Can you *know* there is no God?

[moralist]

Brant writes:

The Earth is governed by the sun. That does not justify conflating the two.

Both the Earth and the Sun are governed by exactly the same laws.

Hydrogen atoms billions of light years apart on opposite "ends" of the universe are governed by exactly the same laws.

[Brant Gaede]

Like I said. Where did I contradict myself?

--Brant

electrical comprehension is not reading comprehension but they are governed by the same laws (it's a phenomenon)

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant writes:

The Earth is governed by the sun. That does not justify conflating the two.

Both the Earth and the Sun are governed by exactly the same laws.

Hydrogen atoms billions of light years apart on opposite "ends" of the universe are governed by exactly the same laws.

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

[moralist]

Bob writes:

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

That is an expression of faith which would make you a mystic.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:Like I said. Where did I contradict myself?

I expressed another view than that of your statement...

The Earth is governed by the sun.

...when I said they are both governed by exactly the same laws.Greg

[ThomasHägg]

There seems to be a distinction between what is called hard and soft atheism. Hard atheism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is no God, soft atheism is the assumption that there isn't one.

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

I believe Objectivism answers such an attack on hard atheism in several ways:

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

2. onus of proof is on the one making the affirming statement. there is no God until you have reason to suspect the possibility of their being one. since not an iota of evidence of God has been given, we remain with the negative: there is no God. "innocent until proven guilty". this ties into 1b) within your given context, you cannot assume a god. but would any judge say: i know you are innocent? it would be strange to say that since there is a possibility that he is in fact guilty.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

If one's notion of "God" logically implies a contradiction then that "God" cannot exist. If one's notion of "God" logically implies a proposition that is contrary to a known fact, then that "God" cannot exist with the same assurance as the fact it is contrary to.

If the notion of "God" is so general or unspecific that it cannot be tested empirically, then that notion of "God" is indeterminate. Since no contradiction or contarryness to fact has been displayed it cannot be denied outright, but neither can it be asserted with assurance. Verdict --- "up in the air"

Ba'al Chatzaf

This, I think is my position. There are no "gods" as long as they are defined, because those definitions will necessarily hold a contradicition either of itself or of a known fact.

If they don't, then they would not be supernatural and not deserve the recognition as such by being labeled a "god".

All "gods" are destined to be selfcontradictory in one form or another.

(Sorry if the grammar sucks. Might have to come back and edit this later but I need my sleep.)

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant writes:

The Earth is governed by the sun. That does not justify conflating the two.

Both the Earth and the Sun are governed by exactly the same laws.

Hydrogen atoms billions of light years apart on opposite "ends" of the universe are governed by exactly the same laws.

Uniformity of physical law is -assumed-. No one has gone 14 billion light years to our observation horizon and empirically checked out whether our most beloved law hold Way Out There.

In order to do science at all, we have to assume uniformity of physical law. Given the strange non Kepler motions of stars in the outer portion of galaxies it just may be that our best theories of gravitation do not hold in those circumstances. John Moffat has proposed an alternative to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to account for non-Kepler rotation curves.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar%E2%80%93tensor%E2%80%93vector_gravity. It is not a self evident notion that our favorite theories hold everywhere. Right now to keep our current gravitational theories we postulate Dark Matter to account for the non-Kepler rotation curves.

[ThomasHägg]

Bob writes:

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

That is an expression of faith which would make you a mystic.

Greg

I don't think so Bob. The laws of existencen, noncontradiciton, are not the same laws as the ones expressed in physics. The laws in physics depend on the ideas that are coming from philosophy. Our understanding of the nature of things, while we do know quiet a bit already, keeps growing on top of that. But I notice you put the at the end of your comment.

[spoiler: I made a big mistake here]

[Brant Gaede]

Bob writes:

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

That is an expression of faith which would make you a mystic.

Greg

I don't think so Bob. The laws of existencen, noncontradiciton, are not the same laws as the ones expressed in physics. The laws in physics depend on the ideas that are coming from philosophy. Our understanding of the nature of things, while we do know quiet a bit already, keeps growing on top of that. But I notice you put the at the end of your comment.

You've mixed up Bob and Greg.

The laws of physics are natural laws discovered by scientific investigation. You are confusing the epistemology and metaphysics involved. Nobody knows anything about anything going on inside a black hole, so Bob's statement is bogus for what happens there--in Vegas--can be said to mostly stay there. There is no "might be different" for that implies laws that are self-contradictory within their operative frame of reference. That impossibility is the only possible way for Bob's statement to be true.

--Brant

[ThomasHägg]

Bob writes:

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

That is an expression of faith which would make you a mystic.

Greg

I don't think so Bob. The laws of existence, noncontradiciton, are not the same laws as the ones expressed in physics. The laws in physics depend on the ideas that are coming from philosophy. Our understanding of the nature of things, while we do know quiet a bit already, keeps growing on top of that. But I notice you put the at the end of your comment.

You've mixed up Bob and Greg.

The laws of physics are natural laws discovered by scientific investigation. You are confusing the epistemology and metaphysics involved. Nobody knows anything about anything going on inside a black hole, so Bob's statement is bogus for what happens there--in Vegas--can be said to mostly stay there. There is no "might be different" for that implies laws that are self-contradictory within their operative frame of reference. That impossibility is the only possible way for Bob's statement to be true.

--Brant

Oops. Thanks Brant. I meant Greg obviously.

And all laws must be congruent within physics of course. There can not be 2 different sets of "physics" for different areas. An even greater mistake of mine.

[moralist]

Thomas writes:

And all laws must be congruent within physics of course. There can not be 2 different sets of "physics" for different areas.

The objective reality of the logical well ordered consistent uniformity of just one set of physical laws governing the whole universe is the literal expression of just One Mind.

Greg

[ThomasHägg]

Thomas writes:

And all laws must be congruent within physics of course. There can not be 2 different sets of "physics" for different areas.

The objective reality of the logical well ordered consistent uniformity of just one set of physical laws governing the whole universe is the literal expression of just One Mind.

Greg

I meant that 2 sets of "physics" can not both be "physics" in the same way. They can not both be true if they contradict eachother. There can not be multiple "truths" etc. Physics either applies or it doesn't. It is true or false, not both depedning on the circumstances. But the experience can still be different inside a black hole. A black hole can have a specific natural identity, as long as it is congruent with nature in general.

Shi... I hope someone understands me by now... Brant?

[Brant Gaede]

Huh?

[ThomasHägg]

Noncontradiciton was what I was trying to imply.

There can be nothing about a black hole that contradicts existence or if you will nature.

But a black hole can still have its own specific atributes that - to somone who is not a scientist trained in this specific area - might seem to contradict existence, or contradict physics.

The natural laws of existence don't change, "physics" if done properly doesn't need to change, but the knowledge about certain things in our universe - such as black holes - is likely to increase (change) and therefore, the knowledge in the area of "physics" is likely to increase (change) over time.

I think I did it properly this time. This is as good as it gets for me right now anyhow.

[Brant Gaede]

How can you know there is no God?

You can't. Knowing is a positive conclusion based on evidence. You can't know something based on nothing. All you can know is you don't know. This is not agnosticism. Agnosticism is between knowing and not knowing and is pretense or marking a position until evidence arrives for evaluation. If there is no rational expectation of any evidence ever doing that, then there is no need or justification for agnosticism except cowardice or mental laziness.

--Brant

how can you know there isn't a teapot circling the sun in the asteroid belt? (Not my illustration.)

[ThomasHägg]

How can you know there is no God?

You can't. Knowing is a positive conclusion based on evidence. You can't know something based on nothing. All you can know is you don't know. This is not agnosticism. Agnosticism is between knowing and not knowing and is pretense or marking a position until evidence arrives for evaluation. If there is no rational expectation of any evidence ever doing that, then there is no need or justification for agnosticism except cowardice or mental laziness.

--Brant

how can you know there isn't a teapot circling the sun in the asteroid belt? (Not my illustration.)

Positive conclusions can be based not only on scientific evidence, but on reasoning as well. Existence exists, we don't need science to know that.

I admit the rabit hole is deeper than most, but if "God" is properly defined as supernatural, then he couldn't exist within nature or in any way affect nature. If "God" is not supernatural, there would be no reason to call it "a god".

All the gods I have run into so far in my life are "obvious" self-contradictions. They would be rejected in an instant were we all logical robots, but then again we are not. (And what fun would that be?)

Then there are the semi-logical, pseudo-scientific add-ons, such as the arguments from Aristotle,Thomas Aquinas etc. But they are all built on a series of false conclusions or false pseudoaxioms in a similar manner.

A teapot circling the sun in the asteroid belt is believable. It could be true and I wouldn't know without scientifc evidence. However, any reasonable person would avoid ordering his entire life around things that are unknown.

(My whole claim/argument supposes of course, that we can know things. If we can not "know" anything, then everything including this forum and the text on your screen would be pointless.)

[ThomasHägg]

There seems to be a distinction between what is called hard and soft atheism. Hard atheism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is no God, soft atheism is the assumption that there isn't one.

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

I believe Objectivism answers such an attack on hard atheism in several ways:

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

2. onus of proof is on the one making the affirming statement. there is no God until you have reason to suspect the possibility of their being one. since not an iota of evidence of God has been given, we remain with the negative: there is no God. "innocent until proven guilty". this ties into 1b) within your given context, you cannot assume a god. but would any judge say: i know you are innocent? it would be strange to say that since there is a possibility that he is in fact guilty.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

We could ask; What is "reason"? What is "knowledge"? How do we "know"? - Axioms. Living by our reason is the only way of living that makes any sense to us.

Fundamentaly, at some level it is the only way thinking animals can live. It is our "nature".

[Brant Gaede]

Living by our reason is the only way of living that makes any sense to us.

Fundamentaly, at some level it is the only way thinking animals can live.

I offer many Internet posters* as a counter to this elitism. Some even post on OL.

--Brant

*too many to count

[ThomasHägg]

Living by our reason is the only way of living that makes any sense to us.

Fundamentaly, at some level it is the only way thinking animals can live.

I offer many Internet posters* as a counter to this elitism. Some even post on OL.

--Brant

*too many to count

Don't be unreasonable... Sorry couldn't resist it. There are indeed many levels to reasoning though and we don't all agree of course.

[Alexander Warner]

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It is only possible to prove that something exists. It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist because what doesn't exists leaves no evidence behind to prove anything related to it.. We cannot say that a fragment of our imagination (such as dragon or unicorn or tomorrow I may come up with some creature of my own imagination entirely), to be existent maybe because we have not proven that they do not exist. Since they don't exist, we can't prove anything about their not existing; we need a proof for showing that something exists. And till we don't have any proof which suggests its existence, we naturally give it the status of non-existent

[ThomasHägg]

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It is only possible to prove that something exists. It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist because what doesn't exists leaves no evidence behind to prove anything related to it.. We cannot say that a fragment of our imagination (such as dragon or unicorn or tomorrow I may come up with some creature of my own imagination entirely), to be existent maybe because we have not proven that they do not exist. Since they don't exist, we can't prove anything about their not existing; we need a proof for showing that something exists. And till we don't have any proof which suggests its existence, we naturally give it the status of non-existent

Thats right. Thinking in these terms, we can't even "prove" that there are not "square circles". But it is still absolutely self-evident.

. . . existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

As existence is one "thing" and we want to "prove" that this thing exists by means of science, we would need something "outside" of existence to confirm it. But our conciousness won't allow us to percieve anything outside of existence and "what does not exist" can not be used as "evidence".

When it comes to the "being" of god, it should be equally obvious that unless god exists there is no percievable, understandable, usefull, judging or "being" god that at all could ever affect us in any manner.

And "god", could it simply "be" without "existing", would have to "be" outside of our existence; it would "be" isolated from us and uncapable of any contact.

If this was the case (which it logically can not be), you would still be correct in saying that "God does not 'exist' and therefore has no power over me".

I - mistakenly perhaps - still use the term "prove" sometimes. As in "proving by logical reasoning", but what I am really refering to then is reasoning and the use of axioms to conclude why there can not be supernatural entities. Not "proving" by actual material scientifc evidence as this would be impossible, but most importantly pointless.

If someone who reads this still doesn't understand "just what the heck we are talking" about here, don't worry. It probably took years of thinking for must of us to understand these details. It may be "obvious" when one understands the nature of determining reality well enough, as described by Rand, but it is not easy for most people to wrap their heads around.

- I think that my explanation (even if it should turn out not to be perfectly logical this time around that I write it) illustrates fairly well to the educated soft/agnostic atheist why "gods" should be considered "impossibe"; that is "unable of" or "contradictory to be within" existence - or as we sometimes call it "to reality" / "to nature as a whole". If not convinced however, I would refer them to the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" online, the "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and to read it side by side with for example the Bible/Christian theology.

[ThomasHägg]

Reason is reasoning--reason cannot stand alone except as pure abstraction.

AA is a religion. It works for whom it works. It replaces one addiction with another--itself.

I cannot grok addiction except as an indulgence if not cowardice. This may not be fair for many others, but it's true for me. I smoked for maybe 5 years and quit on my 25th birthday. I was thinking 25 years ahead. That was well over 46 years ago. While I was addicted, I suppose, I was not as addicted as some. Not once did I ever wake up in the middle of the night needing a drag. I smoked a pack a day. Once I hitched a local ride in New Jersey with a middle-aged truck driver who constantly smoked one cigarette after another constantly coughing. I knew he was soon going to die.

My addictions are minor. Cookies, coffee--that sort of thing. I was addicted to the morning newspaper. I quit reading it over a week ago. No withdrawal to speak of.

You cannot be a "man's man" or a "woman's woman" if an addiction rules your life. You might be an addict's addict if you are his also supplier.

--Brant

you CAN be a woman's man, however (heh, heh: have some Madeira M'dear)

So many wise things said here.

[moralist]

Thomas writes:

I meant that 2 sets of "physics" can not both be "physics" in the same way. They can not both be true if they contradict each other.

I get you, Thomas.

Physical contradiction is impossible... for to seem to contradict can only mean that one exists while the other does not. That one is real while the other is fake.

This is the same with truth.

Surrounding each simple direct truth is an infinite number of complex convoluted devious lies.

Greg

[moralist]

Just another thought...

Doubt is not the opposite of faith.

It's just faith that something is not so.

Knowing is the opposite of believing.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Reason is the opposite of faith.

Knowing is the opposite of ignorance.