avatar
12 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 4 years ago

    As far as arguments for the existence of god, this sounds suspiciously like a variation of Russels teapot: You also can't disprove that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter right now.

    • 4 years ago

      The difference here is that my argument is God is free from logic and rational thought which is the basis that science sits upon.

    • 4 years ago

      What do you mean by "God is free from logic and rational thought"?

    • 4 years ago

      If the claim is that G-d is outside time and space, which is indeed the claim, then it is utterly different than the teapot case.

      The chances of a teapot being their, are very slim. The chances of there being a being outside our universe is an unknown. You can say perhaps a 50/50.

      Ever heard of the multiverse? It is the scientific claim that there are many universes. Well, the chances of there being more than one universe are the same as there being a G-d, because they both posit beings outside our own universe. 

    • 4 years ago

      @Wael what I mean by that is logic is a methodology used by us to explain and forecast natural events. God, by definition, is outside of nature and simply causes Himself to act in a way that is so unchanging that it lends itself to be explained (usually) by logic. That is to say that logic is not the reason behind the actions of God but instead it is a separate system being used to predict his actions.

    • 4 years ago

      @Morrease
      How could you know any of this if god is beyond reason or logic? To say that god is anything, and to define god, is a statement of logic, is it not? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
      To borrow the overused (but apt) joke, if we stick with these contradictions, how can you prove that god isn't actually a flying spaghetti monster? How can you prove that god isn't actually Satan, and he's just playing a long, sadistic prank on every religious person?
      When logic is removed, anything goes. And that's what we see from religion in practice: anything goes.
      That being said, most religious people that I know are reasonable, good people,who do not follow any scriptures literally.

    • 4 years ago

      @Jonathan
      Pure sophistry.
      It's the same fallacy as before. Anything that we can't categorically and thoroughly explain, theists are happy to say "there's god!" Then, as scientific knowledge grows, and provides an explanation, the theists keep hedging.
      First, it was the formation of the earth and the evolution of our species. Now, we understand that. Then it was the formation of the universe. We have strong hypotheses about this. Now, god is hiding in the multiverse. Where will he go next?!
      One thing's for sure: we can't be sure... but we better believe.

    • 4 years ago

      @Morrease When you say "God, by definition...", you are assuming that there is one consistent definition of God, which is hardly the case.

      While that definition might be true for monotheistic religions, the picture will completely change if you look at ancient Greece or Hinduism for example. 

  • 4 years ago

    This is a logical fallacy: the argument from ignorance. A lack of evidence to the contrary does not imply evidence to the positive; the burden of proof is always on the person claiming the positive.

    In other words, there is no need to "disprove" god, just as Rick said, there is no need to "disprove" that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter right now, or that an invisible unicorn and the Tooth Fairy are copulating silently, behind you, all the time.

    The reason that anyone can say "god does not exist" is the same reason they can say any of those things do not exist.

    • 4 years ago

      There's a difference between claiming the existence of something on the natural world, and claiming the existence of a being outside the natural world.

      The same scientists who make the exact argument you just made, claim the existence of a multiverse. The chance of having universes outside our own (which is what purveyors of multiverse theory claim) is the same as the chance of there existing a G-d outside our universe.

    • 2 years ago

      @jonlivi claiming the existence of a being outside the natural world is akin to crazy pants talk. We only reside in the natural world, so to claim existence outside of that which we reside implies special powers of deductive reasoning to that which nobody can make a conjecture about simply because it's not something any of us can fathom, let alone entertain.

      A multiverse concept is no different than recognizing there are more components to the light spectrum than just simply visible light, i.e. X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, microwaves, Ultraviolet, etc..

      Those components cannot be seen, but they exist within the realm of the natural world. As does the concept of a multiverse theory.

  • 2 years ago

    In order to argue the existence of god, one has to be able to define god. Without that, we're all just putting our opinions about that which none of us understand, forward.

    Akin to doing so is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse.