Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[veloc1ty]

An interesting essay: who says you can't disprove god? Perhaps all the semantical debate over absolute proof and disproof is irrelevant?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Can people stop saying 'semantical'? It's freaking me out. :-/

You beg the question if you assume from the outset that the idea does not permit of scientific treatment (a fallacy which itself is poor intellectual/scientific practice). Some claims made about god generate empirically testable hypotheses. Even when the entitiy in question generates no empirical predictions whatsoever we can still use the theoretical/philosophical parts of the scientific method to justify non-belief.

What tools should we be using if not those of the scientific method??

The point is that arguing about it scientifically is already an assumption contrary to most theistic beliefs. Theists generally don't rest their beliefs on science at all.

 

[BradCube]

If your point is merely that there's "no difference" then I somewhat agree. If you then go on from this to claim they're "not really atheists" I disagree because if the implication is that since I don't really believe I can know for CERTAIN Santa doesn't exist somewhere in the universe, that means you wouldn't say that I believe Santa does not exist, then you're wrong. I do for all practical purposes believe that there is no Santa, there is this philosophical epistimelogical idea that I also hold though which simply states that I am not certain.

You see, to me this makes no sense at all. You are claiming that while there is no difference between the weak atheist and the agnostic, there is in fact a difference and you can call yourself an atheist anyway regardless of the fact you acknowledge that there is no difference.

In this second part you are now in fact making a claim that Santa clause does not exist - but under weak athiesm, you are making no comparable claim. The point is that regardless of whether you have 100% proof or not, you can still make a claim based on what is the most reasonable conclusion when provided with the evidence. This is exactly how I would expect an atheist to deal with the question of God.

The point is that even if I declared that the test was sufficient it simply logically wasn't.

Well, no it wouldn't be 100% proof, but this is not what I am asking for. I think both you and I agree that we don't need 100% proof to make a claim - we just need some evidence that makes it a reasonable conclusion.

I don't know, that would be begging the question. I don't have a clue how reindeer work... the point is there's no way for me to ever devise a test.

If there is no way for you to devise a method in which you are able to disprove, or prove something, then why make the jump to assume in the negative? Surely it would be prudent to investigate under what conditions reindeer are supposed to fly, what you should see etc and then conduct your testing. If you simply refuse to look at how you should test somethings existence, then either it's existence does not concern you, or you are just being a lazy right?

Hope this explanation does not seem overly simplistic.

There's no way to formulate a scientific test for god or any other supernatural being (such as flying reindeer).

Well to actually test god via natural means, then probably not (as it doesn't makes sense to try and test something supernatural naturally). We can however use scientific data combined with philosophical conclusions to try and build a case of why we think something may or may not exist. Again, not 100% proof, but we don't need that in order to make a claim.

You use definitions which just aren't standard, it really muddies the waters. If you want to call someone a strong atheist for saying 'God doesn't exist, but I can't be certain, I can't be sure' you are calling many agnostics strong atheists. Strong atheism is generally 'God doesn't exist - No Questions'.

As far as I was aware, we were working with definitions that were being proposed on these boards. Originally it was said that the weak atheist was someone which simply lacked belief in God and the strong atheist was one who claimed that there is in fact no God.

The second part here I just don't feel is accurate. The agnostic does not claim that God doesn't exist but they cannot be sure. The agnostic claims that they can not be sure that God does or does not exist full stop. The agnostic position is neutral ground.

I don't know that strong atheism is that God doesn't exist - No questions asked. Surely it is impossible for anyone to maintain this belief. If they do in fact have a 100% proof of God non-existence, I would love to hear from them (as I am sure you would too). My understanding of strong atheism was basically someone who does more than claim lack of belief in God - they claim that God does not exist. If this is not the case, then please inform me of the position of atheism I am describing.

What happened to that stuff about 'evidence of absence isn't absence of evidence' ? Out the window? I thought you were (rightly so) telling me that I can't prove god doesn't exist by your inability to provide evidence in favour of God.

I'm not sure if you may have misread my original post or not, as what you're describing here doesn't seem to conflict at all with what I have said.

The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is still very much applicable. I was talking about establishing a positive case for the claim that God does not exist.

Ahh, ok, I think I've got what you mean now. I would propose that the difference lies in that when someone says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" they are proposing that it would be possible for such a thing to exist with no positive evidence. So when the theist says to a weak atheist "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" they are saying this because the weak atheists reasoning is that they lack belief because they see no positive reason for proposing Gods existence.

This is different to the strong atheist though. The strong atheist should say there is no God, because where there must be evidence (if God exists), there is none. In this way, I suppose that absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence, but this is because that positive evidence is a necessity for that entity to exist - they cannot exist without that evidence being present.

To take it to a court example again, if someone is lacking an alibi, this is not proof that they did not commit the crime if it's plausible that they wouldn't have an alibi (they were at home alone). However, if the characteristic of their case necessitates that they would have one (ie they went out with friends) and they do not, then this is positive proof that the defense case being proposed is false.

Much in the same way, if someone simply says, I don't believe in God because I see no evidence for his existence, a theist ought to respond by saying "what evidence would you expect to see if God existed?". If the non-believer proposes they would expect to see no testable evidence then the theist can say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, if they claim that they don't see a world in which a loving God could possibly exist (or any other real argument about the non-existence of God), then either a loving God does not exist or the theist should show how this belief is false.

I realize this is a fine line here. I would be interested to hear what Kfunk has to say on the matter ;D

I'd like a real logical way to prove something does not exist. If you feel that absence of evidence is enough to establish atheism then I believe it has been established.

I've already given you what I feel is a real logical (at least in any reasonable sense) way of proving the non-existence of an entity. I don't feel that absence of evidence (in the non-positive form) alone is enough to establish atheism, but I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

Well I'd also throw in... and not 'just knowing' it as I think to claim to 'just know' anything is generally ridiculous.

So essentially what your now saying is that you have no feasible way of knowing that you are not guilty? This is quite a conclusion to come to! If that is in fact what you are saying, then the discussion should stop here because that very claim is self refuting. If you claim that you cannot just know something, then you cannot know that you cannot just know something.

It may be worth restating your implications here, as I'm not sure that this is the conclusion you were wanting me to reach.

To be 100% logical I do not think you can prove the existence of many things at all. You need to start to make less than purely logical leaps by creating axioms which are acceptable to you to play the game of 'life'.

Yes, okay, I agree on this - although our terms of "logical" are becoming a little confusing. That aside, I can accept that we have to make what I call reasonable jumps in logic to make any claim. This is why I said that the atheist and the theist both need faith to make their claim.

However, this is very different from making jumps with no reason behind them. Even if you do this consistently, I still find this to be problematic. This is why I don't think a sole lack of belief in God (without any other claim) gives good reason to call someone an atheist.

There is no logical/empirical test for the supernatural. Want to give me one so I can show you the gaping flaw?

Well, sure. If we are looking at the christian God, then one should look at what one should expect to find if such a being exists. Now naturally, there is no empirical test to show this - hence why we rely on probabilities as well as philosophy and then make the leap to claim. If the universe came from a supernatural being one would expect that the universe had a supernatural beginning - which is currently inline with what we observe - from nothing, nothing comes. One would also expect from that only a timeless or eternal entity/object could time begin.

But this process also works in the reverse too, because from facts we observe in the universe we can infer a supernatural creator. This is why arguments to with the fine tuning of the universe plus explanations of miraculous events (Jesus resurrection etc) are used to form a positive case for the existence of God.

It's semantical... I do not believe God exists with equal vigor as I do not believe Fairies exists. I do not know for certain, there's much to this world that we don't know, but until I'm given evidence I am fine with saying God does not exist* - The * would be (but I hold that I ultimately do not know).

You are in fact now making the claim that God does not exist which is not agnosticism (even if you hold that you do not know 100%). If this is the case, then you are an atheist and should provide reasons for why you have come to hold this position - just make sure your reason is not that you lack belief

There's nothing that separates Gods and Fairies in the realm of rational inquiry. I cannot logically consider the existence of fairies (what are their parameters? Who the hell knows?) nor can I logically consider God. I definitely can't empirically test them... because who's to say they'll obey our laws or whatever?

There is a very big difference that separates God and fairies, because one would expect to find some evidence of Gods existence (at least the christian God) where as we expect to find no evidence when looking at fairies. I don't think it follows that we cannot logically consider God since you should have ample opportunity in being able to show that various characteristics can not be plausibly true if such a God does exist.

The fairy example is exactly comparable to God unless you can actually provide for me a test for the existence of God which makes more sense rationally than any test I could come up with for fairies.

Well I think I have done this, since we can expect based on Gods proposed characteristics, that we would see some evidence of these characteristics if he exists. We have no ability to do this with fairies since we have no idea what properties or characteristics we are even looking for.

It is... To me these days the God question is honestly a sad joke. I continue on because it's somewhat fun because people are all so passionate and also because I would truly like to be proven wrong, but there is no hope of that. Theism is devoid of argument, what you have left are some lofty hippies and people that are a few years behind the bell curve. In the end even if I cannot provide a plausible answer for something it doesn't point towards a god... If anything it tends to just (imo) point towards perhaps limits on the capability of the human mind.

To be honest, I find it rather depressing to think that you see the God question as a sad joke - especially based on the reasoning you have given. In my mind, there could be no question which deserves more attention than whether God exists.

 

[BradCube]

An interesting essay: who says you can't disprove god? Perhaps all the semantical debate over absolute proof and disproof is irrelevant?

Great little write up. Thanks for sharing veloc1ty.

These are exactly the sorts of arguments I wish we would also discuss in this thread. It seems to me that it would be far more constructive to look at both sides of the fence. At the moment (as far as I can tell) this thread mainly consists of people sitting back in the agnostic position, picking apart theistic arguments in order to make them look like fools.

 

[Enteebee]

Semantical is fine.

You are in fact now making the claim that God does not exist which is not agnosticism (even if you hold that you do not know 100%). If this is the case, then you are an atheist and should provide reasons for why you have come to hold this position - just make sure your reason is not that you lack belief

My reason is that there's no evidentiary difference between fairies and God. Both have 0 proof.

 

[Enteebee]

That isn't begging the question at all. An idea of an entity that cannot be observed, can work in 'mysterious ways' (ilogical), existed forever (cause and effect anyone??) cannot possibly be proven by science. I assume this because science has very clear empirical rules. It is conveniently an argument that assumes so much that is contrary to the very basis of the scientific framework. that is what makes science good.

You are saying that claims made about god generate empircally testable hypotheses? Such claims always rest comfortably away from having much significance to thesist about their being a god that they really aren't important arguments about the existence of a god in the first place. Show evidence that the world isn't 6000 years old? No problem, god works in mysterious ways, he is fiddling with your measuring instruments. Or if a thesist does accept what you say then they will simply change the story. Persuading people that the earth is round, that there is a big bang etc has done nothing to persuade people about the existence of their god.

Obviously their God can always escape just as I can always say "nah fairies actually do exist in my garden they just magic away when u try to find them" but those sort of explanations imo do not truly satisfy most thinking people. They always have an out, but when the debate gets to a point where you're just asserting that you're right, I'd be willing to say you've lost.

BTW I don't think we can persuade them because it isn't a position they really hold. I do not believe that most theists (in say Australia) truly believe in God, I just think they're atheists that hope for it to be true.

 

[BradCube]

You are saying that claims made about god generate empircally testable hypotheses? Such claims always rest comfortably away from having much significance to thesist about their being a god that they really aren't important arguments about the existence of a god in the first place. Show evidence that the world isn't 6000 years old? No problem, god works in mysterious ways, he is fiddling with your measuring instruments. Or if a thesist does accept what you say then they will simply change the story. Persuading people that the earth is round, that there is a big bang etc has done nothing to persuade people about the existence of their god.

This may the case for the theist that doesn't have much experience in the field. I doubt you will find it to be the case for theists that are trained in apologetics and philosophy however. Most educated theists will look at the data provided and decide whether God still fits in with the data. In some cases they may actually use such data as proof for their arguments. Very rarely though, do they (educated theists) just deny that the data is correct, and that God works in "mysterious ways". If they have reason to actually doubt the data then they will show why they don't take that data to be true.

 

[KFunk]

The point is that arguing about it scientifically is already an assumption contrary to most theistic beliefs. Theists generally don't rest their beliefs on science at all.

Sure, there are problems in the dialectic setting - I'll grant that. But we still have the issue of how we, people of science, are to evaluate the claims being put forth by theists. I think it is wholly appropriate to use the scientific method in this case.

That isn't begging the question at all. An idea of an entity that cannot be observed, can work in 'mysterious ways' (ilogical), existed forever (cause and effect anyone??) cannot possibly be proven by science. I assume this because science has very clear empirical rules. It is conveniently an argument that assumes so much that is contrary to the very basis of the scientific framework. that is what makes science good - it doesn't entertain such thinking and I don't think any less of it if it isn't 'able' to be used as a tool in such a topic.

You are saying that claims made about god generate empircally testable hypotheses? Such claims always rest comfortably away from having much significance to thesist about their being a god that they really aren't important arguments about the existence of a god in the first place. Show evidence that the world isn't 6000 years old? No problem, god works in mysterious ways, he is fiddling with your measuring instruments. Or if a thesist does accept what you say then they will simply change the story. Persuading people that the earth is round, that there is a big bang etc has done nothing to persuade people about the existence of their god.

It is begging the question because not all conceptions of god fall entirely outside of the empirical domain. Some do, of course, but you can't just assume this from the outset. It is the act of making such an assumption prior to examining the god in question which constitutes begging the question (because if you assume it is outside scientific enquiry then our method endorses non-belief, which is an unfair starting point for the consideration of any hypothetical entity). But yes, once you've shown that the god in question is entirely supernatural and decidedly untouchable then you can happily reject it.

Also, there seem to be two different issues here: what science has to say on the matter, and what theists think about what science has to say on the matter. I hadn't realised (as pwar yeux pointed out) that you largely had the latter in mind.

 

[saygoodbye]

that is a stupid argument, because if you had never heard of a country and someone tried to tell you it existed, you probably wouldn't believe it unless they could prove it to you somehow. obviously people who had been to china would be able to prove that china existed. and since people who believe in god can't prove in any way that there is a god, you shouldn't believe them just because they say it

imagine all the crazy stuff you'd have to believe if you believed everything people told you even if they couldn't prove it.

I agree.

Moreover, the reason why people made up their beliefs in god in ancient times is because they needed something to explain their questions regarding how the earth was created and as technology back then isn't like technology now, they had to use their imagination. Hence now with technology, we know scientifically how the universe was made and it was not due to the creation of a 'god'

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity; when more than one person suffers from a delusion, it's called religion."

 

[BradCube]

I agree.

Moreover, the reason why people made up their beliefs in god in ancient times is because they needed something to explain their questions regarding how the earth was created and as technology back then isn't like technology now, they had to use their imagination. Hence now with technology, we know scientifically how the universe was made and it was not due to the creation of a 'god'

I'll bite

When most people use the example of belief in a country they have never been to, they are referring to how absolute proof is not necessary for belief. If it were, then the only way to prove to you that "China" exists, would be to take you there and show you (and this is before dealing with any thoughts of faulty memory faculties). In order to make any claim we must make a jump that is reasonable rather than 100% logical to do so.

In this same way, the theist uses this example to show that just as we don't need 100% proof to believe in "China" we do not need 100% proof to infer that God exists.

I appreciate that you believe with technology we now know how the universe was created. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. The origins of the universe are still a complete mystery to us and thus theists continue to propose God as an answer. Certainly we have better descriptions and ideas of what happened up until the point of inception, but we still don't have scientific evidence explaining why anything at all exists.

 

[Enteebee]

These are exactly the sorts of arguments I wish we would also discuss in this thread. It seems to me that it would be far more constructive to look at both sides of the fence. At the moment (as far as I can tell) this thread mainly consists of people sitting back in the agnostic position, picking apart theistic arguments in order to make them look like fools.

At the moment it seems like people are sitting back in the fairy agnostic position, picking apart fairy believers arguments to make them look like fools. The fairy agnostic arguments and the fairy atheist arguments are pretty much the same. The fairy atheist is just willing to go that little bit further and say since there's no evidence of it, they believe it doesn't exist. They are willing to say that while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it's good enough for them. If you want to say 'nah ur argument to move from agnostic to atheist is rubish' then it is equally rubbish to move from an agnostic position on fairies to one of claiming they do not exist. I'd go so far as to say that it is true that the supernatural does not exist as much as we know most things are true, for if it is not true that the supernatural does not exist then those things we believe are true are called into question.

The origins of the universe are still a complete mystery to us and thus theists continue to propose God as an answer.

So all I need to do is find somewhere where our knowledge is lacking and a supernatural explanation becomes better? I'm going to invent some sort of an evil god that fucks around with economies and such.

 

[BradCube]

At the moment it seems like people are sitting back in the fairy agnostic position, picking apart fairy believers arguments to make them look like fools. The fairy agnostic arguments and the fairy atheist arguments are pretty much the same. The fairy atheist is just willing to go that little bit further and say since there's no evidence of it, they believe it doesn't exist. They are willing to say that while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it's good enough for them. If you want to say 'nah ur argument to move from agnostic to atheist is rubish' then it is equally rubbish to move from an agnostic position on fairies to one of claiming they do not exist. I'd go so far as to say that it is true that the supernatural does not exist as much as we know most things are true, for if it is not true that the supernatural does not exist then those things we believe are true are called into question.



So all I need to do is find somewhere where our knowledge is lacking and a supernatural explanation becomes better? I'm going to invent some sort of an evil god that fucks around with economies and such.

The first section was a typical reply, that I should have expected. If you still have questions about these things, it may be prudent to go back and re-read our conversation as I feel as though we are now starting the argument all over again.

To the second point though. The time that a supernatural explanation becomes better is when there is no natural explanation, or when the natural is so low in explanatory power that it becomes implausible.

 

[KFunk]

AThe fairy agnostic arguments and the fairy atheist arguments are pretty much the same. The fairy atheist is just willing to go that little bit further and say since there's no evidence of it, they believe it doesn't exist. They are willing to say that while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it's good enough for them.

It's an interesting subtle epistemological difference. When faced with an absence of evidence:

(1) The fairy atheist asserts non-existence

(2) The fairy agnostic refuses judgement either way (after all... who needs beliefs? Consider Sextus Empiricus, the coolest skeptic on the block)

(3) The fairy believer, on the basis of a reformed epistemology, feels that fairy beliefs are justified (by faith, or because they are 'properly basic' or similar...)

 

[Enteebee]

It's an interesting subtle epistemological difference. When faced with an absence of evidence:

(1) The fairy atheist asserts non-existence

(2) The fairy agnostic refuses judgement either way (after all... who needs beliefs? Consider Sextus Empiricus, the coolest skeptic on the block)

(3) The fairy believer, on the basis of a reformed epistemology, feels that fairy beliefs are justified (by faith, or because they are 'properly basic' or similar...)

Yes I see the difference. A 'agnostic fairy atheist' could assert non-existence while at the same time claiming that ultimately they cannot judge either way. I think it's possible to hold that both "fairies seem to not exist" and that "ultimately fairies may exist, they're after all outside of our realm of rational inquiry". With the first statement you're making a simplified sort of claim and with the latter you're acknowledging your ultimate epistemological position.

 

[KFunk]

Yeah, fair enough. I certainly act as though I were an atheist.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

My reason is that there's no evidentiary difference between fairies and God. Both have 0 proof.

0 proof according to your definition of proof. Apparently common sense doesn't count as proof to you.

 

[Farfour]

0 proof according to your definition of proof. Apparently common sense doesn't count as proof to you.

Yeah because an argument from personal revelation is common sense.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ I didn't say anything about personal revelation.

 

[Ubik]

0 proof according to your definition of proof. Apparently common sense doesn't count as proof to you.

Common sense is an imprecise term that is often used, as in this case, to describe beliefs that are mere opinion.

For this opinion to be common sense, it would have to be common, but the large degree of dissenting opinion shows a belief in god is anything but 'common sense'.

Regardless, common sense and proof aren't directly related. For something to be proof, it must be factual and evidence based. Ideas held in common have no such requirement and therefore no reliability as a source of truth. Ideas presented as 'common sense' by many, often stand in opposition to scientific proof.

 

[Graustein]

0 proof according to your definition of proof. Apparently common sense doesn't count as proof to you.

No, it doesn't. It's far too subjective. "Common sense" can be and is used to argue both sides of the argument (not just this one), and basing your argument on something as abstract and ill-defined as "common sense" just doesn't work.