The metaphysics of there being no God.

[37818]

Only if you hold to coherence theory.

Why? While truth is coherent in nature, coherence is not what makes truth truth. Truth is immutable being absolute. Truth must correspond to reality to be true. So therefore it can be argued, "something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth.

Here is a second question, If you were to name one fundamental self evident truth that all truth is to be contingent upon, what would it be?

[Paprika]

Why? While truth is coherent in nature, coherence is not what makes truth truth.

I only mention coherence theory because it's the only way I can make sense of your argument. "No God is [logically] needed" is not equivalent to "there is no God".

Here is a second question, If you were to name one fundamental self evident truth that all truth is to be contingent upon, what would it be?

The law of identity.

[shunyadragon]

I only mention coherence theory because it's the only way I can make sense of your argument. "No God is [logically] needed" is not equivalent to "there is no God".

'There is no God,' would be a problematic argument for the negative. The need of a God would be logically more real and relevant.

The law of identity.

The 'Law of identity' is some what circular and problematic in terms of the existence of God. I could switch the word 'Nature' and use the same argument. What argument would you propose that would refute that: 'Nature' would not fit in any such argument where one could use the word 'God.'

[Paprika]

The 'Law of identity' is some what circular and problematic in terms of the existence of God. I could switch the word 'Nature' and use the same argument. What argument would you propose that would refute that: 'Nature' would not fit in any such argument where one could use the word 'God.'

My answer to his question was in terms of truth in general, not just truths about existence. I actually think that there are more than one essential basic truths, or axioms. But to answer your question: the law of identity is an axiom, and not something to be proven.

[37818]

What constitutes truth? It is reality. And it is something which cannot change.

There is a self existent existence. Existence exists. What exists constitutes truth.

[seasanctuary]

Let me try again: you are positing an alternate reality in which there is no God. The question you pose is whether in that reality 'there is no God' is absurd. Let us say it is not possible to show it is absurd. What then?

We're going to throw a huge party. So, you should probably give in or you're anti-partying. ;-)

(Really, though, it only removes the "Atheism is incoherent" type of arguments, which no one relies on. Or, they shouldn't.)

[37818]

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.

Such claims have been made. But fail do to the fact one cannot logically prove negative.

Now if one was to show that there is something else other than a god to account for everything, that could be such a proof.

Now on the premise that there is in fact no god. That should indeed be possible prove that there is something else other than a god, I would think.

To show this is the case, let’s look at the question, “Does God exist?”

The question presumes existence. And does not presume a god.

Existence is here. And existence is in evidence. God in the question is not. The point being existence exists without the need for any kind pf a god. Existence is the only self existence entity. And not in need of any kind of a god.

Now there not being any kind of a god. The universe exists as it is now. All the theist arguments which may convince many there is a god. Are still false, there not being any.

Furthermore can any theist show this premise that there is no god to be an absurd premise, being that there is no god?

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=37818;36063]

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.

© Copyright Original Source

Such claims have been made. But fail do to the fact one cannot logically prove negative.

The modern contemporary view is not an attempt to disprove god exists, but that there is no sound argument for the necessity of God(s), nor objective evidence of the existence of god(s).

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] Now if one was to show that there is something else other than a god to account for everything, that could be such a proof.

© Copyright Original Source

No, an account for a possible explanation for everything from the human perspective would not qualify for such a proof, since such a proof is impossible.

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] Now on the premise that there is in fact no god. That should indeed be possible prove that there is something else other than a god, I would think.

© Copyright Original Source

No, it is possible to demonstrate that an argument for the necessity of god(s) is possible based on Methodological Naturalism, which by its nature is neutral as to whether god(s) exist or not.

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] To show this is the case, let’s look at the question, “Does God exist?”

© Copyright Original Source

OK! Let's look, but the question 'Do god(s) necessarily exist?'

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] The question presumes existence. And does not presume a god.

© Copyright Original Source

OK. Good arguments do not presume the conclusion in the premise.

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] Existence is here. And existence is in evidence. God in the question is not. The point being existence exists without the need for any kind pf a god. Existence is the only self existence entity. And not in need of any kind of a god.

© Copyright Original Source

That is a possibility.

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] Now there not being any kind of a god. The universe exists as it is now. All the theist arguments which may convince many there is a god. Are still false, there not being any.

© Copyright Original Source

The bolded needs clarification.

Source: The definitive proof there is no God

A definitive proof there is no god.] Furthermore can any theist show this premise that there is no god to be an absurd premise, being that there is no god?

© Copyright Original Source

Again, your heading to a negative argument that there is a valid argument that there is no god(s). I prefer the question for an argument: Can one justify an argument for the necessity of the existence of god(s)?

What is the 'Source' of this argument you are citing: 'The definitive proof there is no God]A definitive proof there is no god.'

[Doug Shaver]

one cannot logically prove negative.

Not true. Mathematicians have been proving negatives since the days of Pythagoras and Euclid.