Proof of God

[Herzblut]

I was explaining that one can independently make a value judgment, outside of another individual's value judgment. I.E., that everyone else can make a value judgment over whether a belief is detrimental or beneficial to an individual.

Your anecdotes hardly support your claim that

everyone else can make a value judgment over whether a belief is detrimental or beneficial to an individual.

Having faith in the magical is essentially magical thinking. Almost all religions are based on having faith in the magical, especially the major religions.

No no. Look outside of your anti-religious box for a second and face reality. Magical thinking has nothing to do with religion. It's more related to science, actually:

Magical Thinking
cognitive science, magical thinkingsuperstition).[citation needed] is non-scientific causal reasoning (e.g. James George Frazer and Bronislaw K. Malinowski said that magic is more like science than religion, and that societies with magical beliefs often had separate religious beliefs and practices.[citation needed]
Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation. For example, a man who has won a bowling competition in a given shirt may then believe this shirt is lucky. He will continue to wear the shirt to bowling competitions, and though he continues to win some and lose some, he will chalk up every win to his lucky shirt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

Worth checking is also

http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html
http://skepdic.com/sympathetic.html

What, is that the non-Believer way of saying, "I'll pray for you"?

No, Lonewulf, a magical thinker way!

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

No no. Look outside of your anti-religious box for a second and face reality. Magical thinking has nothing to do with religion. It's more related to science, actually:

No, religion is magical thinking. I was at a christian funeral a few days ago, and you should have heard the Catholic Father talking about the death of the father to the wife, children and grand-children, if that wasn't magical talking and thinking nothing is, there was nothing about science in that talk.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

No, religion is magical thinking.

Religion might be what you mistakenly perceive as magical thinking. Makes sense, cause you also misconceive religion.

Two wrongs make a right.

Why dont you first gain a basic understanding of magical thinking before you give further unqualified judgements?

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Religion might be what you mistakenly perceive as magical thinking. Makes sense, cause you also misconceive religion.

Two wrongs make a right.

Why dont you first gain a basic understanding of magical thinking before you give further unqualified judgements?

Herzblut

Please I am from this planet and have heard all the BS about religion, it is magical, it needs no proof, just like magic.

Gee daddy why is there a god.

Daddy, because everything must have something that started it.

Gee daddy, who started god.

Paul

 

[D'rok]

Religion might be what you mistakenly perceive as magical thinking. Makes sense, cause you also misconceive religion.

Two wrongs make a right.

Why dont you first gain a basic understanding of magical thinking before you give further unqualified judgements?

Herzblut

Magical thinking = non-scientific causal reasoning (from your definition). Explain to me how religion doesn't qualify. Where is the scientific causal reasoning in Genesis?

 

[Herzblut]

Magical thinking = non-scientific causal reasoning (from your definition). Explain to me how religion doesn't qualify. Where is the scientific causal reasoning in Genesis?

It just started raining here! This always happens if I have to read many bad posts and get the blues.

Please ignore your ignorance this time and do not assume you understand anything about something by just knowing a four-word-definition.

The sun will be shining again tomorrow, if you do mi this favor. No kidding!

Herzblut

 

[D'rok]

It just started raining here! This always happens if I have to read many bad posts and get the blues.

Please ignore your ignorance this time and do not assume you understand anything about something by just knowing a four-word-definition.

The sun will be shining again tomorrow, if you do mi this favor. No kidding!

Herzblut

Better yet, do a sun-dance, pray, and sacrifice a bull to the sun god. That oughta work.

(Strictly non-magical though).

 

[Paulhoff]

It just started raining here! This always happens if I have to read many bad posts and get the blues.

Please ignore your ignorance this time and do not assume you understand anything about something by just knowing a four-word-definition.

The sun will be shining again tomorrow, if you do mi this favor. No kidding!

Herzblut

Sounds to me like my grandfather was right, all the good Germans left Germany centuries ago..........

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Better yet, do a sun-dance, pray, and sacrifice a bull to the sun god. That oughta work.
(Strictly non-magical though).

But ... that's work for me! Trickster!

OK, what about this: I think this lovely, bright song will do the trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Herzblut

 

[Lonewulf]

Your anecdotes hardly support your claim that everyone else can make a value judgment over whether a belief is detrimental or beneficial to an individual.

They certainly add weight to it. There are verifiable and statistically available ways -- empirical ways -- of judging whether a belief is beneficial or detrimental for some instances, and ways of developing a value judgment in other instances.

No no. Look outside of your anti-religious box for a second and face reality.

"anti-religious box"? "Face reality"? Don't tell me that you're going to grow as condescending as the average fundamentalist on this forum.

It's a shame, I thought you were above that.

Magical thinking has nothing to do with religion. It's more related to science, actually:

What?

Magical Thinking
cognitive science, magical thinkingsuperstition).[citation needed] is non-scientific causal reasoning (e.g. James George Frazer and Bronislaw K. Malinowski said that magic is more like science than religion, and that societies with magical beliefs often had separate religious beliefs and practices.[citation needed]
Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation. For example, a man who has won a bowling competition in a given shirt may then believe this shirt is lucky. He will continue to wear the shirt to bowling competitions, and though he continues to win some and lose some, he will chalk up every win to his lucky shirt.

And... religious claims are exempt... why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

Worth checking is also

http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html
http://skepdic.com/sympathetic.html

I am well aware of superstitions and magical thinking. I do not need you to condescendingly point towards sources that define it. If you think that it says that religious claims are exempt, then quote any relevant passages, because I see none.

If I dance so the rain gods will cause rain, that is magic thinking, and it does fit cause and effect. It is part of a belief system.

Many superstitious and supernatural claims fall within these definitions of "magical thinking". This includes chi, angels, devils, hell, heaven, afterlife, reincarnation, God creating the universe, God declaring his absolute moral code, pixies, faeries, ghosts, imps, dwarves, elves, goblins, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Faery, Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage, the Chinese Teapot that orbits the sun, etc.

Step outside of your religion box and face reality, Herzblut.


ETA: I'll add up a list of other methods of magical thinking.

Psychics (whether "divinely based" or not), prayer, exorcisms, any methods to "keep the demons at bay", that cats and dogs are the devil's tools and can possess people, possession in general, that adding oils and prayers to water makes it "holy", that an invisible man in the sky really cares whether you drink wine and bread to symbolize cannibalizing his son, that his son died and came back to life...

Yadda yadda.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sounds to me like my grandfather was right, all the good Germans left Germany centuries ago..........

Paul

Hey! What have I ever done to you?!

 

[Herzblut]

"anti-religious box"? "Face reality"? Don't tell me that you're going to grow as condescending as the average fundamentalist on this forum.

So, you're not anti-religious? If so, you're hiding it well!

And... religious claims are exempt... why?

What? Magical thinking is independent from religions. Please check evidences provided. It is your subjective validation to bring in religion. You might as well say "sportive claims are not exempt" (lucky shirt) which would also be a meaningless point in itself. Please also check neurological evidences about roots of magical thinking, also foundings about magical thinking in childhood etc. etc. Build up some knowledge to come down your selective anti-religion tree. It's boring.

I am well aware of superstitions and magical thinking. I do not need you to condescendingly point towards sources that define it.

Oh, well. You're "aware of" something, so you don't need to study it. You allow me to call this ignorance. With it comes incompetence, I'm afraid. Think about it.

If you think that it says that religious claims are exempt, then quote any relevant passages, because I see none.

No. You first seek some passages where it says weather claims are excempt. Cause I think it all comes down to weather, not religion. #yawn#

If I dance so the rain gods will cause rain, that is magic thinking, and it does fit cause and effect. It is part of a belief system.

Good self-delusion. Once again, for the last time: key is your thinking that "if I dance then it will rain". YOU by some magical means create the rain, cause YOU are connected to everything in the universe etc. etc. THAT is magical thinking. You can invent a god to fiddle it into a religious claim or not. It simply doesn't matter.

Well, it matters to you based on your ideology. Try to see things how they are and not how you wish they were. I know it's not easy.

Many superstitious and supernatural claims fall within these definitions of "magical thinking". This includes ...God declaring his absolute moral ..

Please provide evidences about the relation between magical thinking and moral. #yawn#

For each religious claim I can provide you 100 non-religious ones. So what? If you were a fanatic feminist you would probably make a case about magical thinking as being typical sexist and come up with a list of apisodical evidences. It's not worth for me fighting off those selective perceptions based on all sorts of ideologies.

Read some f***ing documents, study what you are talking about. Once there is some sort of savviness in your posts, I will address them again. See above my prove of your demonstrated ignorance. In the end, your funny claim that you "are aware" of a complex matter you have no clue about is also magical thinking. By some kind of magic you have "awareness". Why studying? Pah! It's magic!

Good luck - fingers crossed!

Herzblut

 

[Lonewulf]

So, you're not anti-religious? If so, you're hiding it well!

I don't like religion, no. However, your claim was that I was "hiding in my anti-religion box", incapable of "seeing reality" as a result. That was where the condescension lay; that "you" are the one that is more knowledgable, that "I'm" the poor deluded fool, and that I'm obviously so dumb that you need not bother to actually work to refute my arguments, merely say, "Go read some documents, you fool!"

That's where the condescension lays. And like I said, I thought you were above such. I actually had respect for you before. Oh well, I'm always willing to change my viewpoint...

What? Magical thinking is independent from religions. Please check evidences provided. It is your subjective validation to bring in religion. You might as well say "sportive claims are not exempt" (lucky shirt) which would also be a meaningless point in itself. Please also check neurological evidences about roots of magical thinking, also foundings about magical thinking in childhood etc. etc. Build up some knowledge to come down your selective anti-religion tree. It's boring.

Magical thinking is "independent from religions", eh? So you are saying that NO RELIGIOUS CLAIM can be said to be magical thinking? My point is that the majority of religious thinking is magical thinking. Not that the majority of magical thinking is religious thinking. Does that help?

Also, your long meaningless rambles with no meaningful refutations are just as boring to me.

Oh, well. You're "aware of" something, so you don't need to study it. You allow me to call this ignorance. With it comes incompetence, I'm afraid. Think about it.

I thought about it.

I still don't see any meaningful refutation.

No. You first seek some passages where it says weather claims are excempt. Cause I think it all comes down to weather, not religion. #yawn#

No meaningful refutation.

Good self-delusion. Once again, for the last time: key is your thinking that "if I dance then it will rain". YOU by some magical means create the rain, cause YOU are connected to everything in the universe etc. etc. THAT is magical thinking. You can invent a god to fiddle it into a religious claim or not. It simply doesn't matter.

And what about prayer, the afterlife, Jesus dying for our sins, God caring about you and "tweaking" reality just to save your life, etc.? What about belief in a virgin birth? What about belief in some invisible man that cares about humanity creating the whole universe, and seemingly to only focus on humanity?

If you remove all of those effects, there goes a good majority of religious claims believed by the majority of the population.

Well, it matters to you based on your ideology. Try to see things how they are and not how you wish they were. I know it's not easy.

Indeed, I agree completely. When do you plan to follow your own advice?

Please provide evidences about the relation between magical thinking and moral. #yawn#

"Moral"? As in "morality"?

Simple: That morality is objective because Big G declared it so. Because a magical invented being says that it's objective, therefore it is. Don't need to provide evidence.

What about all of the other things mentioned? Skipped over those... I wonder why? Here, I'll help you:

Psychics (whether "divinely based" or not), prayer, exorcisms, any methods to "keep the demons at bay", that cats and dogs are the devil's tools and can possess people, possession in general, that adding oils and prayers to water makes it "holy", that an invisible man in the sky really cares whether you drink wine and bread to symbolize cannibalizing his son, that his son died and came back to life...

chi, angels, devils, hell, heaven, afterlife, reincarnation, God creating the universe, pixies, faeries, ghosts, imps, dwarves, elves, goblins, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Faery, Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage, the Chinese Teapot that orbits the sun, etc.

For each religious claim I can provide you 100 non-religious ones. So what? If you were a fanatic feminist you would probably make a case about magical thinking as being typical sexist and come up with a list of apisodical evidences. It's not worth for me fighting off those selective perceptions based on all sorts of ideologies.

I'm not sure what your point is here. It seems that you think that I'm claiming that ONLY religious claims are "magical thinking". I never said such, and if you are saying that I did, then that would be a strawman.

There are non-religious based "magical thinking". However, my point is that the majority of religious claims are "magical thinking". I have yet to see a meaningful refutation of that point.

Read some f***ing...

Got you to cursing, huh? Condescension wasn't enough?

I think I'll let you stir a bit. You'll eventually calm down and come to realize that you need to work a little harder to come up with anything actual meaningful...

 

[BillyJoe]

Let's use your aether example as a framework for looking for god. To use this framework, you have to give god some properties. Deistic god is undetectable and therefore incoherent. Let's keep it really, really simple. We'll look for thunder god.

Let's not look for god (as defined and hypothesised) - he is, by definition, unable to be found.
Let's not give god some properties - the deistic god is pretty well defined already.
Well then, let's do look for the thunder god.

Thunder god is pretty scary. When he's mad, the whole sky echoes with his roar. We cower in fear under thunder god's wrath. We sacrifice our best livestock to appease his anger and give our thanks when our sacrifice appeases his anger - as it always does.

But not all worship or fear thunder god. Some think that his voice might merely be the collision of clouds. Others notice that thunder god stops his carryings-on even if no sacrifice is made.

Aeons pass. We become able to reach the sky and visit thunder god in the very halls of his kingdom. By hypothesizing, measuring, and observing, we refine our hypotheses into explanatory theories and determine that thunder is the "sound of a sonic shock wave caused by the rapid expansion of the air surrounding and within a bolt of lightning." (wikipedia)

And so thunder god becomes a quaint notion banished into the mythological dustbin of history. Before long he is joined by more and more gods as the walls of their once unassailable fortresses are thrown down by man.

So you have proven the thunder god (as defined and hypothesised) does not exist.
Just as the aether (as defined and hypothesied) was proven not to exist.
You are agreeing with me then?

In the new thunder godless world, where once many gods ruled, now there is only one (generally) and to him is given praise for originating all that is. But he is hard pressed to maintain his kingdom as he is harried on all sides by his children who once feared thunder. Some still have feelings for him and bustle him off to a deistic retirement home where he can safely be ignored.

From a practical point of view, I ignore him as well. So what? The point is that the deistic god (as defined and hypothesised) cannot be proven to not exist. Contrary to the thunder god (as defined and hypothesised), or the aether (as defined and hypothesised).

Did you like my story? Did we kill thunder god by "proving a negative" in the same way we disproved aether?

You do agree?

Why not take the next step: There is no thunder god.

Funny how you haven't made the attempt.
Go on - try to prove that god (as defined and hypothesised) does not exist.
Hint: You can't do it.

 

[BillyJoe]

What posits to what questions? As far as I am aware the posits from God are equivalent in quantity and hence quality to the ones from unicorns, but please do enlighten me.

I respectfully decline to go through the whole thing yet again.

 

[Paulhoff]

Hey! What have I ever done to you?!

Nothing, I have a cousin that has lived in Germany for well over 30 years now. He was married to a woman, whose father was a big shot in some German car company. He is now German and of course speaks German. I should lookup his email address and email him, I haven’t seen him since his father died and he came over for the funeral.

And there is no so-called god, it is all magical thinking, just listen to my born-again mother if you don't believe that. Just check out this so-called creation museum here is the States.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Paul

 

[D'rok]

Let's not look for god (as defined and hypothesised) - he is, by definition, unable to be found.

Correct. Functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Let's not give god some properties - the deistic god is pretty well defined already.

He has been defined as having no detectable properties. Functionally equivalent to non-existence.

So you have proven the thunder god (as defined and hypothesised) does not exist.
Just as the aether (as defined and hypothesied) was proven not to exist.
You are agreeing with me then?

Actually, I'm agreeing with Mobyseven. I'm just having fun with you.

From a practical point of view, I ignore him as well. So what? The point is that the deistic god (as defined and hypothesised) cannot be proven to not exist. Contrary to the thunder god (as defined and hypothesised), or the aether (as defined and hypothesised).

I hate to break it to you, but thunder god still exists. He's just kind of pouty now that no-one fears him anymore. He's now deistic thunder god. He exists nowhere, does nothing, and is undetectable. His legacy of thunder still remains though - our explanation of thunder simply reveals his handiwork.

You do agree?

With Mobyseven, yes.

Funny how you haven't made the attempt.
Go on - try to prove that god (as defined and hypothesised) does not exist.
Hint: You can't do it.

Correct. You may have missed the point of my parable, but that's OK. Deistic YWHW and deistic thunder god have taken their mobile goalposts and are enjoying their retirement in non-time and non-space. Non-existence agrees with them.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm honestly a bit sick of explaining this to you, as I was hoping that my last post would help you understand. Evidently not. But I would like to state a few things again for your benefit, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you will realise that you are wrong and change your mind. I had hoped to stay away from formal logic in all this, but it's all I can think of to get my point across.

Hubris is not your strong point I take it.

To begin with, all this business with negative and positive claims. You keep claiming that, "There is no god," is a positive claim. Let's look at that for a second.

To be honest, I think we use that word "positive" differently.

It might help to formalise this, so you can understand just what it is that you are looking for when you try to 'prove' anything. For both statements, we will be using a very simple dictionary: Gx - x is a god.

First, the statement, "There is a god."

(∃x)Gx​

Translated, this reads, "There exists an 'x' such that 'x' is a god." In order for this statement to be true, one needs to find only one example of something that is a god. In order for this statement to be false one would need to examine every single object in the domain and ascertain that it is NOT a god. As the assumed domain in this case is 'everything', that is a helluva lot to look at.

Proving this statement to be false is therefore impossible, whereas proving this statement to be true is (in theory) simple.

I agree that proving the statement "there is a god" to be false is impossible.
I disagree that proving the statement "there is a god" to be true is simple.
In fact, proving the statement "there is a god" to be true is also impossible.
If you disagree, show me the simple proof that the statement "there is a god" is true.
Oh, I'm sorry, you said simple "in theory".
In theory all you have to do is find one example of god.
Come on, just find me one example of god.

But let us continue...

Now lets look at the next statement, "There is no god."

~(∃x)Gx​

Translated this reads, "It is not the case that there exists an 'x' such that 'x' is a god." For this statement to be true, one would have to examine every object in the domain to ascertain that it is not a god. For this statement to be false, however, one simply needs to find a single example of an object in the domain that is a god.

Proving this statement to be true is therefore impossible. However, proving this statement false is, again, simple.

I agree that proving the statement "there is no god" to be true is impossible.
I disagree that proving the statement "there is no god" to be false is simple.
In fact, proving the statement "there is no god" to be false is also impossible.
If you disagree, show me the simple proof that the statement "there is no god" is false.
All you have to do is find one example of god.
Come on then.

But let us continue...

Do you see where I am going with this yet?

Absolutely nowhere I think.

Science operates on the principle of falsifiability. It has long been recognised that if one cannot falsify a statement then it is foolish to assume the truth of the statement: It is no more than blind faith to believe a claim which no one can prove to be incorrect, and it can in no way advance our understanding. Indeed, if a claim cannot be falsified then it is no more than a dogma.

I hope you don't think I disagree.

However, when talking about the existence of a particular object, the negation of a falsifiable statement WILL be an unfalsifiable statement. That is to say, a statement of the form, "There is an 'x'," will always be unfalsifiable and a statement of the form, "There is not an 'x'," will always be falsifiable.

Yeah I know:
The statement "there is no god" is falsifiable.
It is falsifiable simply by finding one instance of a god.

In science, the 'default belief setting' is always one of non-existence, and the reason is simple: If one's 'default belief setting' is one of non-existence, then one can always be proved wrong, because the statement is falsifiable. Scientists like to be proved wrong! They learn something new about the world from the experience of being proved wrong, whereas a finding that simply confirms their original held belief is boring - after all, they already knew that! If things were different and the 'default belief setting' was one of existence, there would be no scientific or technological progress, because the statement is unfalsifiable: No one can ever prove it wrong!

That is great for science, and I am all for it.

But you have yet to show that the statement "there is a god" is simple to prove true and that the statement "there is no god" is simple to prove false.
Hint: all you have to do is find one example of god.

So, let's look at some examples. First off, humans. Do they exist? If I am going to determine that humans exist I will need to falsify the statement, "There are no humans." It just so happens that I am a human, and therefore provide a counter-example to my own statement! I conclude from this that humans exist.

And....
and....
and....

....oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were going to find me an example of god.

With that existential crisis out of the way, let us move to a different topic - say, perpetual motion machines? I wish to prove the existence of perpetual motion machines, so I must falsify the negation of that statement - that is, "Perpetual motion machines do not exist." To falsify this statement, I must find an example of a perpetual motion machine. However, there is no such example! Moreover, the laws of thermodynamics (well established physical laws) say that such a machine cannot exist. From this I conclude that perpetual motion machines do NOT exist.

1) I wish to prove the existence of perpetual motion machines.
2) I must falsify the negation of that statement - that is "Perpetual motion machines do not exist."
3) I must find an example of a perpetual motion machine.

I dunno, I'd simply go from (1) to (3)

It is important to note that when there is no evidence for the existence of an object, the position that is assumed is simply the default position of non-existence.

That's much better:
"the position that is assumed is simply the default position of non-existence"
Not "there is no god", but "I assume there is no god".
To be honest, so do I. There is no evidence for god, so I assume he does not exist and that is how I live my life - as if god does not exist.

This means (and this is important) that it is still possible to falsify the claim of non-existence should future evidence for existence warrant it. If in the future (and I am not holding my breath about this) someone really were to build a perpetual motion machine, it would falsify the statement, "There are no perpetual motion machines," which in turn would alert us to the fact that there is something very wrong with the laws of thermodynamics. At this point, I would like to note that so far whenever someone has tried to do battle with the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of thermodynamics have always won. I do really not see this changing at any point in the future, but I would be perfectly happy should somebody prove me wrong.

But here you are back to claim.

And so we move onto the claim, "There is a god." In order to prove this statement true, one must falsify the negation of the claim: That is, one must falsify the claim, "There is no god." To falsify the claim, "There is no god," one must provide evidence that there IS a god.

1) In order to prove that "there is a god".
2) I must falsify the negation of that statement - "there is no god"
3) I must provide evidence that "there is a god".

Just go from (1) to (3).

It used to seem as though there was plenty of evidence for a god or gods - thunder gods, rain gods, etc. - however all the things that used to be explained by god have been shown to have perfectly natural (though not always simple) scientific explanations. Currently, there is no evidence for the existence of god. As such, I believe that there is no god. And if somebody asks me my opinion, I will say, "There is no god."

I am wondering why you wouldn't say "I believe that there is no god"
Hubris perhaps?

This is not a 'roundabout' way of saying things. It is not double-talk or newspeak. It is quite simply a statement of a lack of belief, based upon a lack of evidence, and it is a conversational convention that everybody uses

Well, "conservational convention", why didn't you just say so?
Would have saved a whole lot of verbiage.

So, did that help you understand at all?

In a way, yes.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Correct. Functionally equivalent to non-existence.

He has been defined as having no detectable properties. Functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Actually, I'm agreeing with Mobyseven. I'm just having fun with you.

I hate to break it to you, but thunder god still exists. He's just kind of pouty now that no-one fears him anymore. He's now deistic thunder god. He exists nowhere, does nothing, and is undetectable. His legacy of thunder still remains though - our explanation of thunder simply reveals his handiwork.

With Mobyseven, yes.

Correct. You may have missed the point of my parable, but that's OK. Deistic YWHW and deistic thunder god have taken their mobile goalposts and are enjoying their retirement in non-time and non-space. Non-existence agrees with them.

DtL, I hope you don't mind if I ignore your post...
....seeing as you are just part of the Mobydic...er Seven circle jerk.

 

[Mobyseven]

ETA: Nevermind. You posted while I was writing this.