100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Immanuel Can]

It would be nice if anti-theists knew what they were talking about. Saying "There is proof that God does not exist" is like saying "There is proof existence does not exist."

What they're actually saying is not quite that dumb, but it's close. They're actually saying, "There is no evidence for God."

Of course, unless they are claiming they also possess ALL the possible evidence, then they're simply mistaken or deceiving. They don't KNOW what evidence there is, or is not: what they may know is that THEY don't have any (personally).

Which we can easily believe. But so what?

So as you can see, that revised position isn't much, if any, smarter than the position for which you indict them.

So, well said.

[Reflex]

I'm a fan of Paul Tillich, who is famous for saying, "God does not exist but is existence itself." I'm presently reading Systematic Theology: Vol. 2. In light of this, anti-theist arguments look stupid and wilfully ignorant, not just ill-informed.

[Harbal]

In light of this, anti-theist arguments look stupid and wilfully ignorant, not just ill-informed.

And I'm sure personal bias plays no part in this.

[attofishpi]

Sure - be naive and short sighted enough to be REQUIRED to believe in ALL of the buy bull.

As it happens, I'm naive and short sighted enough to believe none of it.

Yes, that's a shame.

You still are not grasping it. Let me give you two scenarios:-
1. There is NO God and people actually burned to death, screaming in agony with their children.
2. There is God, and people's souls were taken prior to the furnace that a cheap arse council left them to.

Which scenario would YOU prefer uwot?

Oh I see; I have only to wish that something were true and, hey presto, it is.

No it isn't. How did you come to that conclusion?

[Reflex]

Every inquiry is a seeking; every seeking gets guided beforehand by what is sought.

[uwot]

Sure - be naive and short sighted enough to be REQUIRED to believe in ALL of the buy bull.

As it happens, I'm naive and short sighted enough to believe none of it.

Yes, that's a shame.

Well, we all have our cross to bear.

You still are not grasping it. Let me give you two scenarios:-
1. There is NO God and people actually burned to death, screaming in agony with their children.
2. There is God, and people's souls were taken prior to the furnace that a cheap arse council left them to.

Which scenario would YOU prefer uwot?

Oh I see; I have only to wish that something were true and, hey presto, it is.

No it isn't. How did you come to that conclusion?

Granted it's not watertight logic, but the implication seems to be that I should believe something I might wish were true.

[Londoner]

I'm a fan of Paul Tillich, who is famous for saying, "God does not exist but is existence itself." I'm presently reading Systematic Theology: Vol. 2. In light of this, anti-theist arguments look stupid and wilfully ignorant, not just ill-informed.

If he did, then he wasn't the first to have done so.

I do not think 'existence exists'. We can say that particular things exist in that we claim our description of those things is linked to empirical observations. I think trees exist because by 'tree' I mean something that looks and feels a particular way; I can go out into the garden and will get those sensations. But I do not think dragons exist in that sense because although I might sometimes imagine or dream of dragons I cannot get that sort of empirical sensation, although I might say 'dragons exist in dreams'. But if I was to say 'God exists' I do not know what sort of a claim that would be.

As I understand "God does not exist but is existence itself" is to be understood as a denial of existence - as described above. (So it is not a claim that God exists.) As I say, I agree that 'existence does not exist', but simply because it makes no sense to talk about 'existence' as if it was itself a thing. One could equally point out that 'nothing' does not exist or that 'magnitude' is not a size or that 'place' is not the name of a location... So I could say: "God is not a weight but is weight itself" or "God is not any colour but is colour itself" and so on. But where would it get us?

[Reflex]

I'm a fan of Paul Tillich, who is famous for saying, "God does not exist but is existence itself." I'm presently reading Systematic Theology: Vol. 2. In light of this, anti-theist arguments look stupid and wilfully ignorant, not just ill-informed.

If he did, then he wasn't the first to have done so.

That's for sure! The idea goes back centuries

I do not think 'existence exists'.

It doesn't, at least not in the sense we ascribe existence to things that have existence.

We can say that particular things exist in that we claim our description of those things is linked to empirical observations. I think trees exist because by 'tree' I mean something that looks and feels a particular way; I can go out into the garden and will get those sensations. But I do not think dragons exist in that sense because although I might sometimes imagine or dream of dragons I cannot get that sort of empirical sensation, although I might say 'dragons exist in dreams'. But if I was to say 'God exists' I do not know what sort of a claim that would be.

Exactly, which is why Tillich argued that it is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it.

As I understand "God does not exist but is existence itself" is to be understood as a denial of existence - as described above. (So it is not a claim that God exists.) As I say, I agree that 'existence does not exist', but simply because it makes no sense to talk about 'existence' as if it was itself a thing. One could equally point out that 'nothing' does not exist or that 'magnitude' is not a size or that 'place' is not the name of a location... So I could say: "God is not a weight but is weight itself" or "God is not any colour but is colour itself" and so on. But where would it get us?

Things become a little more clear, I think, when we allow ourselves to discern the difference between existence and essence.

‘Being’ cannot indeed be conceived as an entity; ...nor can it acquire such a character as to have the term “entity” applied to it. “Being” cannot be derived from higher concepts by definition, nor can it be presented through lower ones. But does this imply that ‘Being’ no longer offers a problem? Not at all. We can infer only that ‘Being’ cannot have the character of an entity. Thus we cannot apply to Being the concept of ‘definition’ as presented in traditional logic, which itself has its foundations in ancient ontology and which, within certain limits, provides a justifiable way of characterizing “entities”. The indefinability of Being does not eliminate the question of its meaning; it demands that we look that question in the face. -- Heidegger

[Londoner]

Me: I do not think 'existence exists'.

It doesn't, at least not in the sense we ascribe existence to things that have existence.

I do not think anything 'has existence'. Existence is not a thing, such that we can have it. John can 'be a boy', but he cannot just 'be'. If 'John' was just pure existence, then he wouldn't be John (and he wouldn't be 'he').

We do not ascribe existence to 'things'. 'Things' is an abstraction; it does not name any particular thing thing, which means there is nothing to exist (or not-exist). If I write 'X exists', what would show whether what I have written is true or false? You could only answer if I say what 'X' stands for.

Me: But if I was to say 'God exists' I do not know what sort of a claim that would be.

Exactly, which is why Tillich argued that it is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it.

I do not see how that follows. If I do not understand what somebody means, (or think what they say is meaningless) then I cannot say anything about their statement. If they cannot explain what they mean by 'God exists' then affirmation or denial does not come into it, because they haven't asserted anything.

Things become a little more clear, I think, when we allow ourselves to discern the difference between existence and essence.

It might or might not! Since we are still not clear about what 'existence' in the abstract is supposed to mean, I don't think we are ready to start comparing it to other words.

‘Being’ cannot indeed be conceived as an entity; ...nor can it acquire such a character as to have the term “entity” applied to it. “Being” cannot be derived from higher concepts by definition, nor can it be presented through lower ones. But does this imply that ‘Being’ no longer offers a problem? Not at all. We can infer only that ‘Being’ cannot have the character of an entity. Thus we cannot apply to Being the concept of ‘definition’ as presented in traditional logic, which itself has its foundations in ancient ontology and which, within certain limits, provides a justifiable way of characterizing “entities”. The indefinability of Being does not eliminate the question of its meaning; it demands that we look that question in the face. -- Heidegger

Indeed, but Heidegger questions 'being' in terms of 'how things are given to us', and questions whether we have just one understanding of 'being', or several (and he invents different words to describe them). So he starts from asking what the word 'exist' means. He is a long way from statements like: "God does not exist but is existence itself".

[attofishpi]

Oh I see; I have only to wish that something were true and, hey presto, it is.

No it isn't. How did you come to that conclusion?

Granted it's not watertight logic, but the implication seems to be that I should believe something I might wish were true.

And why wouldn't you. You are not required to tell anyone. You can keep that belief to yourself. To believe that a man in history went to his death stating he was Christ is not particularly difficult. Atheist theologians generally agree that it is very likely that this man existed. That being said, why not believe this bloke?

[surreptitious57]

I see absolutely no reason at all to believe anything just because I want it to be true
And I prefer instead to only accept as true that which can be demonstrated to be so

[attofishpi]

I see absolutely no reason at all to believe anything just because I want it to be true
And I prefer instead to only accept as true that which can be demonstrated to be so

..and thats a perfectly reasonable position, if it weren't for the requirement for belief to have it demonstrated.

[Reflex]

John can 'be a boy', but he cannot just 'be'. If 'John' was just pure existence, then he wouldn't be John (and he wouldn't be 'he').

Exactly. 'John' is a compound ('essence and actual' or 'act and potency', depending on how you want to phrase it).

[Reflex]

Tillich describes `the fall of man`as symbolic of the transition between essence (being itself) and existence (thing-ness).

Symbolically speaking, it is the image of God in man which gives the possibility of the Fall. Only he who is the image of God has the power of separating himself from God. His greatness and his weakness are identical. Even God could not remove the one without removing the other. And if man had not received this possibility, he would have been a thing among things, unable to serve the divine glory, either in salvation or in condemnation. Therefore, the doctrine of the Fall has always been treated as the doctrine of the Fall of man, although it was also seen as a cosmic event.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Although this is an 'absolute' proof, it's not a proof that all will be willing to accept.

To be a 'God' a being must be worthy of the title.

To be worthy of the title 'God', a being must be 'truly just'.
The 'truly just' consider all beings to be equal.
Therefore; the 'truly just' have no desire to be looked upon as 'Gods'.
Take care, and have fun.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy.