The proof delusion
 

As i was shuttling between campuses today i got to thinking about stuff and it occured to me. I'm short on time, so this might be in need of some editing and/or elaboration. Will do when i have a chance.

Atheism is a philosophical position regarding the standards of evidence necessary to justify a belief. Is this an agreeable description?

If so, it would seem to be a tad "apples and oranges" to directly compare the faith of christianity or any one religion to atheism. Any differences between atheists and theists would necessarily be based on differing perspectives on the meaning of proof.

I would then argue that different types of knowledge require different standards of proof. This is something to which i will assume you all implicitly agree.

So if theism in its most general sense the application of intent to the universe, why can it not co-exist with more science-y explanations for everyday phenomena?

I don't believe that anyone can give a mathematical proof of the existence of God. But we can show that God's existence is far more likely to be a reality than his non-existence. Unless the atheist can show that a Supreme Being is a logical impossibility and prove all their premises, the case for atheism remains very weak.

I'm not sure what you mean by asking if the two beliefs can "co-exist".

If you mean should we be tolerant and respectful of others beliefs, then sure, theism and atheism can certainly co-exist.

If you mean can both positions be true, then the answer is clearly an emphatic no, and the two positions are the antithesis of each other.
Theism: A god exists (or gods exists).
Atheism: No gods exist.

Suggesting that both are true is entirely equivalent to asserting "A and not-A". In doing so, you are refusing to allow the debate to exist in any kind of logical framework and hence further communication is rendered impossible.

Would love to hear it.

well, every once in a while in the context of debates about this matter, i post something on the order of: these debates are disputes over axioms. axioms cannot be demonstrated from within proofs that presuppose them.

the rules that shape a proof can be indentical for theists and atheists, but the divergent axioms would still lead to different results.
if the existence of a god is taken as axiomatic, its effects can and will be dragged through the whole of a proof without necessarily resulting in a violation of the rules.
so a theist could produce claims that are formally speaking "true"
and a parallel situation obtains for atheists.

the most likely outcome is what lyotard called a differend--a space where arguments concerning the same thing (say) simply talk past each other.

in hobbes you find the same problem--except there the scenario involves an assumption of scarcity of material goods and competing, internally valid (and therefore "true") claims on those goods. the result would be war--so an outside arbiter is required who can make arbitrary decisions that have the force of law. the idea is not that this arbiter would have any access to a higher form of insight and so be able to determine which internally consistent (thereby "true") claim is more true than the other--rather, the arbiter would simply find one or the other argument more persuasive and make a decision based on that and that would resolve the fight over scarce goods--and it would be legit because it offered something like a solution in a scenario where the alternative is war of all against all.

in a messageboard, the war of all against all is not an issue.
so the result of debates over axioms is usually a differend.

what is confusing is the tendency for folk on both sides of these debates to act as though they can, from within their own set of axioms, manage to falsify the proofs of others which operate with different axioms.

you could, i suppose, rig up a meta-game wherein everybody agrees to rules concerning the nature and meaning of higher-order proofs that take on axioms: but christians (in particular) routinely are not amenable to this game because, in the end, faith kicks in at around this point, and faith is not falsifiable on these grounds.

the counter argument from that side is generally that atheism is no different in that it too presupposes articles of faith--and that is a non-trivial objection in itself--but i havent seen a theist stop there--and the next move---which is to claim that because it relies on matters of faith at some levels that atheism is therefore a form of religion--is just stupid--because what this sets up is yet another badly framed inevitably pissy dispute about axioms. if this goes on long enough, the theist--particularly a christian--will simply opt out again by referencing faith.

round and round.
nothing happens.
round and round.
more nothing.

Because of a lack of the evidence showing intent, it is quite difficult to allow the two ways of though to coexist in my mind. The idea that theists and atheists have different meanings of the word "proof" only seems to come up when the philosophies are directly compared. I think that atheists and theists share the same ideas about proof in our every day lives, such as crossing the street when there is a car coming. The only real separation comes with the application of said proof to theism, which by it's very nature has no connection to proof. I think it runs counter to the idea of faith to share the same philosophical presupposition (5 point word) as atheism, Darwinism, etc.

The problem that I keep coming back to is the explanation of faith. "I just believe" doesn't satisfy me, which is why I am for all intents and purposes an atheist. I see no logic in that position. Others do.
You may have just dug yourself into a very deep hole with this statement. Would you mind showing, with proof or evidence, that god's existence is far more likely to be a reality than his non-existence?
That's not really how science works. We gather evidence and test in order to draw conclusions. Something without evidence, like god, simply doesn't matter. Sure, it's interesting to apply theism to philosophy, but speaking from a purely scientific perspective, god is as important as any work of fiction or flight of fancy.

hey filthy,

first, i would modify your opening definition of atheism. i would say that something like skepticism is a philosophical position regarding the standards of evidence necessary to justify a position or belief. i would then argue that atheism is a subset of skepticism, on the topic of theistic religions / spiritual worldviews. Therefore, the evidenciary standards are naturally pretty important.

I have to agree with willravel that atheists and theists don't seem to have different evidenciary standards most of the time. only in this trivial "why are we here, where have we been, where are we going?" (thanks joyce carol oates) discussion. I'd have to ask what you mean by wanting different types of proof. I think this is precisely where roach's point about "faith" and "leaps of faith" come in. That to me would seem to be the big theological fudge factor for most religions. It seems to me to represent a schism in the way theist approach questions of knowledge. I honestly don't really understand it.

This may also be tied up in your last comment as well; you stated that theism in its most general sense a question of "intent" in the universe. I suppose "intent" may require an "intendor," but this seems to throw out deism, for example. So, in a way you seem to lumping in theism with spirituality, which I suppose I don't personally agree with.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this notion of "proof" and theism/atheism a little more. I feel as though this post is mostly a critique / question about your post, without as much creative personal thought as I'd like. I hope to post back when I've had some time to think about this and how to put my perspective.

Yes, I dug a hole and now I will plant a beautiful tree in it as proof of God.:) More Later: Its to nice a day to have this pointless debate! Soon the bradford pears, dogwoods, and redbuds will be blooming....more proof. I'm sure that God is a personal experience for everyone, what is proof to me, may not be to others. When my daughter was born I was absolutely positive it was a miracle, and it was even more proof (To Me!!). Even though I know the scientific explanation of reproduction, it didnt diminish the experience. When I look into a clear night sky at all the stars billions of miles away, I see more proof. Although I know the scientific explanation of this also. When a mighty oak grows from a single acorn I see it again....This is my point of view, and while the atheists may not be able to see what I see, it doesnt make my view any less valid. Have a wonderful rest of the day...:)

1. I don't think that that's going to be an adequate description of atheism. It may well be that most atheists disagree with most theists about issues of evidence and proof. But I suspect there are some theists that would agree with the atheists conception of proof, and vice versa, with the disagreement being along the lines of whether the burden of proof is satisfied or not. You'd have to say more about what you mean by a standard of proof.

2. I agree that different areas of knowledge use different types of proof. I would be inclined to use science and history as examples of this. I would disagree if you mean to imply some sort of ranking among disciplines based on their standard of proof. I'm not sure that science is in any sense 'better' than history just because it uses a different standard of proof. Sure, no one disputes the existence of gravity. But no one disputes the existence of Queen Elizabeth I either.

3. I think theism can certainly co-exist with 'science-y' explanations of ordinary phenomena. The claim theism makes is that science does not explain everything, not that it explains nothing.

Willravel took the words right out of my head. :thumbsup: for most everything else in life we go with obvious proof....not wishful thinking that may be true...if what our senses tell us is actually not true....but I can understand going with this "purpose of life optimism", which is sort of what religious faith seems to be imo.
Believe me, there have been many times in my life where I really wished I could have it (optimistic religious "faith") :cry: :uhh:
but my brain just won't allow me to indulge in such foolishness! ;) :lol: still, the joke's on me.....

Do you love your family, your parents, your spouse, your children??? Prove it.....:confused:

hey dave,

i guess for me, i don't understand why you interpret these instances of personal proof (flowers blooming, bees a-buzzing, cocks a crowing, etc) with proof of a particular flavor of religion, or even the presence of any sort of personified anthromorphic deity. i understand where i think you're coming from, and i definitely get the sensation that there is more occurring in this world / universe than contained in our theories. in fact, i think that inherent. but i don't see any particular facet that says "yes, my intepretation is correct." i can even somewhat understand a perspective from any particular believer that says "this is my perspective, and its only my perspective. it may have some flaws, maybe its not the "truth." but it works for me, and so forth." what i don't understand is the dogmatic belief that any particular religion is "correct."

but hey, it is a gorgeous day outside and i'm off to take a run.

two characters

Another long winded, mind numbing post which basically says nothing. I often wonder if you're actually puking up a dictionary, or you think all those words help prove your point??? Meaningless to me, none the less....:)

dave....i think we should talk about this, dave....

from what i can work out, given your style of posting (there are trees, i like them, therefore god) you really aren't interested in argument on this matter, are you? when the question of proof came up, your response (do you love your kids, prove it) was kinda...well...i hate to say it, dave...but it was kinda sophomoric. and now...

the first post could be confused with an argument because it maintains the formal structure of an argument, even if it isnt a very good argument.
the second post has no argument.
the third doesn't even try.

so if it is the case that you really are not interested in discussion about this topic--or any discussion of this topic it seems--then why not simply avail yourself of the lovely and important benefits of having a back button?

Apples and oranges. I love my children as a function of emotion. Compare that to theism. In theism, one believes in the actual existence of a deity. One believes, for example, that a tangible creature with great supernatural power created the universe.

Emotion is simply an affective state of consciousness. God is a being. Those aren't comparable so far as provability.

Okay, so it seems some clarification is in order.

First, this is coming out as a general presupposition about the position of all atheists. I realize that there will be atheists who don't fit this bill, and i apologize. It is a general argument, and i don't mean to tell anyone what they think. It's more of a tardy rebuttal to arguments i've already had.

Second, when i speak of spiritual people i mean people whose beliefs are adaptable; they don't believe in things that contradict their experiences or knowledge. I hope that idea is clear.

Okay, pigglet, you're right about the d/theism thing. I guess that i'm speaking more along the lines of spirituality in general. Would you agree that theism is a subset of spirituality?

As for the definition of atheism, i'm treating it here like the second law of thermodynamics: there are many different ways of saying it - you just pick the one most useful for doing whatever it is you're doing. It has been my experience that one of the standard atheist arguments against th/deism is that th/deism is an invalid perspective because it doesn't meet some sort of rigidly defined scientific criteria; teapots, spaghetti monsters, all that. These arguments would seem naturally apply to all spirituality, inasmuch as spirituality equates to belief in the supernatural. I know that technically atheism is isn't just about standards of evidence, but standards of evidence seem to be a fulcrum upon which its more militant adherents attempt to invalidate spiritual beliefs. Discussions generally seem to boil down to questions of proof.

The idea that there is a method which, when followed with enough diligence, can explain all things is groundless. Also, that the idea that any ideas unsupported by this method are regressive is groundless. Obviously, i don't have any sort of proof for these assertions, but a mathematical analogue for them might be godel's incompleteness theorems.

I guess what my position comes down to, is that evidentiary standards are necessarily fluid things. None of us could function if we only acted when we had a strict scientific basis on which to act. I think that a discerning person should be able to figure out for themselves where the limitations of rigorous doctrine A end and where the limitations of rigorous doctribe B begin, and also that the ability to adhere to two superficially contradictory methods of making sense of things isn't necessarily something to be frowned upon.

You guys are so easy!!:) I knew the tree post would getcha!!:) Lighten up, its not the end of the world.....yet!!:)

Ah, but Dave you're hardly the only one to make such a point (and I'm wondering if you really posted those comments in jest or if you're backpedaling).

if you want proof, come on down and threaten them, you'll see how much i love them the rest of your life. :)

filtherton: setting up standards of evidence amounts to setting up other proofs. the same problem of axioms will recur.
it doesn't go away: this is a problem with the form.

in the end, the rules and assumptions behind proofs as a form are either taken for granted (and so frequently unexamined and so frequently more problematic than they appear to be: like identity) or are attempts to write-to-ground of assumptions shared by a belief community. so there is nothing about the form that will prevent bad assumptions from being written into their structure. and once they are in, they become part of the apparatus that moves across the steps.

it is a bit strange that folk are fixated on proofs as a form that has no particular problems. the result of a proof is true if it doesn't violate the rules. the axioms arent demonstrable from within the proof that assumes them. no believer is going to set about developing a proof of gods existence before they start a demonstration---closest you get is the ontological proof, and that's a tautology that says the question "does god exist?" is tautological.

I must disagree with much of this, but the apples and oranges anology does seem apropriate. If I understand you correctly, perhaps you should have said Apples and Monkey Wrenches!:)

Loving someone, & believing in God are both emotional states that exist within your mind. While they are somewhat different, they both have similar qualities that cant be defined or proven. Many people believe in & love God, as they believe in and love others. Apples & Oranges.

Roach, i'm not saying that proofs aren't problematic, i'm saying that they are. My position is there is no one true way of making sense of the world.

I agree that it's all in the axioms. Arguing against scientific ideas based on the supernatural assumptions, and vice versa, is like arguing against euclidean geometry based on the assumptions of noneuclidean geometry; both are valid ways to think about abstract things, they just have different, mutually exclusive axioms and different spheres of relevance. Granted, there don't seem to be many outspoken militant ideologues when it comes to mathematics, as far as i can tell, no one has been drowned for proving the existence of irrational numbers lately.

two characters

I wonder how bertrand russel would feel about dark matter. Perhaps it's just a bunch of invisible teapots?

We don't believe in and have faith in love, we experience love as an affective state of consciousness. God is not a state of consciousness, he or she or it is a being, as is described in theism. Love may be loosely referred to in lore —Cupid/Eros, Aphrodite, etc.—, I'm sure you do not have faith in these beings because you recognize that, while they may have philosophical meaning, they are myths and are no more real than Frodo or Spider-Man.

They are entirely different.

He would say that there is some evidence to suggest that dark matter exists, whereas there is none to suggest the existence of god.

Perhaps your post needs more editing, but so far it boils down to "religious people have faith that their beliefs are true. Atheists do not."

Not to be pushy, but. . .we all know that ;)


You answered your own question. Different types of knowledge require different levels of proof. Faith-based knowledge doesn't require much, if any proof. I have faith that my wife doesn't cheat on me, but when you get right down to it I have no proof of that because I don't have her under 24 hour surveillance. I cannot therefore scientifically say that she does not cheat on me because I have not tested that theory.

Same thing with religion. You can have the knowledge of faith - i.e. you believe that your god exists, however you cannot have scientific knowledge of that god because there is no way to test your faith-based knowledge scientifically. It would be awfully nice if we could dump a couple of chemicals in a beaker or hold a piece of litmus paper up to a church to verify the existence of god, but we cannot.

In short, theism certainly can go hand in hand with science. Religious people who justify their dismissal of the theory of evolution as "not glorifying god" are shortchanging god. Look at it this way. Any idiot can make a chair. Only a genius can make a chair that then goes on to produce more chairs, each one an improvement over the last. Any idiot omnipotent being can make a life form, but only a truly great one can come up with a life system that improves itself over time without intervention. You want the glory of god? You want an example of how smart he is? Assuming he exists and created all this, then evolution is a pretty big example of his genius. I wouldn't have thought of it.

Well put. Some theists are threatened by science, but that's really not necessary. Why fear the known?

I think you've already stated this once, and I agree that God is not a state of consciousness, but 'Believe In God' is a state of consciousness. Since the believer must use his mind to believe, it must be a conscious thought, therefore a state of consciousness. The same can be said of 'Love'. So love & belief must both exist within conscious thought, both within a state of consciousness.

But what you believe in defines the process behind the belief. Believing in love is not the same as believing in god because of what the belief is in.

Anything that goes on in your head is a state of consciousness, but as far as states of consciousness go, again, belief in god and love are apples and oranges.

Yes, thats what I said 3 posts ago, (2 if you dont count this one....nice recovery btw) but both have similar qualities that cant be proven. So just because I cant prove I love my family doesnt mean that my love doesnt exist. I cant prove there is a God either, yet through my own experiences I have come to believe that He does exist. My belief is most certainly real, just as my love for my family is. So if belief is a delusion, then so is love. Scientifically they're both just chemical reactions in my brain. Are chemical reactions delusion??? If that were so then all thought must be a delusion and that is not the case. The debate will go on...........

Actually, there are not chemicals associated with theism. There are, however, chemicals proven to be associated with love.

I'm sorry, I'm not making this clear enough. There are three distinguishable processes of perception: affective (emotional), cognitive (perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning) and volitional (free will). Love is an affective process of perception by it's very definition, and does not include the cognitive or volitional at all. Belief in god is a combination of all three, though it asks you to suspend cognitive reasoning. The emotional aspect changes from person to person, but to simplify, it could be that one has an emotional attachment to religion or faith as someone would have for any other ever present environmental factor (like he idea of "home", for example). It's cognitive because it calls on you to perceive the world around you within a certain construct, and it requires memory ("I believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth"...will always be in my mind) for various dogma and biblical (spiritual texts) verses. It requires judgment, in that one must judge the faith itself as well as the faith's effect on one's self, others, and our world. Faith is also volitional in that it requires free will to accept faith.

I hope this has been helpful.

I know that what i'm saying might not necessarily be mind blowing. It was just more of a rebuttal for those who believe that spirituality, and perhaps by extension theism, is regressive.

It's just that i've gotten an impression from some folks that science is "the decider", so to speak, when it comes to acceptable ways of looking at things. I just wanted to explain why i disagreed with that notion. If the shoe doesn't happen to fit you personally, then good for you.

In my opinion, I think this is a question of what views will I tolerate from other people, what views will I tolerate from other people as they cross into the public domain, and what do I consider to be more accurate representations of reality. One of the problems with many theistic positions is that they aren't purely resigned to the untestable regions of supernatural phenomena and hyperconsciousness, but they make direct claims about physical/scientifically testable subjects that are much more difficult to reconcile with what we can observe than are the corresponding scientific theories. If a theist adopts the position that they must adopt all of the tenets of their religion, or none of them...and they need to see this reflected in governmental or educational policy, for instance...then we've got a problem. I think that's one of the main places this need for "proof" comes in. Age of the universe, evolution, etc.

As to what someone else believes, in terms of creation stories or what happens after they die or whatnot when it doesn't cross over into the public domain...well, who cares? I don't care if they believe in reincarnation, or going up to heaven or Valhalla. Bonny for them.

Then there's the pure "intellectual" discussion about the "truth." I would have to suppose that the theist values the accounts they have been handed down through family and community more than taking an approach that wipes the slate clean. I think many atheist try to take the perspective that if they were trying to figure it out from scratch, what would be the most logical way to proceed. As I've stated in other threads on this, I think at one point in time, various religious viewpoints probably made as good sense as any other position. However, I just don't see that being the case any more. We've got a better explanation for the rising of the sun or lightning strikes, how babies are made, and so forth - and I think that the tendency to personify (other than for the purposes of analogy) things we don't understand is less credible than it used to be.

The universe loves me or I wouldn't be here.
There's something to be said for luck, after all.

I agree with you here. I don't really have much interest in defending ways of understanding the world or finding meaning that directly contradict more readily verifiable explanations. I firmly believe that spirituality and factual analysis can be complementary, and i acknowledge that this often is not the case.

I see what you're saying. I'm not a theologian, so i don't know exactly how to reconcile theism as a means of explaining natural phenomena with theism as a means of explaining more existential questions. I know that there are christians who take everything in the bible literally, and frankly, i've never understood how. The types of theism i'm interested in are those who take a more macro view concerning what their particular diety seems to be about, and then use this view to make sense of reality. I don't know if you could call it theological rational empiricism or theological post modernism or what.

I feel as though this kind of theism and the sciences might ultimately converge as t -> infinity, so to speak, but it will depend on whether science can satisfy the need for meaning.

yep - i think we agree on these issues more or less. the search for "meaning" will not play out in the realm of science. i had conversation with a fellow engineer type a while back, along the lines of "science is the pursuit of how things happen, philosophy/religion is the pursuit of why they happen..." which folds in nicely with the viewpoint of a professor i knew a while back who's methodology was if you want to drill in on details, ask how. if you want to go to the macroscopic viewpoint, ask why.

i think that a lot of ground could be covered by many followers of various theistic approaches if they would loosen their interpretations a bit. but that's an entirely different situation, i suppose. i'm not sure that different disciplines really have a fundamentally different conception on the standards of proof, per se...but more that the "experiments" are vastly different, so the ways in which the standards of proof may be met are different. i think asaris referenced history vs. physical science...i think the "scientific method" still lies at the heart of these approaches, only that the way one applies the same logical thought pattern must be adaptable to the types of data present.

as for science and the type of spirituality that you're talking about, i think, merging as t->inf....well, i'd say that's what most religions these days are the result of. t sort of went to a practical limit of infinity...and their scientific, sociological, spiritual and ethical knowledge all got wrapped up in one big enchilada. i think that's partially why different theist brands have this trouble with new science...the cultural knowledge of previous civilizations gave birth to these various religions, and to be flexible on the parts that pertain to the areas we've made huge advances in (primarily technology / science in the post Enlightenment era) is difficult when that might creep over in the areas where we haven't made a lot of significant progress, ie. why are we here and what the fuck are we supposed to be doing...and what happens when we're done, anyways? so you get people clamoring for proof of the aspects that are easily contradicted by modern knowledge, and that creeps in on the rest because the construction of the religion doesn't allow the aspects to be easily cleaved...or so it seems to me.

To the OP: I believe that the idea of "proof" in 'metaphysical inquiries' is a delusion, as neither Theists nor Atheists can present empirical evidence for either claim. Nor can we, with sound mind, claim that anecdotal experience, unverifiable writing, or even radiometric dating 'prove' the existence or non-existence of any deity. Logical arguments can always be made towards likelihood; Ockham's Razor, Pascal's Wager, etc. I find it unlikely that a diety exists, but not altogether impossible.

Wouldn't it be foolish to commit to either? This feverish commitment to the absolute existence or nonexistence of God(s) means declaring omniscient knowledge AND certainty on a position which one cannot ever be certain about.

Finally, I just wanted to re-post this quote in case it got lost in the random flaming by Dave, as its the best summarization of my feeling on this matter that I've ever heard.

It lends itself more naturally to agnosticism than atheism, and it's very accurate.

Thank you, politicophile:

Orignally Posted by DaveMatrix
Yes, I dug a hole and now I will plant a beautiful tree in it as proof of God. More Later: Its to nice a day to have this pointless debate! Soon the bradford pears, dogwoods, and redbuds will be blooming....more proof. I'm sure that God is a personal experience for everyone, what is proof to me, may not be to others. When my daughter was born I was absolutely positive it was a miracle, and it was even more proof (To Me!!). Even though I know the scientific explanation of reproduction, it didnt diminish the experience. When I look into a clear night sky at all the stars billions of miles away, I see more proof. Although I know the scientific explanation of this also. When a mighty oak grows from a single acorn I see it again....This is my point of view, and while the atheists may not be able to see what I see, it doesnt make my view any less valid. Have a wonderful rest of the day...


Originally Posted by politicophile
Indeed, the signs of His Noodly Appendage are everywhere if you know what to look for. You silly God-believing types have just made the unfortunate error of mistaking the signs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for those of God. When you look out at a Marinara-colored sunset, it is so obvious as to be undeniable that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and influences our everyday lives.

Ramen. :)



And what would you call this JinnKai??? I Post about a personal experience and this is the response.....now thats random flaming, and a total lack of respect for other members who dont share his views, in fact its down right egomanical.

He is describing his belief as a Pastafarian, one who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It sounds just like your description of birds and God, so I fail to see how you take offense from one crafted just as yours is.

I see, so basically the college click takes up for the college click, right or wrong. Got it.

Actually this is incorrect. All thought is a combination of chemicals and an electrical charge.The chemicals are stored in sacks located at the end of a neuron branch, the site of the synapse, the space where one neuron sends it's message to the next. An electrical charge frees chemicals from their holding tanks making their way across the synapse to the connecting neuron. This is the scientific basis of thought.

You may be thinking of the chemicals released when people fall in love, which is different than the love we feel for our families, and different neurotransmitters are involved. All thought is a combination of chemicals and electrical charges within our brains, whether you think of love, or God, or what time you're cooking dinner. The only difference are the chemicals involved. Hope this helps you understand a little better.:)

If you are trying to argue that an Atheist is wrong (meaning your religion is correct), you do not understand faith DaveMatrix.

two characters

Ahhh... I was going to post something along those lines, but you said it better than I could have.

One thing I will note: Lack of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence. Science is based on induction and can only observe what is known rather than what is unknown. To state that God doesn't exist because he can't be observed through scientific means is just faulty, faulty, faulty, faulty, faulty. Therefore, I'll take any atheistic claims made of the basis of science with a grain of salt until the day that science proves, definitively, that God doesn't exist. A belief in the unknown (God) in inherently no different than a concrete statement of the unknown (That God doesn't exist).

two characters

*Clears his throat*

Well... Physics usually point to six universal constants (The force that binds atomic nuclei together, the binding strength of forces that hold atoms together divided by gravitational attraction, the density of matter in the universe, the strength of the cosmic antigravity that controls the expansion of the universe, the size of the ripples in the expanding universe and the number of dimensions in our space) which make life possible. If, say, gravitational attraction was off by 1/1,000,000,000,000 then life wouldn't exist. You can either believe that 1.) things happened by chance or 2.) that there are various multi-verses and that our universe is simply part of that chain or 3.) that there is a Divine Creator. Occam's razor states that in the event of three conflicting theories that you should pick the simplest and most straight-forward method.

So you have a choice of things simply falling into place, multi-verses or a Divine Creator. Nothing happens "By accident", so we can rule out number 1. That leaves us with either there being various multi-verses or a Divine creator. Personally, I lean towards a Divine Creator as the odds of there being various multiverses which we can't observe is much, much lower than the existence of an omnipotent being (Plus, the more multiverses which exist the smaller the chance of there being life in each one). Then again, there could be a fourth option which is bigger and more incomprehensible than we could imagine (Though, I'd call that God, but that's just me).

Slightly off-topic, but I can't help but think of the movie MIB, where the entire universe turns out to be nothing more than a marble created by a higher being.

My favorite of all non-arguments. "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore you're all wrong." You cannot prove a negative, so the burden of proof is in theist's court.

I'll tell you what, assemble a panel of the most distinguished thinkers of all time from every field of expertise. I'll make a claim that I can turn an empty coke bottle into a star with nothing more than my remote control for my tv. They have to disprove it. Guess what? That's what you're asking of us.

What people that make this non-argument don't understand is that logic actually works this way: You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. All you need is a complete lack of proof for something.

God is the most complicated and unlikely answer of all because he/she/it is said, in religious texts and ancient stories, to work outside of the laws of nature. According to Occam's Razor, god is the least likely possibility in any possibility imaginable.

It doesn't tell you anything about the Easter Bunny or unicorns nor should it. Science only delves into the known. It's senseless bringing up unknowns as science can't dispute their validity. If someone says that there are llamas in your living room, then you can easily form a hypothesis and test it. Simply walk into your living room and check to see if there are any llamas walking about. If there aren't, then you can safely conclude that there are no llamas in your living room as, through induction, llamas have been observed to be visible and a lack of visible llamas would be equated to a lack of any llama in your living room.

Now, if I tell you that God is in your living room I'd love to see you dispute it. You can't, as induction (The basis of science) is useless. We can't observe God and, thusly, can make no rationalizations about his being. Remember, science can't test the unknown; Only the known.

Now, if that were my argument I would have said "Science can't disprove God there he must exist!" which, as I'm sure you're well aware, I didn't. I hate repeating myself, but sometimes I feel I must. The aim of science isn't to prove, but rather to disprove. Science follows statistical logic. You have a hypothesis and you have a null hypothesis. To accept the hypothesis you must reject the null hypothesis. If you can't reject the null hypothesis then either one of two things is correct:

1.) Your hypothesis is wrong or
2.) You're unable to form a conclusion with the given data.

There are only two possible hypotheses (God exists and God doesn't exist), neither of which is disprovable. Therefore, science simply states that God might exist but there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim. Therefore, it's inherently faulty to claim that God doesn't exist because you can't prove him.

(I know this will be ignored.)

I'm pretty sure they could disprove that (Hell, I could disprove that) as it'd be easily observable that the coke bottle would do nothing/go nowhere ;)

Ummm... No. You would be laughed at if you walked into a scientific convention and said "<Insert name of object here> doesn't exist because I can't prove it!". A lack of proof doesn't equal non-existance. Disproof of existance, however, equals non-existence :)

Not really. The existence of God has a higher statistical probability than dose that of various multiverses, one of which is able to sustain life. What most atheists assert, however, is that there is a fourth option that we don't know yet which is more likely than God.

Why don't you folks have this discussion of proof in a thread that isn't about how unsuitable any one standard of proof is when one attempts to apply it to everything?

When it comes down to it, we're all empiricists(in the general sense), so all this nonsense about proof is a colossal waste of time and effort. The need to prove the existence of a deity implies a certain insecurity of faith, likewise, the need to disprove the existence of a deity implies a lack of understanding about the different ways experience informs knowledge.

I'm not a spiritual person, but i do believe that i've experienced things that are implausible and whose significance is unprovable. The fact that i can't prove the significance of these things makes them no less significant. For this very reason, in my mind, a blind commitment to only believing in things that are provable or probable isn't prudent. I am very certain that the ratio of phenomena to explanation in this here existence is rather large.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that my experiences suggest to me the existence of a deity in the standard christian sense, but i could understand how someone else, having different experiences, might come to the conclusion that there might actually be something to this whole god business.

I don't think trying to objectively justify a belief such as that is necessarily a good way to waste time, but i don't happen to enjoy the experience of futility (aside from my occasional participation in the politics forum).

You aren't reading what I'm writing. Atheists say god doesn't exist. The theist argument against that is that atheists can't disprove god's existence, therefore they are wrong to say that god doesn't exist. Don't strawman.
No, it's both. It's equally about proving what's right and disproving what is wrong.
There is no given data outside outdated religious texts and word of mouth. If there is zero proof of something, then the suggestion that it is not real is more reasonable than the suggestion that it is. That's where most atheists, myself included, stand.
I'm glad you responded to this. What if I said that god was going to use my remote to turn the coke can into the sun?
No evidence exists, and no one can offer any reason to believe in the existence of god. It's incorrect to make the argument that a complete lack of evidence for something doesn't suggest it's non-existence.
Some theoretical evidence exists to suggest that the multi-verse is real. No evidence exists to suggest god exists. There's your razor.


They're making a movie about Darwin right now, but I expect it to be eaten by a faster, stronger, and smarter movie.

It wasn't a straw man. You come up with the same scientifically-based, illogical arguments over and over and over again (Which are nothing more than pseudo-science, at best). Following a purely scientific reasoning, if you can't disprove God's existence then you can't say that He doesn't exist. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's just plain old normal science.

To accept B you must reject A. If you can't reject A then you can't accept B.

It's really that simple.

No, it's not. Science isn't what you want to make it. I'm not going to re-state what I just wrote out a few minutes prior as you can look up a couple of posts and re-read what I wrote.

The proof which you require is not the proof a theist requires. My beliefs only require a proof of faith. That is, God exists because the Bible, which is God's Word, states that He exists. You, by your own admission, seek scientific proof. The only way for you to definitively state that God doesn't exist is for science to definitively disprove His existence-- Something which science is unable to do. Arguing that God doesn't exist based on scientific reasoning when science reasoning clearly states that God might exist is-- For the umpteenth time-- A logical fallacy.

It's impossible to disprove, as God can't be measured nor can He be qualified by science as, once again, science only deals with the known and not the unknown.

Once again, no it's not. For as long as you argue based on science, then I'm going to continue to hold you to the rules of scientific reasoning/proof. In science a lack of evidence does not equal non-existence. The only way to prove something non-existent is to disprove it's existence.

I just responded to this. The statistical probability of God creating the universe is higher than that of the statistical probability of there being millions upon millions of multiverses, one of which being able to sustain life. Rather than admit that there could be an omnipotent and all-power Divine Creator, most atheists (Including Dawkins) argue that there is some other option which humans either haven't discovered or will be incapable of understanding (Which is just a fancy term for "God", but to each his own).

Hehe... Sorry. I'm done now anyway >_<

It's okay, i know how easy it is to get caught up in these types of things.

Yeah, I feel badly now. There are so many atheism threads, it's hard to keep them straight. This one is more about the idea of proof than it is about atheism or theism. Sorry, filth.

IL, you're welcome to make your points in the other atheism threads.

I forgive you my child, now go forth and spread my good word. Or something. ;)

I wish you would have said take root and multiply. That's a philosophy I can get behind. :thumbsup:

Huh??? Where did this come from??? I dont belong to, nor do I belive in any organized religion. I personally feel that people should keep their religion in their heart and not in a building made of wood or stone (or steel:) ). I also dont want to belong to any group that feels their beliefs are correct and anyone who doesnt believe as they do is wrong. Silly me...:rolleyes: 'But' if I do believe in something, God for example, then let me believe it. I'm not harming you by believing this. If it gives my life direction and purpose, then all the better. If you think I'm delusional, along with 90% of the worlds population, then so be it. Thats your right.

This has been stated before, but I'll repeat it again. I dont care what you believe, or dont believe, just dont try to force your beliefs, or lack of beliefs on me. Peace to All.

I wasn't critisizing you, DaveMatrix. You will forgive me; I occasionally make a statement, such as the one you responded to, in order to incite a desired answer, or give me an idea on where you stand. In this case, it accomplished both.

actually filthy, this is kind of interesting, in terms of proof and standards of proof. 1. il is using some sort of quasi-science to try to infer the presence of God. i would think that there could be a discussion about the validity of this approach, as it seems pretty much at the heart of your thread here 2. this may also be an interesting place to flesh out this discussion concerning the easter bunny analogy / complete lack of proof of existence strongly implies probability of non-existence. will / politico and il seem to talking right past each other on this point. roachboy loves to point this situation out. it seem to me that if we talk about the conversation that was occurring above in the thread, then that pretty much brings it back on topic, no?

I would just like to point out, IMO, that I dont really see believers going around trying to "prove" God exists....thats the atheist's mantra "prove it to me and I'll believe". Believers are the ones saying..."we have faith, we dont need scientfic proof"

two characters

Non-sequitur time - this is my all-time favorite St. Augustine quote, from City of God:

Changed my life.

I think it's interesting, if left to their own devices, their argument would play out in a thread which, to a certain extent, concerns incompatible methods of proof. It might be interesting if they kept arguing and we just critiqued them, if that's what you're suggesting; I imagine they might become a bit self conscious, though.

Funny, I do the same thing.:)

To tie this back in, and respond a bit, what do you mean by "purely scientific reasoning"?

filthy
well, not so much observe and critique, as i'm sure that wouldn't play out well at all. but i find the use of this universal constants evidence to be somewhat...interesting. I'm reading through the scientific literature now as to what I can find on this type of interpretation of the so-called anthropic principle; but I'm getting the feeling its a long way from a settled interpretation that the anthropic principle implies a necessary creator. Regardless, it appears to be an attempt to back God out of the scientific complexity of the Universe. I'd really like to be able to download the following article from Nature, The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world 605 B. J. Carr & M. J. Rees , but I'm blocked access. This is essentially the proof from complexity argument, and so would seem to be in direct contradiction that you can't prove the spiritual with the physical and vice versa; or at least a different perspective. I think its very interesting, but in the end doesn't prove "God" at all.

The bit on the Easter Bunny business just seemed interesting to me as everyone was talking about the same points, using some inverted language, and everyone thought they were redudantly making "points" for their side of the argument.

The exchange going on between Infinite_Loser and willravel is an interesting illustration of precisely the problem that the OP was trying to resolve. I'm inclined to agree with RB that these arguments go around and around with nothing being said; the positions taken by the posts say far more about their authors than about the thing that is being discussed.

The disagreement seems to me to be about how to 'know' (scientifically) when there is no means to know scientifically (i.e. no evidence), a question whose answer can only be absurd and cannot say very much.

For my own part I'm inclined to come down with willravel on this, not least beacuse I find Infinite_Loser's formulation ('Since your standard is evidence and mine only faith, we can evaluate our respective claims by different standards') fairly incoherent.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

Your argument makes some dubious assumptions. For instance, I don't like quoting Einstein but I do like this quote: "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" You're assuming that those physical constants can vary; that they could have been anything but we don't know that.

As a mild aside, I write software. When people run the software that I write, they often say things like my software "tries" to do this or it "wants" to do that. I find this funny 'cause, obviously, it's just a turing machine. It doesn't try or want to do anything any more than a ball tries or wants to roll down a hill... It's an example of how much people project themselves onto things they observe...

Another assumption that this argument makes is that there's something special about its current state to attribute to God. Obviously, we're partial to life, as we know it, but that's just us being egocentric. Oh my God, look at us! We're so special that the entire Universe must have contrived itself to make us possible! Therefore, there is a god...

I don't understand why you think "nothing happens by accident." Unless you believe in fate, a lot of things happen by accident...

Your characterization of the multiverse is also strange. Why would the chances of life happening in a multiverse universe (for lack of a better term) diminish as the number of universes increase? That makes no sense. Are you assuming some sort of conservation of life probability across the various universes?

*whew*
thanks politicophile for the list of all the proofs of god. after reading the page and researching each one, their counterarguments, author's related works, and contemporary criticisms, i stumbled upon (using my Stumble! button, a must have program that led me to these forums) the actual truth about god, the universe, and everything.

it turns out the argument by design and everyone's appeals to nature, their children, and whatnot is correct. all of that is rock hard insurmountable undisputable truth that god created the universe. the problem of evil tried to counter all of this, but was quickly vanquished using a complicated string of secondary goods, secondary evils, tertiary goods and evils etc and free will.
Here's the kicker though: free will, being created by god, who knew all, was by definition determined on some level. and not free. oh nos! the resulting paradox destroyed god in an event now termed as "the big bang", moments prior to god endowing every element in the universe with the truth about creation.

true story. read it on wikipedia or something.

Yes, I know what I false dichotomy is which is why I included option #4.

Science makes hundreds of assumptions, few of which I see you question. Say what you will, but I don't assume God exists; I know he exists. Getting slightly off-topic, but I personally believe that everyone knows God exists. However, I think it's easier for people to believe that there's a logical explanation for everything as we like the known for fear the unknown.

If I ask you what created the universe if God didn't, you'll readily admit to not knowing but adamantly claim that it's not God. You'll argue that there isn't a God based on the assumption that tomorrow we might know more than we know today. I believe God to not only be the creator of the universe but unexplainable. The fact that you can't rationalize the creation of the universe only serves to strengthen my belief.

Oh, and Occam's Razor. Most of the explanations regarding the creation of the universe are much, much, much, much more complex and implausible than the existence of a divine creator.

Let's look at the odds of life occurring in this universe. The probability of such an occurrence happening "By accident" is something like one over a million to the millionth power. Things only happen "By accident" when you deny the existence of God :thumbsup:

I suppose that wasn't worded as well as I wanted it to be. This is taken from Wiki:

The emphasis is mine. This thread is old so I'm not sure I'm following it correctly but is this the list you're referring to? Where's option number 4?


Good God, where do I start?

Science, by definition, is a set of assumptions. The assurance of science is that these assumptions allow us to do things. The important part of your assumptions is that they're dubious. They're based on nothing but personal whims.

Oh, you know there's a god. I'm reassured, then! ...'cause, if you know something, it must be true!

Some of us assume there's a logical explanation for everything 'cause this assumption allows us to control everything. More seriously, we look at the world and deduce cause and effect so that we may contrive causes to produce wanted effects. It's worked brilliantly, by the way. The fact that we're communicating at all is a good example of some of our efforts...

I don't think "fear of the unknown" is a good characterization for wanting explanations. Do we do cancer research because we're afraid of not knowing what causes cancer? Only in that we wish to stop cancer from killing us and understand cancer is the only way of stopping it...


Just for fun, here's a well done video for you to watch:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/80nhqGfN6t8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/80nhqGfN6t8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


First, I wouldn't argue this. You're probably thinking of willravell and I'm insulted you'd conflate the two of us. Do you really think that "we don't know" is not a more honest answer to the question of the creation of the universe than "my god did it?"

Secondly, you clearly don't understand parsimony. It's not that the most simple answer is the preferable one or we'd all stop researching these complex scientific theories and subscribe to the mindlessly simple theory that "God did it." You didn't give this much thought, did you? Considering your blind belief in God, this shouldn't surprise me...


Again, I'm going to trust your calculations 'cause you sure... know.. a... lot...

Besides, I'm not entirely sure what a low chance of life is supposed to prove. You must attribute some metaphysical significance to life for its probability to be relevant. Any number of unlikely things could have happened. Instead, this has happened. So what? Self replicating proteins exist, therefore, it must have been the work of a great protein maker in the sky...

Ha! That's a good video.

The Godzilla Delusion!