How can the possibility of the existance of a Creator be ruled out?

Question

I understand that some people reject religion at large but how does that equate to the logical refutation of a Creator? Is there some irrefutable truth to prove that God does not exist?

Before you begin, I do not accept the reductio argument of the pink unicorn variety. The non-existance of a unicorn is not proof of anything. Only straightforward logical reasoning please.

michiganfish - How is a 'pink unicorn' relevant? Atheists absolutely Do "rule out the possibility" of the existance of God and use the Pink Unicorn, Celestial Teapot and FSM as mechanisms of ridicule. The evidence is massive (i.e. the universe itself) given the scientific finding that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet they exist. How then is the extrapolation of a Creator unreasonable? The probability of the universe and life within this universe appearing by accident is insanely improbable.

So, how (by what line of deductive reasoning) then is this option of a Creator ruled out?

Uncle Al - So you rule out the possiblility of a Creator because of Novacain? Can you please reduce that to a coherent thought.

April - I have considered all of Richard Dawkins arguments against God and find them to be excellent arguments against what are refered to as idols. For example, his argument that any being evolved enough to be considered a 'god' would be 'too late' in the universal timeline. This however would Not hold true for an entity Outside of the universal timeline, in my opionion.

So, do you rule out the existance of a Creator because Richard Dawkins rules it out?

fourmorebeers - I have not here presented a logical argument so I find it pressumptuous for you to assume that you know my line of reasoning. How then can you say that I use the same logic to assess a possibility? What I have done is ask a question to which I would like a logical and coherent answer.

You stated in additional comment of your question: answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AplqCY7dkDURFQielHIGa4zsy6IX?qid=20070128210700AAXhFtO

that you are a "strong atheist" yet here you say that you do not reject the possibility of god. What then is you definition of 'atheist'? It would seem to differ from the definition of atheists at large.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Alqbb.tGhG3ejnLFTrGec3nty6IX?qid=20070530123252AAEc2bs

darwinsfriend - I am sorry to be the one to break it to you but you must first rule something "in" in order to rule it "out". It is the method of deductive reasoning.

beekay - in that scenario you would have to begin with the assumption that there is No Creator and then you would go from there to prove your assumption. It is a method resembling the scientific method only in reverse. If you assume that something does not exist then there is nothing to prove, it would seem to me.

darwinsfriend - the universe itself, including the Earth, is considered proof by those who believe in God. Therefore the evidence is staggeringly massive.

I was looking for a line of logical or deductive reasoning by which someone can rule out all possibility of the existance of a Creator.

So far I have:
- pink unicorns
- novocain
- because Richard Dawkins says so
- the existance of the universe is not proof enough
- by never ruling it in.

The last I find to be the least intelligent and most irresponsible answer, "Why rule it in?", in that it fails the curiosity test. How can we have any advancement in civilization, science, philosophy or the production of fine bakery breads without curiosity?

Answer 1

If we can show that from existing things there is no evidence of a creator. So we must show no design, no "intentional" beauty, no orderliness, no natural inclinations of the heart common to man, no characteristics implanted in creation that mirror a creator (love, wisdom, intelligence), etc so that in every possible way it is clear that nothing had designed and created what is.

Answer 2

The possibility of a superior creator is becoming very very extremely possible, from what the use to be atheist scientist are discovering. But I knew all along all we really think we "know" is what we discover. So now you have all these morons that tried every which way to make you think you slithered out of swamp scum, now finding the brains that the universe is too perfect to have just happened. But we Christians could have taught those ape people that eons ago. Take care and may God bless you spiritually.

Answer 3

In my opinion, we still don't have the technology for science to prove or disprove the existance of a creator. I only mention science and technology because right now this is the means by which we prove or disprove something so I'm not ruling anything in or out until one or the other has a solid, tangible proof.

Simply saying "just look around you for the evidence of a creator" doesn't cut it for me.

Answer 4

as a skeptic, i agree with what you are saying.
the pink unicorn joke/argument doesn't validly explain that the universe couldn't have been created by some sort of entity that had omni-sentience.

when u consider that science, as best it can see, says that there is absolutley no reason for existance, that it just exists for no reason, u can't help but to see that that is just as absurd as there being some sort of creator with omni-sentience who crafted existence.

Logically, you can not rule out 100% that some sort of "god" entity exists, but just as well, that doesn't mean that that means such exists.

I can tell u this though, the literal christian interpretation of god and existence is too riddled with moral contentiousness to be true.

A personal god is not likely, but if one does exist, he is a tricky guy.

Answer 5

You are correct. The pink unicorn argument does not hold water due to the fact, that, by definition, the pink unicorn will always be a subset of the totality of existence while God is all inclusive of everything that can possibly exist, by definition.

Answer 6

Too long to answer. I refer you to a chapter in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.... On the NYTimes Best Seller list all winter... tight arguments and just what you are looking for. Worth every dime to anyone interested in all the point that have ever been put out there proving the existence of god, as well as proving that there is not one.

Answer 7

The ONLY thing that could possibly completely rule out the existence of a Creator is if life is proven to have literally appeared out of nowhere.

Another thing that MIGHT disprove it is if eventually evidence is discovered that proves string theory, and there are as many universes out there as there are combinations that our universe COULD have had, and none of them contain life. If that makes sense.

I think that if string theory was proven, and there really are ten million billion billion billion billion billion billion (estimated fine-tuning of our universe) other universes out there, and NONE of them contained life (or even the possibility of life), that might make the possibility that life and our universe was random more viable.

That's what I believe, anyway.

Answer 8

Why do you reject arguments that use the same logic?

I do not absolutely reject the possibility of a god or unicorns I just assign the probabilty of either existing as very close to zero, with the unicorn rating slightly higher in the probability stakes.

And its all to do wuth EVIDENCE.

Answer 9

How can the possibility of the existance of a creator be ruled in?
The Earth is billions of years old and in all that time not one single shred of evidence has come to light to show the existence of a god.

Answer 10

In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission.