Disproofs of God.

[Outrider]

That sounds as if the opportunity for missing the mark entirely vis a vis God is wide open. Particularly when one doesn't apparently have to Know anything about theology.

What mark?  It's not that one doesn't have to know anything about theology, it's that no-one can know anything theological, there's no reference point, no reliable source... it's like making truth claims about the Maiar's descent to Arda.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should I even try to disprove something that no one has proved to exist? It seems a rather fruitless waste of time to me. As far as the idea that something popped out of nothing, I haven't a clue how that even makes sense, including any idea that a god popped out of nothing of course. My position, like that of many others, is simple. In the light of the total lack of evidence that  god(s) exists, I see no reason to believe in it/them.

Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.

[Gordon]

Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.

Let's see them then: are they secret or something?

[Enki]

Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.

As I've never seen any definitive proof that any god exists/doesn't exist I'll carry on with my own way of thinking, thanks, Vlad, unless, of course, you can produce these watertight disproofs that you seem to be going on about. The ball's in your court.

[jeremyp]

Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.

This is interesting. Vlad is deploying the same evasive tactics to assert the existence of these disproofs of God as he deploys to assert the existence of God.

My prediction is that Vlad will never supply us with any concrete instance of what he claims is a disproof of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is interesting. Vlad is deploying the same evasive tactics to assert the existence of these disproofs of God as he deploys to assert the existence of God.

My prediction is that Vlad will never supply us with any concrete instance of what he claims is a disproof of God.

It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR

[Stranger]

At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?

Disbelieve of the claim of existence of anything (gods, ghosts, alien abductions, scientific hypotheses about new phenomenon, anything at all) is always the default.

It's not as if you've even defined a specific definition of "God" - there is not even a claim here to try to disprove, just hot air and silly bluster.

[Stranger]

I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.

Of course you are.

In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.

Who has ever claimed that something popped out of nothing?

[Gordon]

It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR

Had a quick look, and rather worryingly came across this sentence fairly early on:

To the believers in God and/or the believers in the proposition that we can rationally prove God’s existence
(and that the issue of God’s existence is not a simple matter of faith): I present these arguments unanalyzed, and
unsupported; in other words, these may or may not be good arguments, and they do not necessarily represent
my opinion.

Presumably you've read this in detail, having cited it, so what is your view regarding each of the 18 disproofs described: if we are to discuss them, which one should we start with?

[Stranger]

It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR

Just because some people have put forward disproofs of specific types of gods, doesn't mean that it's necessary unless somebody has given a good reason to believe them in the first place. The burden of proof does not change. It's up to those proposing a god to both define it properly and give reasons to take it seriously. Something you seem to want to avoid doing at all costs.

[Nearly Sane]

Had a quick look, and rather worryingly came across this sentence fairly early on:

Presumably you've read this in detail, having cited it, so what is your view regarding each of the 18 disproofs described: if we are to discuss them, which one should we start with?

More importantly is to try to understand what if any claim Vlad is making.

[Gordon]

More importantly is to try to understand what if any claim Vlad is making.

True - my guess is he's just kite-flying again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True - my guess is he's just kite-flying again.

Not flying kites Gordon just getting discussion going...Response numbers speak for themselves....for all the thanks I get for that. Given that .......your resentment is almost comical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because some people have put forward disproofs of specific types of gods, doesn't mean that it's necessary unless somebody has given a good reason to believe them in the first place. The burden of proof does not change. It's up to those proposing a god to both define it properly and give reasons to take it seriously. Something you seem to want to avoid doing at all costs.

But how then is that different from one theist criticising the religion of another.

For many of the disproofs one has to ask how the argument is atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

But how then is that different from one theist criticising the religion of another.

For many of the disproofs one has to ask how the argument is atheist.

when did you stop sexually assaulting children?

[Stranger]

But how then is that different from one theist criticising the religion of another.

For many of the disproofs one has to ask how the argument is atheist.

Why should they be? As is so often the case, you are fighting an army of straw men of your own construction. As I said in #3, there are no disproofs of god(s) in general (and there is no need for any because of the burden of proof), only arguments against some specific definitions of god.

[jeremyp]

It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR

Wow. You've actually done it.

OK I read the first four and skimmed most of the others. They are all bollocks.

[jeremyp]

if we are to discuss them, which one should we start with?

I would start with the introductory note:

Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, the editors of The Impossibility of God, have the following introductory point: “Standard definitions of God include:

God is the perfect being.
God is the being most worthy of worship.
God is the adequate object of religious attitudes.
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

I don't see any reason why any of those properties would have to be true of the alleged creator of the Universe. (Actually, I'm not sure what the third one even means.)

[Nearly Sane]

I would start with the introductory note:

I don't see any reason why any of those properties would have to be true of the alleged creator of the Universe. (Actually, I'm not sure what the third one even means.)

I don't know what any of them mean

[SteveH]

Fine.....show me something that exists without a pre existent cause.......shouldn't be difficult since we got the universe on our doorsteps.

God, according to you.
I might add that the first cause argument ignores the possibility that time is a loop, and thus the possibility that A causes B causes C causes D causes E causes A causes B... etc. ad infinitum.

[Stranger]

Fine.....show me something that exists without a pre existent cause.......shouldn't be difficult since we got the universe on our doorsteps.

As I keep pointing out: the space-time manifold.

Since it contains time (as one of its four dimensions), it can't possibly have a pre existent cause, because that implies the cause existed at an earlier time and all of time (whether finite or infinte) is internal to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I keep pointing out: the space-time manifold.

Since it contains time (as one of its four dimensions), it can't possibly have a pre existent cause, because that implies the cause existed at an earlier time and all of time (whether finite or infinte) is internal to it.

A few points here is time dependent on the manifold or is the other way round.
Is it not possible that there are more dimensions?
Also when you say the manifold, what is it we are looking at?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God, according to you.
I might add that the first cause argument ignores the possibility that time is a loop, and thus the possibility that A causes B causes C causes D causes E causes A causes B... etc. ad infinitum.

Let us think of the universe as a loop.
Is it static or is it looping dynamically like say a Catherine wheel. The same question applies to a loop as it does to any universe. What keeps it dynamic. Why is work possible.

Scientifically how would infinite expansion affect circularity. In what sense could the same events happen if the context was never ever to be the same.

Then of course we have the same issue of why something and not nothing.

[Outrider]

Let us think of the universe as a loop.  Is it static or is it looping dynamically like say a Catherine wheel. The same question applies to a loop as it does to any universe. What keeps it dynamic. Why is work possible.

Relativity implies that time is a block - if it's a loop, all parts of the loop are there, and it's our understanding that is dependent upon its location in that time-space to give the impression of 'before' and 'after'.

Scientifically how would infinite expansion affect circularity.

If it's only space which is expanding it would have no effect on the time component, as the dimensions are orthogonal to each other.

Then of course we have the same issue of why something and not nothing.

If we have looped time we don't have that issue, there was never nothing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Relativity implies that time is a block - if it's a loop, all parts of the loop are there, and it's our understanding that is dependent upon its location in that time-space to give the impression of 'before' and 'after'.

If it's only space which is expanding it would have no effect on the time component, as the dimensions are orthogonal to each other.

If we have looped time we don't have that issue, there was never nothing.

O.

That isn’t an answer to the question why something and not nothing.