those, and you know it. The discussion is about your contention, and you refuse to tell us what your argument is actually about.

I asked you directly for your definition since it was pertinent to the conversation. What does "god" mean to you?

Of course, the discussion is about your contention that you can prove that God doesn’t exist, so your definition is what’s important, but hey, I’ll play along. I think for the purpose of this discussion, my definition essentially lines up with yours close enough. I think belief in God is a matter of “faith”, and I believe the word “God” is referential to a transcendent realm of existence, typically referred to as “spiritual”. Let’s accept that we agree with these two fundamental characteristics of the subject matter.

Do you want to answer so everyone can determine if "God did it" really is one assumption as you claim?

LOL, that comment was sarcasm, I’m mocking your ridiculously uninformed idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis that Occam’s razor could apply to. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather its role is to complement scientific explanations by setting them within a wider and more profound context and understanding. The choice is not between science and theism; it is a choice to align our scientific understanding with an experiential reality that includes the discernment of qualities, values, meaning, and purpose.

Given that theism is a matter of faith, which is to say it is a choice one is free to make, and given that the word God refers to a transcendent reality, usually referred to as outside of time and space, then what you mean when you say God does not "exist", it is pertinent to know just how you mean that statement.

If you mean God is not real in the sense that material objects are real, then of course not, if your position is that there is nothing that transcends the four-dimensional frame of reference of science, then that is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary argument, certainly more than your "God doesn't exist because he didn't do things the way I would if I was God.

So, are you serious, do you actually know what you mean when you say, "God doesn't exist", if so, please elucidate so we can have a real conversation about it.

Correct

LOL, I didn’t get my feelings hurt

Okay, then we should be able to have a logical discussion.

you refuse to tell us what your argument is actually about.

It was a syllogism with premises and a conclusion. What the argument is about is pretty well spelled out.

Of course, the discussion is about your contention that you can prove that God doesn’t exist

The conversation was never about that in this thread or any other. I posted an argument and asked for thoughts on it.

I think belief in God is a matter of “faith”, and I believe the word “God” is referential to a transcendent realm of existence, typically referred to as “spiritual”.

That tells us about a *where*, but doesnt do a lot to define "God". Nonetheless, it makes "God did it" at least two assumptions: there is a 'god' (whatever that means) and there is an undetectable realm in which it hides/resides.

Let’s accept that we agree with these two fundamental characteristics of the subject matter.

I cannot accept that definition. It focuses on location rather than attributes of the being in question. Knowing where someone lives doesnt tell us much about the person.

LOL, that comment was sarcasm, I’m mocking your ridiculously uninformed idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis that Occam’s razor could apply to.

Yes, yes, I'm sure that was sarcasm. 😉 Occams razor is philosophical and works just fine outside the magisterium of science.

Given that theism is a matter of faith, which is to say it is a choice one is free to make, and given that the word God refers to a transcendent reality, usually referred to as outside of time and space, then what you mean when you say God does not "exist", it is pertinent to know just how you mean that statement.

The argument is applicable to wherever one might think a god could exist. If we agree to a perfectly loving god, then it's the actions not the realm that's important.

if your position is that there is nothing that transcends the four-dimensional frame of reference of science, then that is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary argument

The extraordinary claim is that there is an undetectable transcendent realm.

linate wrote:

Correct

Many apologists, philosophers, and theologians who understand most, if not all, evidence for god comes from philisophical argumentation might wonder why you would be willing to concede everything...

I think the argument from miracles is weak evidence for god and from nde science as strong evidence for god. These are based on empirical science, not philosophy. Atheists just are too bias and lack objectivity to see that. The only point I acknowledged to you is that philosophy only isn't evidence for god. Im mostly thinking of classical Christian apologetics like causation and argument from design, stuff like that

I think the argument from miracles is weak evidence for god and from nde science as strong evidence for god. These are based on empirical science, not philosophy.

These are anecdote, not empirical science.

Atheists just are too bias and lack objectivity to see that.

Objectivity means the thing in question can be verified by people other than the person(s) telling the story. Thats not the case here.

The only point I acknowledged to you is that philosophy only isn't evidence for god. Im mostly thinking of classical Christian apologetics like causation and argument from design, stuff like that

Yes, and I am telling you what you hand-wave away is widely acknowledged to be the strongest evidence for gods.

One can actually both accept and not accept a proposition, and not just at different times. Also at same time, it is possible to both accept and not accept a proposition.

This is a direct violation of the third law of logic. You might want to google it.

Or you can just say that you dont know if you should accept it or not accept it.

Not knowing whether you accept a proposition is by definition, not accepting a proposition.

For example, my one txt file on computer can contain both claims "God exists" and "God doesnt exist". Its not a logical contradiction.

Let’s be very clear. Evaluate the following:

”God both exists and not exists (at the same time in the same sense)”

Is this a logical contradiction? Yes or No?

I don't know why you are now doing a strawman

A question is not a strawman genius. All you have to do is answer it to clarify what you’re actually talking about so we can move on. That what intellectually honest people do.

believing in both that God exists and doesn't exist is not a logical contradiction, and can exist in reality.

Mainly because it doesn't violate law of identity because opposite beliefs exist in their separate spaces and aren't actually a negation of each other's existence even at same time.

This is pure desperation.

So you seem to tacitly acknowledge that holding two contradictory positions simultaneously is a logical contradiction, but argue that the holding of the positions itself is not a logical contradiction because that can in fact happen in the real world.

No one is arguing that people cannot contradict themselves, that’s a stupid direction to try and take the conversation down. We’re talking about whether the position of accepting a proposition is logically compatible with not taking a position on that same proposition. And spoiler alert, they’re not compatible. “I don’t know” =/= “I know”.

It is when it questions a claim I didnt even make as some pathetic attempt to make a strawman argument point which at same time is irrelevant to anything I said.

This is what happens when you don’t know how to read.

The question I asked couldn’t have been simpler; ‘is statement X a logical contradiction?’. There is absolutely nothing about that question that implies you argued anything nor sets you up for any kind of gotcha. But that’s what you have to resort to when you know everything you’re arguing is complete nonsense.

Why would I answer irrelevant question?

You just argued that you can simultaneously hold a belief that God exists and that he does not exist at the same time. So following up by asking you if you believe that very set of positions are logically contradictory is of course relevant.

Actually, it is impossible to violate law of identity, so literally any belief which violates it couldnt exist in the first place.

First of all, we’re not even talking about the law of identity, that’s a totally different thing.

Second, you’re the one who claimed that you can believe God exists and does not exist, not you’re claiming a person holding positions that violate logic is not possible? WTF?

I dont think you even know what you are talking about, because to be honest, I have never seen a person struggling so bad to comprehend that people can have opposite beliefs.

You are obviously trolling, nobody is this stupid.

It is only out of boredom and the practice of with arguing with stupidity that I’ve continued with this conversation.

Science has never found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at any time in history, everywhere and always, the vast majority of human beings have made belief in a transcendent, reality commonly referred to as spiritual, as an orienting part of how they engage reality. 

Even if this were true, it does nothing to establish the veracity of a spiritual world. Popularity=/= Truth. This is not a pathway to a rational conclusion.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Science has never found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at any time in history, everywhere and always, the vast majority of human beings have made belief in a transcendent, reality commonly referred to as spiritual, as an orienting part of how they engage reality. 

Even if this were true, it does nothing to establish the veracity of a spiritual world. Popularity=/= Truth. This is not a pathway to a rational conclusion.

LOL, you really need to try reading things in context, maybe if you did, you’d know what Google search to do to make it look like you are paying attention. Rather than just having an emotional Pavlovian response to words you see, try looking at context, read a sentence, then the next one, look for a chain of reasoning, maybe try something like, read what a post is responding to, and then try to logically follow along and maybe you can understand the response.

Let me try to dumb it down for you. What you quoted was my response to Double R’s contention that Atheism is the “default state”, which might be a principle of your faith, but as I was pointing out, has nothing to do with the facts. I get it though, you fundies don’t really work with facts, when fundies claim that what they say is true, all they are really doing is claiming status for beliefs that advance their agenda.

If you don’t even know what your own contention means, and since you can’t answer the simple question as to what you mean by "exist" as it relates to the subject matter, then it isn’t a serious philosophical discussion, you are just participating in the culture wars, and “theists” are the “them” of your us/them thinking. I know most fundies try to justify their beliefs by proclaiming those who hold different beliefs are wrong, and yours is a typical fundamentalist mischaracterization of the competing faith. You admittedly don’t understand your own position; all you know is that it is contrary to the opposition’s.

it’s about defending your faith based religious beliefs against “theists” who you see as competing with your own faith-based beliefs, which is fine, just don’t try to say it’s about science and logic. You aren’t really talking about science or logic at all; you are only attempting to make it appear that way; you are simply claiming status for your own faith-based beliefs by misrepresenting science and logic as supporting your own faith-based assertions. 

It’s not about logic or philosophy, it’s strictly emotional, you are just acting out, which is fine, needy, but fine with me.  Personally, I think you should just grow a pair and confront the Christian that left you butthurt, that would probably be a lot more effective than "acting out" online.

Whatever floats your boat kiddie, but don’t pretend you are having a philosophical discussion, you are just proselytizing your faith.

What you quoted was my response to Double R’s contention that Atheism is the “default state”, [...] but as I was pointing out, has nothing to do with the facts.

The 'fact' that belief in a spiritual realm is popular? This is broken thinking and doesnt logically get you to any conclusion. Again, popularity does not equate to validity.

I have to say, I am impressed you had six paragraphs and only one sentence was (mostly) relevant to the discussion. Your ad hom and red herring game are on point!

If you really want to tak about the conversation you've dropped, feel free to reply: here post 36

It is still irrelevant question, given that my argument was about beliefs, not about any written statements.

It wasn’t an argument at all. I made the point that non-existence is the default position, and rather than understanding what that actually means you decided to go down this ridiculous path of claiming people can believe multiple things simultaneously which is totally irrelevant to anything I said and the thread itself.

How is it possible to violate logic? Please explain. Give me one example of existence of something which in its existence doesnt follow law of identity.

No one claimed you can actually violate logic genius. The phrase in this context clearly meant failure to abide by the rules of logic in terms of reasoning.

I thought id tickle the atheists with this one

There are three Cosmic primary ways definning the existence of the labeling for God. That which creates finite Universe is a non-starter as 1st law of thermodynamics --naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally has not been shown much less proven to be false.

1} the eternally existent, meta{ Greek beyond }-space mind/abstract/intellect/abstract/concepts/abstract --ex math/geometric patterns etc that eternally complement any occupied space--- and ego, if when humans exist as part of Universe ergo, God as meta-space abstract patterns,

--- conceptual line of demarcation ----

2} the eternally existent, macro-infnite, and truly non-occupied space { non-dynamic } ---as God-- that, exists outside of { ergo beyond/meta } the following,

3} the eternally existent, finite, dynamic, occupied space integrity Universe @ ex ....space.....@....space....., that, ---as God/@/finite Universe--- and has three primary sub-catagories of occupied space existence, as presented by myself:

....3a} eternally existent, ultra-micro, outer surface set of vertexial events, that, define a positive ...( )... geodesically curved, vectorial trajectory, that, becomes, its geodesic and diametric opposite, Dark Energy ....)(......

....3b} eternally{?} existent and internal to toroidal tube ---defined by above 3a and below 3c-- is defined by its numerical sine-wave pattern ....^v^v^v... associations with physical reality aka observed{ quantised } time.

.....3c} eternally existent, ultra-micro, inner surface set of vertexial events, that, define a negative ....)(... geodesically curved, vevtorial trajectory, that, becomes the geodesic and its diametric opposite, Gravity ....( ).....

Clarification to the above set: ..moderation/modificaton to angle and frequency is all that exists.....Bucky Fuller

The aforementioned toroidal tube minimal exists as a 3-{hexagonally} frequency, 18/0, space and time horn torus. Subsequent frequencies are always multiples of six ergo, 18/0.....24/0.....30/0.....36/0 etc.

Clarification to the latter above set: ...all that exists is interfering and non-interfering patterns, operating in pure principle...Bucky Fuller.

All of the above is stem from my personal explorations { 1990's } of any possible prime number patterns that may exist. I discovered a hexagonally based, geometric, semi-partial-patterned order of prime numbers and confirmed to me via Ian Stuart a professor of mathematics at Oxford University U.K. { 1990

's } in a letter to me, some 5 months after I sent my amateur findings to three differrent science-like magazines and not shown here.

However, what led me to my partial prime number patterning order and latter on my presentation of a asymmetrical, hexagonally{ ergo trianguarly } based, 3D space and time horn torus, is presented as follows.

Symmetrical 2D version that led to my initial finding of prime number partially patterned order and the use of four lines is significant in regards to some other maths Ive lacross over the years ..ex surface area of sphere is equal to the four great circle planes areas that define the cubo-octahedral sphere:

0................6....................12........................18.......................24.....

..1..........5p..7p.........11p.....13p............17p....19p............23p...25 { not a prime }

....2p...4...........8..10.................14....16................20....22.....................................

.......3p...............9.........................15........................21........................................

Asymmetrical version discovered by turning the symmetrical version inside-out { a B. Fuller concept } and should be associated with concepts of nature abhors a vacuum, nature abhors equilibrium { read also as symmetrical } ergo is operationally tainted { read asymmetrical } left or right, inside-out, neg. or pos. etc type ideas:

....1.............5p...7p.............11p.....13p.............17p.....19p............23p......25{ not a prime }

-

.0....................6.......................12...........................18.........................24.....................

............3p..................9............................15..........................21......................................

-

........2p....4.............8.....10..................14.....16.................20....22..................................

Clarification in the latter asymmetrical set above: each of these horiontal rows/lines each curve around to meet themselves, aka a circle ergo, this 18/0 { shared location } would look like this birds-eye-view of the four circles ......( (( ( ) )) ).... tho since Im using only text characters, of course the circles are not completed as circles if were to cross-section the 3D space and time, minimal frequency { 18/0 } space and time horn torus.

Clarification for all of the above info: God is definned in three ways, and this set I refer to often, as the Cosmic Primary Set/Outline/Table of Con.tents for what exists Ive been asking for others, over last 20 years, to offer a 4th Cosmic Primary catagory, that, is based on logical, common sense critical thinking --that is based on what humans have observe and deduce from those observations-- or,

..to offer invalidation of my givens above, as presented. Three maybe have tried, and each attempt was failure of logical, common sense critical thinking, based on humans observations with there instruments. Good luck to those make any attempt.

I have to say, I am impressed you had six paragraphs and only one sentence was (mostly) relevant to the discussion. Your ad hom and red herring game are on point!

I explained why my post went so far over your head, and you just automatically repeat your inane misunderstanding.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Let us try one more time. I do hope you engage this time.

Your explanation doesnt address the problem. You are arguing all cultures believe in a spiritual realm therefore spiritual humanity is the default. This is an argument from popularity.

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Let us try one more time. I do hope you engage this time.

LOL, I get it, you are programmed to say this every time I ring the bell.

Your explanation doesnt address the problem. You are arguing all cultures believe in a spiritual realm therefore spiritual humanity is the default. This is an argument from popularity.

It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in, if such beliefs are innate, then I think that would be the default state.

If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?

Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.

I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.

Actually, Cognitive scientists generally concur that stupid people's brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs,

You know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think that way but Rev Jim Bakker definitely does.

You know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think that way 

Well, being dead and all, I know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think any way.

but Rev Jim Bakker definitely does.

Jim Bakker doesn't know what a cognitive scientist is.

Ok,ok, Stephen Hawking didn't think that way.

It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in

Except that humanity includes non-belief.

If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.

I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.