Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: The metaphysics of there being no God.

  1. #51
    tWebber seasanctuary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    177
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Paprika View Post
    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.)

  2. #52
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443
    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

    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  3. #53
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,765
    Amen (Given)
    1455
    Amen (Received)
    943
    [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.'
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-27-2014 at 08:27 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. #54
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    San Bernardino, Calif.
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,420
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    one cannot logically prove negative.
    Not true. Mathematicians have been proving negatives since the days of Pythagoras and Euclid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •