Why God Probably does not Exist - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15159280
We can conclude God probably does not exist if after a thorough investigation we do not find the evidence that we would expect to find if God did exist. The absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence in cases where we should expect more evidence of something's existence.

There are 3 pieces of evidence I can think of that we should expect to find but that we fail to find:

First, we should expect to find at least one example of a prophecy being foretold either in the bible or in another holy book which clearly comes true. Christians have claimed that such prophecies exist, but upon investigation none of these alleged prophecies are specific enough to convince an intelligent person that these were the result of divine foresight. They are far too ambiguous to be convincing.

Second, we would expect to find some examples of divine miracles. That is, we should expect to be able observe some instance of a phenomenon in which the religious explanation is more plausible than the scientific one. We do a see a number of unexplained occurrences in nature for which there is not yet a known explanation, but never have we observed a miracle take place before our own eyes. For all that science has been able to study in full, we have found naturalistic explanations in every case.

A final piece of evidence I think we should expect to find is the revelation of new information from those who claim to have had experiences of divine revelation. If people truly were in contact with a supernatural being beyond themselves, why is it that they can never tell us anything about reality that we don't already know? Even people who claim to have died who describe having a transcendent experience always come back with the same generic story which lines up with what's written in their holy book. That suggests to me that these experiences are not supernatural but are best explained as projections of the human imagination.

Upon failing to find any of the evidence we should expect to find, I think it's therefore more reasonable to believe that God does not exist.
#15159286
Agent Steel wrote:We can conclude God probably does not exist if after a thorough investigation we do not find the evidence that we would expect to find if God did exist. The absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence in cases where we should expect more evidence of something's existence.

There are 3 pieces of evidence I can think of that we should expect to find but that we fail to find:

First, we should expect to find at least one example of a prophecy being foretold either in the bible or in another holy book which clearly comes true. Christians have claimed that such prophecies exist, but upon investigation none of these alleged prophecies are specific enough to convince an intelligent person that these were the result of divine foresight. They are far too ambiguous to be convincing.


This merely proves that these religions are not correct. It says nothing about whether or not god exists.

Second, we would expect to find some examples of divine miracles. That is, we should expect to be able observe some instance of a phenomenon in which the religious explanation is more plausible than the scientific one. We do a see a number of unexplained occurrences in nature for which there is not yet a known explanation, but never have we observed a miracle take place before our own eyes. For all that science has been able to study in full, we have found naturalistic explanations in every case.


This is because science makes methodological assumptions that make it impossible for science to analyse supernatural events.

Again, this says nothing of the existence of god.

A final piece of evidence I think we should expect to find is the revelation of new information from those who claim to have had experiences of divine revelation. If people truly were in contact with a supernatural being beyond themselves, why is it that they can never tell us anything about reality that we don't already know? Even people who claim to have died who describe having a transcendent experience always come back with the same generic story which lines up with what's written in their holy book. That suggests to me that these experiences are not supernatural but are best explained as projections of the human imagination.

Upon failing to find any of the evidence we should expect to find, I think it's therefore more reasonable to believe that God does not exist.


The knowledge derived from mystical experiences is not unknown to humans.

So, I do not see how this supports the argument that god does not exist.
#15159287
Agent Steel wrote:Upon failing to find any of the evidence we should expect to find, I think it's therefore more reasonable to believe that God does not exist.


Reasonable? Probable? Perhaps. But what of Pascal's wager? Nonetheless you only need to convince yourself. Religion works on faith in any case.
#15159290
Pants-of-dog wrote:
So, I do not see how this supports the argument that god does not exist.



You're going at this backwards.

In the normal course of events, you want a good reason to accept something.

Evidence, proof, monogrammed undies, something.

You have none.

That's why, a hundred years ago, academic theologians started using ideas like leap of faith. That, without any real evidence, one would choose to believe.

Believers are stuck trying to square the circle, somehow making it all fit. But that means they are assuming their conclusion.
Last edited by late on 03 Mar 2021 19:09, edited 1 time in total.
#15159293
late wrote:You're going at this backwards.

In the normal course of events, you want a good reason to accept something.

Evidence, proof, monogrammed undies, something.

You have none.

That's why, a hundred years ago, academic theologians started using ideas like leap of faith. That, without any real evidence, one would choose to believe.

Believers are stuck trying to square the circle, somehow making it all fit. But means they are assuming their conclusion.


Yes, definitely.

Almost all people who believe in god do so because they were raised that way.

There are very few logical or empirical reasons to become a theist.
#15159295
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is because science makes methodological assumptions that make it impossible for science to analyse supernatural events.

What makes you think that supernatural events do in fact exist. 20 something thousand years of human history, thousands of events attributed to supernatural events, time after time they have all be found to be natural in origin. The fact that we cannot currently rule out the possibility of a teapot orbiting Saturn does not mean that there is in fact one doing so.
#15159298
XogGyux wrote:What makes you think that supernatural events do in fact exist. 20 something thousand years of human history, thousands of events attributed to supernatural events, time after time they have all be found to be natural in origin. The fact that we cannot currently rule out the possibility of a teapot orbiting Saturn does not mean that there is in fact one doing so.


I think that there is a stronger case against, for example, ESP than there is for god.

We can test for ESP in people, and have done so with no success. There was also that recently passed magician who offered a substantial reward for anyone demonstrating supernatural powers. No one was ever able to claim it.

Superpowers seem more falsifiable than god.
#15159301
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think that there is a stronger case against, for example, ESP than there is for god.

We can test for ESP in people, and have done so with no success. There was also that recently passed magician who offered a substantial reward for anyone demonstrating supernatural powers. No one was ever able to claim it.

Superpowers seem more falsifiable than god.


You are making my point.

The point is that women have to have limited opti[…]

@wat0n Canada is muddling thru? They have over […]

Shooting of Adam Toledo

All national US tv news is trash except PBS.

You are ignoring how Mitch McConnell refused to a[…]