Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

So there's lots of room for God, thus he exists? This is a God of the Gaps argument, and is unfalsifiable...

Volatile, to derive that from what I said suggests to me that you have a thought disorder. I am willing to accept that I might be wrong, but the evidence seems at least headed in that direction.

 

[volatile]

Volatile, to derive that from what I said suggests to me that you have a thought disorder. I am willing to accept that I might be wrong, but the evidence seems at least headed in that direction.

Your "evidence" for God is nothing of the sort. It's merely a lack of evidence for any alternative. We've all been pointing this out to you, but you don't seem to be getting it.

Yours is a God of Gaps, and the gaps are getting ever smaller...

 

[BillyJoe]

Your "evidence" for God is nothing of the sort.

Please show me where I have provided evidence for God.

It's merely a lack of evidence for any alternative.

A lack of evidence for what alternative?

We've all been pointing this out to you,..

If that is true then I would say you have all been wasting your time.

...but you don't seem to be getting it.

The pot is black.

Yours is a God of Gaps, and the gaps are getting ever smaller...

My God! Have you even been listening?

 

[zooterkin]

Please show me where I have provided evidence for God.

I rather think that's the point.

 

[D'rok]

You've committed the same error as Mobydick.
Planet not found at the point in space hypothesised for it - planet doesn't exist.
God - still looking.

How many places do we have to look for god before admitting the search is fruitless? God of the gaps is getting forced into a smaller and smaller gap.

ETA: I see volatile has called you on this already. Good show.

The statement was "You can't prove a negative".
Your reply, "There are no unicorns in the universe", is an example of where "You can't prove a negative" is true.
I don't need to refute that example to prove the first statement false.
All I need to do is supply one counterexample - which I did.

If you are agnostic about unicorns, then you are a shining example of that Dawkinsian (hehe) chestnut about having such an open mind that your brains fall out.

Permit me to disagree, on the evidence that this has happened before.
Newton gave way to Einstein, for example.
This is a sufficient basis for doubting that we have it correct this time and that the future is incapable of proving us wrong.

Newton and Einstein both closed the gap on god - i.e., they each contributed to marginalizing the sky fairy. Remember, we're talking about the god hypothesis in particular. I'm plenty agnostic about knowledge that is indeed reasonably conditional. It's time to close the door on god.

The first sentence is a presumption like in all the other examples. They just inexpicably left it out for that example. In this case it's a pretty good presumption, but a presumption none the less.
It is a presumption because there are too many to look to be completely and absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt.

The presumption is that only things for which there is evidence can be said to exist. You disagree with this presumption?

The hypothesis was about the existence of a planet in a particular point in space. It wasn't found there, therefore the planet in a particular point in space hypothesis is proven wrong. Seems I have to be careful to pick more clearly understood examples, but there are many other examples that can prove that the statement "You can't prove a negative" is false.

You only proved that you failed to perceive the planet. You are contradicting your own argument here. But I don't mind. I'm quite comfortable saying the planet does not exist. Same goes for god. Shall we make a list of all the particular places god was supposed to be but wasn't when we were finally able to look? When do we get to call off the search?

Our nemesis, Oxymoron, has his paw prints all over that paragraph.
You have no doubt within the framework, but you doubt the framework.
Good one!

You understand this quite well - you demonstrated this exact concept with your planet example. You are certain that the planet is not there. What if new evidence arose that showed that it was and that your previous belief was a result of faulty perception?

Flexible certainty. Flexible certainty. Flexible certainty. Flexible certainty.
Yep, it's starting to sound true.

Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god. Keep dreaming.

To deal with this I would have to untwist it at several levels.
I will leave it for the interested reader.
Hint: The hypothesis was for a planet at a particular point in space (to account for the oberved astronomical anomaly).

Your example illustrates that you are capable of flexible certainty. Welcome to human nature.

 

[D'rok]

I am not three metres tall.
The ether does not exist.

See? Now you're getting the hang of it. Well done.

 

[BillyJoe]

I rather think that's the point.

That is the point.
I have not offered any proof of god.
I never intended to offer any proof of god.
The proof of god is beside the point.

At last, somebody.

 

[BillyJoe]

See? Now you're getting the hang of it. Well done.

I never didn't get the hang of it.
It wasn't me who said "You can't prove a negative"
You're confusing me with Mobydick.

 

[volatile]

Billy - have you read anything about Falsifiabilty? This is really what "You can't prove a negative" boils down to...

 

[BillyJoe]

How many places do we have to look for god before admitting the search is fruitless? God of the gaps is getting forced into a smaller and smaller gap.

Doesn't matter.
You cannot say "There is no god" unless you have evidence that there is no god. And there isn't. It's tough being a sceptic.
And the deistic god is not a god of the gaps.
Sorry.

ETA: I see volatile has called you on this already.

Yes, you could have saved yourself the trouble of his embarassment.

If you are agnostic about unicorns, then you are a shining example of that Dawkinsian (hehe) chestnut about having such an open mind that your brains fall out.

Please show me where I said I am agnostic about unicorns.
And out of context as usual.
And you misapplied the word "chestnut" which doesn't surprise me.

Newton and Einstein both closed the gap on god - i.e., they each contributed to marginalizing the sky fairy. Remember, we're talking about the god hypothesis in particular. I'm plenty agnostic about knowledge that is indeed reasonably conditional. It's time to close the door on god.

Neither Einstein nor Newton had any effect whatsoever on the deistic god.
And, again, out of context:
Einsteinian physics was more complex than newtonian physics.
That is the context.
Please don't "exapt" the argument.

The presumption is that only things for which there is evidence can be said to exist. You disagree with this presumption?

Of course not.
Why would you think I would?

You only proved that you failed to perceive the planet. You are contradicting your own argument here. But I don't mind. I'm quite comfortable saying the planet does not exist.

You need to understand my argument first before coming to that conclusion. You clearly haven't.

Same goes for god. Shall we make a list of all the particular places god was supposed to be but wasn't when we were finally able to look? When do we get to call off the search?

God is not a counterexample of the statement "you cannot prove a negative". It is consistent with it because you cannot exhaust the places where he may be found. Unlike the planet causing the anomaly which can only be in one place if it exists at all.
And you can call off the search for god any time you like.
Only you don't get to say "There is no god"

You understand this quite well - you demonstrated this exact concept with your planet example. You are certain that the planet is not there. What if new evidence arose that showed that it was and that your previous belief was a result of faulty perception?

I would send you off in a spaceship to land on that non-existent planet to demonstrate to you how non-existent it is.
...or I would choose a clearer counterexample.
There is no ether.

Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god. Keep dreaming.

You're dreaming.
(famous line from a famous Australian movie )
I'm not saying "Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god."
I'm saying you cannot say "There is no god" unless you provide evidence.
This really is difficult for you isn't it?

 

[D'rok]

There is no ether.

Through your investigations you have revealed the structure of the entire universe and discovered that the aether does not exist? Well, you appear to be quite godlike. It's a good thing that my belief system is flexible because otherwise I would have been closed to this new evidence. Your godlike powers have opened the window of doubt in my soul.

There is no god.
There is no aether.

 

[Mobyseven]

Nuts.
Sounds like an argument of a conspiracy theory nature.

And often that IS what it is, though many arguments are subtler than the obviously exaggerated one that I presented.

The point is that I have provided you with an explanation as to why you were unable to observe my sooper special planet - you have rejected my suggestion off hand: Do you know why?

Because I was unable to present evidence for my hypothesis. It has nothing to do with you 'proving' a negative, and everything to do with a simple and obvious complete lack of proof for the positive claim.

I ask you - why is it that you feel so certain that you can claim that the planet I am talking about doesn't exist?

I am not three metres tall.

First point of contention: How would you go about proving that you were not three metres tall?

Answer to rhetorical question: You do it by providing evidence for a different, positive claim - the claim that you ARE a specific height (e.g. Two metres tall).

There are many claims such as this that might seem to be 'proving a negative', but in reality all you are doing is proving a positive claim that is mutually exclusive to your negative claim.

Another example of this: If I were to make the claim, "I am not a woman," I would only be able to prove this by demonstrating that a mutually exclusive positive claim is true (i.e. That I am a man).

The ether does not exist.

Really, this is just proving my point for me.

How do we know the ether does not exist? We know because in the past, people thought that the ether did exist and was necessary. Some people did tests to find the ether, and they were unable to find any evidence of the ether.

If that didn't sink in the first time, read it again. The reason that you are able to make a statement such as, "The ether does not exist," is because there is no evidence for the positive claim that the ether DOES exist.

Your irrationalising away of the proof of a negative sounds suspiciously like your irrationalising away of the proof of a positive.
Doesn't that sound just a little symmetrical to you?
I wonder why that should be...

No, it doesn't sound symmetrical at all quite frankly.

In order to rationalise away a "proof of a negative", one merely needs to explain that the experimenter who "proved" the negative has somehow made a mistake, or is currently unable to observe that which has been "disproved".

In order to rationalise away proof of a positive claim, one must deny the evidence itself.

The two types of rationalisation are very different - has this clarified things for you at all?

Nuts.
Every rational person would accept that the case for "no million dollar bill in your hand" has been proven as much as anything can be proven to be true in any other context.

Holy Ed. Of course a rational person would conclude that there was no million dollar bill in my hand! The reason that a rational person would conclude this is because I was unable to provide proof for my positive claim: The claim that there was a million dollar bill in my hand!

You seem to be constantly confusing who has the burden of proof in these situations. In my hypothetical 'million dollar bill' example, what did the skeptic actually DO to try and disprove the claim? He did nothing. All he did was ask to see the evidence - and rightfully so, as the burden of proof was on the person making the positive claim that he had a million dollar bill.

The cases are perfectly symmetrical.

If you make the positive claim "There is a god", the burden of proof is on you. If no evidence is forthcoming, the conclusion is that "There is no proof that there is a god", not "There is no god"
If you make the positive claim "There is no god", the burden of proof is on you. If no evidence is forthcoming, the conclusion is that "There is no proof that there is no god", not "There is a god".

Perfectly symetrical as it should be.
I hope you are not going to deny that "There is no god" is not a positive claim.

I certainly am not going to deny that, "There is no god," is not a positive claim. That is because, "There is no god," is a negative claim, and one cannot prove a negative.

Of course, no one is actually claiming to have proof of god's non-existance - no rational person anyway. When a non-believer says, "There is no god," they are NOT making a positive claim, and they are certainly not claiming to have proof of god's non-existance. What they are saying is, "There is no evidence of god's existence."

And before you start on your "You can't say there's no god, you can only say there is no evidence for god" rant again, I'd like to say that you are unequivocally WRONG.

Here is a list of things that there is no evidence for:

• God
• Leprachauns
• Unicorns
• Centaurs
• The Ether
• Goblins
• Yeti
• Sasquatch

Now, you yourself felt quite happy with stating not a few paragraphs ago that, "The ether does not exist." This statement of yours is based upon the well known lack of evidence for the ether.

I cannot speak for your beliefs on the other items on my list, however, I myself feel quite comfortable in stating that: Leprachauns do not exist; Unicorns do not exist; Centaurs do not exist; Goblins do not exist; The Yeti does not exist; Sasquatch does not exist.

That leaves only one item on my list: God. I have just as much evidence for god as I do for unicorns and goblins - that is to say, none - and yet for some reason you insist that I am not allowed to say, "God does not exist."

Why is this? If it is because we should respect religion, I say bollocks to that! Religions are only worthy of respect if they are correct in their beliefs - otherwise they are no more than a massive (and I mean, truly colossal!) waste of time and money. Asking me to respect them by saying, "There is no evidence for god," rather than, "There is no god," is nothing short of ridiculous.

If, however, you are saying that I cannot say, "There is no god," because by doing so I am making a claim to be able to prove a negative, I am going to have to tell you once again that I am not making any such claim.

If that is your reasoning, I am also going to have to point out that you should never, ever again, deny the existence of ANYTHING. To do so would be, by your logic, making claim that you could prove a negative. This means that you as a person should be agnostic about everything. You should be agnostic about fairies. You should be agnostic about unicorns. You would even be unable to say something like, "The ether does not exist."

Or is there a different reason that I've missed?


ETA: Also, my name is Mobyseven, not Moby Dick. While it is interesting to know that I am your 'white whale', I would prefer to be called by my actual screen name.

 

[D'rok]

Doesn't matter.
You cannot say "There is no god" unless you have evidence that there is no god. And there isn't. It's tough being a sceptic.
And the deistic god is not a god of the gaps.
Sorry.

Deistic god is the ultimate god of the gaps. It's the god that exists nowhere, does nothing, and affects nothing. Poor thing has been shuffled right out of existence.

There is a god that does not manifest, does nothing, and is indistinguishable from the whole of Nature = There is no god.

Please show me where I said I am agnostic about unicorns.

Sure:

Your reply, "There are no unicorns in the universe", is an example of where "You can't prove a negative" is true.

If you believe that the non-existence of unicorns is unprovable, you are agnostic about the existence of unicorns. You are unwilling to say "there are no unicorns in the universe". Quite simple, really.

And out of context as usual.

Aren't we talking about certainty vs. uncertainty re: the existence of fanciful beings?

And you misapplied the word "chestnut" which doesn't surprise me.

That little pithy phrase of Dawkins' has been used by sceptics quite enough to be classified as an "old chestnut" I've overused it myself to the point that I'm sick of it.

Neither Einstein nor Newton had any effect whatsoever on the deistic god.

Sure they did. They enhanced deistic god's profile as the last refuge for the fanciful. They are practically evangelists for deism. They have made it much harder maintain a rational belief in a personal god.

And, again, out of context:

Note: Out of context doesn't mean an interpretation that you disagree with.

Einsteinian physics was more complex than newtonian physics.
That is the context.
Please don't "exapt" the argument.

Yup. They advanced our understanding. Every such advance results in a corresponding retreat for god. The final fall back position for those with a need for a virtual father is deism.

Of course not.
Why would you think I would?

So you agree with the presumption but not the conclusion?

You need to understand my argument first before coming to that conclusion. You clearly haven't.

Perhaps you need to come up with a better example of a conclusively proved negative.

God is not a counterexample of the statement "you cannot prove a negative". It is consistent with it because you cannot exhaust the places where he may be found. Unlike the planet causing the anomaly which can only be in one place if it exists at all.
And you can call off the search for god any time you like.
Only you don't get to say "There is no god"

Remarkable that you follow that with this:

I would send you off in a spaceship to land on that non-existent planet to demonstrate to you how non-existent it is.
...or I would choose a clearer counterexample.
There is no ether.

You have, metaphorically speaking, sent off that spaceship to explore the aether and determined it wasn't there? I don't think you have. I think you are certain that there is no aether for darn good reasons - but by your reasoning, you should consider aether unlikely.

There is no god.

You're dreaming.
(famous line from a famous Australian movie )
I'm not saying "Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god. Maybe there's a god."
I'm saying you cannot say "There is no god" unless you provide evidence.

What's the difference between "it is not the case that there is no god", and "maybe there is a god"? You are indeed saying "maybe there is a god".

This really is difficult for you isn't it?

Not difficult at all. There is no god. Provide evidence that there is.

 

[Paulhoff]

god – noun

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.

3.(lowercase

) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4.(often lowercase

) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

6.(lowercase

) an image of a deity; an idol.

The bottom line is, "Is there a need for a so-called god and does it explain anything"?

The envelope please.

NO.

Paul

 

[kmortis]

I am not three metres tall.

Dunno, never met you. I'd suspect, tho, with no available evidence that this is a true statment. Assuming that you're human, the tallest human was in the 7-8' range, well below the 9' that you've disclaimed.

The ether does not exist.

Oh, really? Better tell that to all the patients who's surgeries went much smoother because of it.

 

[Z]

If I define a metre as roughly two feet, then you are indeed three metres tall.

 

[kmortis]

If I define a metre as roughly two feet, then you are indeed three metres tall.

2=3*





















































*For sufficently large values of 2

 

[volatile]

And often that IS what it is, though many arguments are subtler than the obviously exaggerated one that I presented.

Nominated, drooled over and printed out and stuck to my wall.

Bravo!

 

[Z]

Something said in a chat recently I wanted to share:

"You believe a 2000 year old Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... And you question other people's judgement if they DON'T believe that?!?"


Wiccan priest after a Christian questioned the validity of Wiccan belief.

Heh.

 

[Herzblut]

I thought your comment was interesting and worth some consideration, but I don't see the fallacy in comparing supernatural with natural (Nessie vs God).

Thank you! My argument is that science does not deal with anything supernatural. That makes a difference, doesnt it?


Herzblut