change to this forum

quote:

---

But proving that God doesn't exist is impossible. You can look high and low but the non-confirming evidence (whatever form it might take) does not constitute proof. So, if you say God doesn't exist, it's a position held by faith

---

You could actually use this argument for lots of things, UFOs, PSI, weather cables have direction and so on.

It's true I believe there is no god. OK, that's a faith of sort. I believe my music is great, Faith. That I'm gods gift to women. Faith (or is that delusion?):). I don't usually think about it. Like a lot of things, it's unimportant to me. A god isn't necessary in my life. I respect others rights to spiritual feelings - I just don't have any.

But don't get me started on Religions.

Grr

Stephen
PS I like Faith from Buffy though

quote:

---

You could actually use this argument for lots of things, UFOs, PSI, weather cables have direction and so on.

---

Yup, you can't prove that UFOs (or whatever) don't exist. But this is not the same say saying that because you can't prove it, UFOs do exist. I hope that came across in my post.

quote:

---

I like Faith from Buffy though

---

Ah, but do you have faith that Buffy will be resurrected in the next season?

Joe

quote:

---

I really didn't think living in the U.S. south was going to influence you to the point of going around reforming atheists into accepting that there may be a God.

---

It wasn't the South that did this to me; it was Spock and his inescapable logic.

quote:

---

I still can't get over the fact that you actively participate in the destruction of the environment every day by driving a car. And what a car it is!

---

You know full well it's a riced up Corolla.

Joe

quote:

---

Proving that something exists, however, is a different matter. If I catch Nessy in a net -- viola, proof that the monster exists.

---

So how big would the net have to be to prove the existence of god?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Hmmm, the (erroneous) argument from personal incredulity: I can't conceive of a rational reason why X should exist, therefore, X doesn't exist.

---

This is not my argument. You seem to have mistaken my reasons for disbelieving in God for a supposed "proof" that God does not exist. Because I do not believe there is any evidence to support the existence of God, I choose to disbelieve that God exists. One is a consequence of the other but it is not a logical consequence of the other: it is not a deduction. I can see now that I didn't make this clear enough in my first post on the subject.

quote:

---

How can you prove the non-existence of something? I'm not talking about axiomatic proofs like there's no number that's both greater than zero and less than zero. That's true by definition. I'm talking about empirical statements like there's no such thing as the Loch Ness monster.

Say someone says there's no Loch Ness monster and sets out to prove it. No amount of non-confirming evidence will ever constitute irrefutable proof. I searched the Loch with sonar and found nothing, but maybe Nessy evaded my scans. I pulled a big net through the Loch and didn't catch the monster, but maybe Nessy is clever and swam out of the net's path. Obviously, as more and more non-confirming evidence mounts it becomes ever more likely that Nessy does, in fact, not exist. But that's not the same as proof that the monster doesn't exist. I might have scanned the Loch a hundred times with sonar and found nothing, but that doesn't mean that the 101st time won't be successful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Proving that something exists, however, is a different matter. If I catch Nessy in a net -- viola, proof that the monster exists. It only takes one observation to establish this, discounting, of course, human error -- say, catching a big fish but thinking it to be the monster.

---

I'm afraid you're simply wrong here.

Suppose I tell you there's a six foot crocodile in your bathtub. You look in the tub but you can't find it. Do you then say, "You can't prove a negative therefore there may still be a six foot crocodile in my bathtub" or do you decide that you have proof of the non-existence of that particular crocodile? It's rather more difficult to disprove the existence of Nessie but not impossible. If Loch Ness were drained, and no poor wee beastie were found at the bottom then most people would accept that as empirical proof of the non-existence of Nessie.

But all empirical facts are dependent to some extent on the conceptual framework in which they are interpreted. For example, if you believe that crocodiles can make themselves invisible at will then merely looking in the tub will not, for you, constitute proof that there is no crocodile there.
Similarly, if you believe that Nessie is amphibious - or can fly - then draining the loch will not constitute proof of Nessie's non-existence.

The same applies to beliefs.

If I visit you a second time and tell you again that there's a six foot crocodile in your tub, you may well disbelieve me. You will argue, perhaps, that crocodiles are not known in your area, that even if they were it would have been pretty difficult for one to have got into the house - let alone the tub - and you might well remember that last time I visited I lied to you about there being a crocodile in your tub. As far as you are concerned you have no rational reason to believe in the crocodile so you choose not to believe in it. You do not claim to have proved that the crocodile does not exist - merely that the existing circumstances are such that you have chosen to disbelieve in the existence of the crocodile.

Apart from the fact that I can't walk into a bathroom to prove or disprove his/her/its existence, this exactly mirrors my reasons for choosing to disbelieve in the existence of God.

quote:

---

Proving God's existence is logically possible, but it hasn't been done. People who believe in God do so by faith.

---

Deciding on whether it would be possible to disprove the existence of God, prove the existence of God or both or neither - would require a clear definition of what constitutes God. For example, if we take God to be omnipotent then, by definition, if he/she/it did not want their existence to be provable - then it would not be. If he/she/it wanted it to be provable then it would be. And, of course, if he/she/it wanted their existence to be disprovable then it would be. After all, what is an existential contradiction to an omnipotent God? This also explains how -=>God<=- can be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Getting back to:

quote:

---

An atheist believes that god doesn't exist. But since you can't prove the non-existence of something -- proving a negative, as it's called -- atheism is, in fact, a faith-based position. It's the ultimate irony, really: atheism is a belief as firmly rooted in faith as is theism -- that is, both positions are accepted on faith, not evidence.

---

Implicit in this quotation is the assumption that proof is the only rational basis for belief. You seem to be saying that atheists cannot disprove the existence of God therefore they have no rational reason to disbelieve in the existence of God. My disbelief in God is as rational as my disbelief that there's a crocodile in my bathtub - it doesn't fit my picture of how the world works. There may be a crocodile in my bathtub - God may have put it there - but I happen not believe it.

--Jeremy

[This message was edited by Sproggle on FRIDAY 17 August 2001 at 01:54.]

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

What in God's name are these kids stating by driving around in "skinny" tire'd, chassis-to-the-ground , whale-finned or other meaningless attached spoiler-type paraphernalia'd , clear tail-lite lensed Hondas ?

In addition , one often finds the majority of the little munchkins with shaved head covered with a baseball cap looking suitably stupid playing last months "rap" hit via a horribly distorted (alleged) car stereo.

I don't mean to interrupt the topic at hand but as Joe could attest, this is really getting to be a problem in the southern US.

I tried to communicate with one of them once but the only reply I could get was " idoanno...uhhh...idoanno....uhhh.....idoanno"....you get the picture.

Please advise,

dave

Thank goodness... now I can sleep tonight.

quote:

---

I don't mean to interrupt the topic at hand but as Joe could attest, this is really getting to be a problem in the southern US

---

Yeah, that and the poor air quality caused by all the backyard barbecues.

Joe

quote:

---

I'm afraid you're simply wrong here.

---

Vuk says I'm right. That's enough for me.

Glibness aside, what Vuk wrote (rather eloquently I should add) about the impossibility of proving the null hypothesis is what I have been trying to get across.

Joe

quote:

---

Although I can appreciate the dose of pragmatism you are attempting to infuse the discussion with, there are some serious flaws in your reasoning.

---

If you have found any flaws in my reasoning then I'd be delighted if you made me aware of them rather than keeping them to yourself: I'm not smart enough to work out for myself what they are.

quote:

---

The problem with your example, however, is that we have a great deal of experience with the habits of crocodiles, such that the odds are good we can correctly dismiss their spontaneous appearance in bathtubs. With more nebulous ideas like God, there is no proper context upon which to ground perceptions.

---

This is only a problem if you believe you can't make a rational decision whether to believe or disbelieve a statement whose truth is unknown without some means of working out the odds as to whether it's true. Consequently, it isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned.

--Jeremy

Why do I feel there was a great piccie in your last post trying to get out ?

Btw, as a member of the "now" generation , what is that Honda thing all about ?

regards,

dave

Weber Silver B gas grill w/166 GB afterburner
AndyLingo'd rotisserie for ultra-smooth rotation

Busier than a three-legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen pond what with spell checkin' words like "rotisserie" and "cat".

[This message was edited by dave simpson on FRIDAY 17 August 2001 at 15:46.]

quote:

---

Glibness aside, what Vuk wrote (rather eloquently I should add) about the impossibility of proving the null hypothesis is what I have been trying to get across.

---

From what you have said so far, I understand that you believe:

1) An atheist's disbelief in the existence of God, without proof of the non-existence of God, is just as much a matter of faith as a believer's faith in the existence of God.

I disagree.

2) It is not possible to disprove the existence of physical objects - e.g. the Loch Ness monster or the crocodile in your bathtub.

I disagree.

3) It is not possible to disprove the existence of God.

I agree - without an adequate definition of God it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

4) It is possible to prove the existence of God.

I disagree - without an adequate definition of God it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I might add, as an aside, that from a logical/scientific point of view the truth of a statement does not necessarily imply that it can be proved. Furthermore, all science is based on disproving hypotheses - but why pour oil on trouble water?

--Jeremy

I (possibly) read one of his books years back that rambled on the premise that we can prove absolutely nothing catagorically. The idea was that we can not be completely sure we are even conscious, this might all be some kind of dream or hallucination. You lot are possibly just a figment of my imagination. SOMEONE PLEASE, WAKE ME UP!

Tony.

quote:

---

You lot are possibly just a figment of my imagination.

---

Hey Tony, this is your imagination speaking -- in the form of forum-member Joe Petrik. About some of those other figments you've dreamt up... what the hell were you thinking?

OK, just for fun, use your powerful mind to imagine that Mick is a militant vegetarian, has a stack of Mana, an LP12, a cheap 15-cent ballpoint pen, and no decorative arse-wipe covers in the loo.

Joe

quote:

---

Anyhow, as I have offered before to great forum thinkers, I can arrange a meeting with the appropriate people at the local univeristy here and land you a highly lucrative faculty position.

---

Nothing I have said is particularly original, and it is certainly not ground-breaking in any way. Perhaps if you show the correspondence in this thread to a suitably qualified person at the university they will be able to explain what you don't understand. Alternatively, they may be able to help you frame your queries and objections intelligently - which you currently seem unable to do.

Either way, Vuk, I shall be delighted to discuss this topic with anyone from your local university - assuming they actually understand something about philosophy in general and philosophy of science in particular.

--Jeremy

PS

quote:

---

If you really have reasoned out how non-existence of something can be "proven," then you are far more intelligent than any of us and perhaps any man who has so far set down his thoughts in writing.

---

Unfotunately, you have failed to grasp that the word "proof" has different meanings in different contexts. For example, what might, to a layperson, seem a very plausible mathematical argument would not necessarily qualify as a valid mathematical proof. Conversely, the data that led to special relativity contradicted Newtonian mechanics, thereby disproving its applicability to all circumstances - inasmuch as science proves or disproves anything.
As for proving the non-existence of an object - just walk into your bathroom and stare into the tub - then come back and tell me that you have not just proved to your satisfaction that the crocodile that I claim is there is not, in fact, there.

Judging by your pics I'm not sure so sure, though!

[This message was edited by Sproggle on FRIDAY 17 August 2001 at 19:38.]

[This message was edited by Sproggle on FRIDAY 17 August 2001 at 19:39.]

I just knew I could depend on you ! I...I...I think I'm going to cry.....hey, should I bring my calculator for the test tomorrow ?

The search for Millennium Mullet continues....

dave

quote:

---

It is still hard to justify the upgrade ladder as the route to God

---

Rockingdoc,

just think of all the people you're keeping in employment - at Naim, the courier (Interlink, probably), your dealer, at your electricity supplier, etc, etc, etc.

Vuk,

are you really telling me that the fact that I can't see, feel, smell or hear a four foot crocodile in my bathtub is still not proof that one is not there at that exact moment?

What justifies any 'objective' truth as being more 'true' than my own subjective experience? True to whom?

Of course, I understand that because I don't see a croc in my tub that it is still possible that one might exist elsewhere in the world. The same is true if I look in 1,000 bathtubs.

I also don't understand why the existence of a God in the absence of any proof should be any more likely to actually exist than any other concept that I might attempt to dream up.

Martin

Indeed it was a unique discussion as it brought together such luminaries as Locke, Hume and Bishop Berkeley. They didn't last long as Mike brilliantly demolished each of their arguments in turn ;-)

BTW Surely the fact that long dead philopshers can log on to the Internet and argue with Mike proves the exitence of God?

>> are you really telling me that the fact that I can't see, feel, smell or hear a four foot crocodile in my bathtub is still not proof that one is not there at that exact moment? <<

Your "proof" (<puts on Serbian accent> if I may dignify your primary school logic with such a noble word) fails to take into account the possiblity of invisibile, odourless, incorporeal stealth crocodiles so no dreamy spires of McGill for you Martin I'm afraid ;-)

Matthew

[This message was edited by Matthew Robinson on FRIDAY 17 August 2001 at 23:48.]

quote:

---

Indeed, within the branch of psychology I studied, the focus is precisely on the individual's perception of reality--no matter how biased on unrepresentative of objective reality, it is still valid and important in its own right. In fact, mapping out our twisted views of things is a necessary process in order to better understand that which we tend to misperceive. A similar approach is also critical in philosophy, although I don't think it's really useful to distinguish cognitive and social psychology from philosophy any more: well, unless you are more concerned with academic bureaucracy rather than thought.

---

This is the closest you've come to giving credence to my relativistic take on reality. Now I feel all warm and gushy inside.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

So, in Jeremy's example of the crocodile in my bathtub (which, incidentally, took a huge piece out of my taint -- see other thread), if you drain the tub and find no croc, you can safely conclude that a thecodont does not live in my tub. Similarly, if you drain Loch Ness dry and find no evidence of Nessy you can safely conclude the monster doesn't exist. (All this assuming that the physical world does exist and is not just a figment of Tony's imagination, and that sensory data and its processing in the brain is reliable.)

The problem with disproving God's existence is that the universe (here meant in the cosmological sense) that God presumably inhabits is an extremely big place -- possibly even infinite, though most astronomers think the place is big but only so big. In all practicality, you can never observe it all (and definitely can't observe it all if it's infinitely large), so it's impossible to conclusively disprove God's existence.

Getting back to the atheist... this person hasn't seen the entire universe, so he can't say with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. If he holds that position, he does so without conclusive proof. The position is, by definition, not rational (rational as a logician would define it -- compelled by logic to accept the conclusion).

An atheist may, of course, choose to believe that God doesn't exist for all sorts of reasons, from trivial (is pissed off because of scams pulled by TV evangelists) to substantial (phenomena appearing to be sufficiently explained through physics, chemistry, biology... whatever). But the argument, even if it's strong or overwhelmingly compelling, isn't the same as proof. If one holds the atheist's position, it done on faith.

Joe

P.S. I apologize for this discussion having gone on so long but, if you go back to page 1, you'll clearly see it's Mike's fault.

If however you can not find God in your tub, and given that God is supposedly omnipresent, then that might suggest that God does not exist.

cheers

Nigel

The problem with disproving God's existence is that the universe (here meant in the cosmological sense) that God presumably inhabits is an extremely big place

IMHO, assuming the universe is big (or small) is a BIG assumption

IMHO, presuming that He inhabits the universe is also a big assumption.

I don't know if God exists.

I believe he does, but don't have any proof or justification.

I believe he made Heaven and earth (ie everything except himself), but I'm not sure exactly what this really means. IMHO, its more than the universe, if the universe has limits; and its more than Time, if time has a beginning and an end.

I can't imagine 'forever', nor can I imagine 'nothing'. Equally, I can't imagine anything other than 'forever' or 'nothing'. In otherwords, God, 'beyond the universe' and time, are all unimaginable. But I still believe in God.

One day, it might all become clear, or not, as the case may be!

Meanwhile, I've become somewhat nervous about having a bath!!

Cheers,

Don

One day, it might all become clear, or not, as the case may be!

this is my position too. see my earlier post on this. as i said then, one of the difficulties of "proving" existence in the logical sense (and logic is only one way of thinking, there may be other equally valid modes) is that we dont even know what we are looking for. at least we know what a croc looks like.

with "belief" you just simply accept certain propositions (quite a few) as fundamental truths(or axioms) and proceed. these propositions form the cornerstone of your belief system. an interesting question though is why one NEEDS to have this system at all??? the answers can be as esoteric as "so there is a point to my life" but i guess the answer is probably "to make me emotionally happy", like music played through a naim system does!

enjoy

ken