Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

Interesting reading, as my interpretation of BJ's posts was that he was adopting a de-facto atheist position with regard to God, but was assigning a higher probability for God to exist on the basis of some kind of God-of-the-Gaps reasoning. The only disagreement in position was regarding the equating of the likelihood of God's existance with the likelihood of Sagan's dragon's existance. Here is where he also disagrees with what Dawkins was saying.

The only reason I can see that he holds to this position is because of his holiding to a God-of-the-Gaps position, which I consider to be pointless and unnecessary, but does at least provide a differentiation between his concept of God (as described in this thread) and the dragon.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong, that's just how I read it .

I think there's been a vast general miscommunication in this thread, since as near as I can tell, BJ's saying the same general thing... and most of you are using a kind of double speak by saying that 'There is no God' is the same thing as 'There is a reasonably high chance that there is no God, and therefore we will treat the concept of God as if there were no God'.

Just my personal observations.

OTOH, BJ is refusing to acknowledge that, philosophically, you cannot prove a negative, which makes a deistic or pantheistic God concept scientifically non-falsifiable, and therefore rejectable in form. But honestly, if he hasn't grasped that by now, he never will.

Still, I think both sides are trying to say much the same thing, but the language used has resulted in some head-on collisions...

Oh well.

I think there is something in what the two of you are saying.
Below zooterkin corrects z

I think you're missing one nuance, which is that BJ is assigning some special attribute to the deistic god, which means that somehow it cannot be assumed not to exist in the way that unicorns can. If it wasn't for that, then I think your summary would be accurate, and we'd all (with the exception of Herzblut) be in violent agreement.

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
The tooth faerie is not posited as doing anything we don't already have explanations for (parents). The tooth faerie was not even meant to be anything other than a fantasy character to amuse young children.
God is posited as doing something for which we have, as yet, no explanation at all (time without beginning or something out of nothing). Also we have interpretations of reality that sound about as unlikely as god himself (eg the interconnectedness of every quantum particle with every other quantum particle in the universe; backwards in time causation; multiple worlds). And who'd ever have thought that time dilation would be a feature of reality?
Hence god is not as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.
Pretty straight forward.

 

[BillyJoe]

I have had the same niggling doubt that we might be arguing the same thing, but these are assuaged when you note he keeps coming back to demanding a "clear refutation" and the like, as well as harping on about not being able to prove God doesn't exist.

What I was referring to here was that what you (or perhaps it was M7 - see below) seem to want to say is "there is no god", then you say that what you really mean is "there is a high probability that there is no god" and then you want to continue to say "there is no god".
Pretty confusing don't you think?
I was asking you to state clearly what your position is: "there is no god" or "there is a high probability that there is no god".

The post above, in which he repeatedly said "All I keep reading is 'There is no God'" illustrates this quite nicely. He really hasn't followed the arguments at all, as from their foundation they have involved discussions of doubt.

Having read back over the past 6 pages or so, perhaps I have to admit to being a bit remiss in laying all this on you. It is more what M7 has been saying, although you haven't exactly been rushing to correct him. Here are some relevant quotes from M7's posts.

#632
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.
Asking me to respect them by saying, "There is no evidence for god," rather than, "There is no god," is nothing short of ridiculous.

#675
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."
It really is that simple. "There is no god."
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

#730
Since there is no evidence for god, and since god is an unnecessary hypothesis, there is no reason one cannot say, "There is no god."

#769
This does not mean that one cannot say, "There is no god."
"There is no god," is in fact the rational stance to take in the absence of evidence.
The statement, "There is no god," comes from the simple fact that there is no evidence that god exists.

#787
Hallelujah, praise the BillyJoe! I would like to announce to everyone that BillyJoe is one-hundred percent right! I will never, ever again say, "There is no god." Thank you, BillyJoe, for showing me the error of my ways! [sarcastically]

He is saying that because we can't prove God doesn't exist, it is not reasonable to claim that this is so. MobySeven, in a previous, exasperated post, pointed out that nothing can be proven at all, but these kind of nuanced observations have been cast aside by BillieJoe, who seems to cling desperately to the idea of a deistic God being possible as the end point of the argument, ignoring probability and necessity clauses we've all been dissecting.

Here is a pretty confusing paragraph as an example.
Are you saying "there is no god" or "there is a high probability that there is no god"? Are you saying that there is no difference between these two phrases?

 

[BillyJoe]

Belz,

Apparently, you can't [get something from nothing], but we're not sure about that.

Time, by definition, cannot have a "beginning".

Why would you need to explain something that isn't true [time without beginning or something out of nothing] ?

Because one of them has to be true.

That they sound unlikely is irrelevant. That they [the interconnectedness of every quantum particle with every other quantum particle in the universe; backwards in time causation; multiple worlds] are true or not isn't.

Maybe if you respond with more than just dismissive one-liners, I may get a clue what on Earth you're talking about.

 

[volatile]

I'm going away for the weekend, but I couldn't let this go...

Here is a pretty confusing paragraph as an example.
Are you saying "there is no god" or "there is a high probability that there is no god"? Are you saying that there is no difference between these two phrases?

You haven't followed a single thing I've said, have you? Please read my clear and concise statement of my position, which explains that there is a difference between these two things, but functionally, logically and rationally it behoves us as critical thinkers to conclude that, whilst it cannot be proven absolutely, it is absurd to think that it is not the case that God does not exist.

This is the last time I'm going to say this:

Whilst there remains doubt, it is not reasonable to take any position other than "there is no God" until the evidence suggests otherwise. I take this same stance on the truth of evolution, on the existence of gravity and on the non-existence blinking tooth fairy.

I am not saying that there is 100% certainty that God does not exist. That was in bold at the very beginning of my lengthy explanation of my position, and it's in bold again. I then went on to explain why I was saying that, and what inferences I could draw from it. I already answered this question, at length. How much clearer can I be?

Though I cannot say "There is no God" with 100% certainty, critical thinking and analysis must be applied to exactly how high this "probability" actually is, and how it shapes our belief systems and daily lives. For example, there is a very high probability that gravity exists, and whilst there is a chance that it might not, I'm not going to jump out of any high windows any time soon.

All the arguments we've laid out to you explain this quite clearly, but you still haven't got it. I don't know what more I can do!

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe - once again, you have completely failed to grasp the point here.

I have never, ever said that I am 100% certain that there is no god. What I have repeatedly said is that in the absence of any evidence for god, it is perfectly reasonable to take the stance that, "There is no god."

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop arguing against this strawman you have created in my image - either argue against my position or agree with me. Or do neither, just stop posting. I don't really care. What I do care about is your incessant assigning me attributes and opinions that I don't have.

BillyJoe, am I ever allowed to say a sentence of the form, "'x' does not exist," or must I always say, "There is no evidence for 'x',"?

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe, I'm willing to explain this to you again. I'm going to try one last time, for the sake of politeness.


-------------------------------------------

Firstly, for clarity let me categorically state that we cannot prove that a deistic God doesn't exist.

BJ: Yes, we all seem to agree here.

However, does this mean we should remain 50/50 as to His existence or otherwise, as you seem to be claiming? I would strongly argue "No", and here's why:

BJ: You must have missed where I put myself in category 6 of 7.

It comes back to falsifiability, a concept at the heart of reason. I need to explain this again, as you don't seem to have quite grasped it.

BJ: Either that or you have not grasped that I grasp it.

Unknowlingly, you base so much of your thoughts about everything from whether to jump off the top of tall buildings to whether you think evolution is true on falsifiability. You just need to understand why that's the case, and I'll try again to explain:

BJ:

Nothing in science in ever "proved". Nothing. Karl Popper realised that whilst a thousand experiments can repeatedly provide the same result, it only takes one to disprove a hypothesis. Thus, all scientific hypotheses must be "falsifiable" - that is, there must be at least one conceivable result which would undermine the whole idea, and you must look for it. Only if a hypothesis is falsifiable is it useful in the search for knowledge.

BJ: Yes.

An upshot of falsifiability is that precisely because you expend a great deal of energy looking to prove yourself wrong, every subsequent positive result strengthens a hypothesis. It does not "prove" it - the hypothesis remains susceptible to being falsified, as it must - but it becomes strengthened. Evolution, for example, remains falsifiable - fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, anyone? - but the evidence points very strongly towards it happening.This is important - though doubt remains, the evidence points more strongly (and often very strongly) in one direction instead of the other. I take it, BJ, that you are not "agnostic" about evolution.

BJ: I am still with you.

So, that out of the way, on to God. From Wikipedia, which I quoted in a previous post:

"If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation.

BJ: But also:
If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not prove his existence by observation.

The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God.

BJ: But also:
The assertion 'God exists' would be unverifiable because of the nature of God.

On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

BJ: But, if the existence of God is unverifiable, then the assertion "god does not exist" is not falsifiable.

We can thus discard 'God exists' as our base hypothesis, as, being unfalsifiable, is useless in determining the 'truth' of God's existence. "God does not exist", however, is falsifiable, and thus useful as a hypothesis to start our investigations with.

BJ: I disagree because "god does not exist is not falsifiable - see above.

Doubt remains - this is not a conclusive proof or statement of "fact" such as you might construe it - but given the lack of evidence to the contrary, despite looking very very hard for it, it is not reasonable to conclude that it is false.

BJ (putting aside my previous point): Okay, it seems you are building an implied doubt into your rather bold statement "there is no god". I would rather you state this doubt outright: 'there is a high probability that there is no god".

Falsifiability skews the probability of the veracity of a hypothesis away from the 50/50 point and towards a conclusion it is reasonable and rational to hold.

BJ: So where do you put the probability and why?
In other words, on what basis do you decide how far to skew the "probability of the veracity of a hypothesis away from the 50/50 point" ?

This is why comparisons with aether, and with faeries, are valid ones, despite your protestations.

BJ: I dismiss the tooth faerie out of hand because it is a deliberate fantasy used by parent to amuse their children and because he is never posited as doing anything that cannot be exlpained by more mundane means. God, on the other hand.....

Okay, it 1:25 am and I have to get up for work in the morning.
If my bowels behave themselves I'll get about five hours sleep.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm going away for the weekend, but I couldn't let this go...



You haven't followed a single thing I've said, have you? Please read my clear and concise statement of my position, which explains that there is a difference between these two things, but functionally, logically and rationally it behoves us as critical thinkers to conclude that, whilst it cannot be proven absolutely, it is absurd to think that it is not the case that God does not exist.

This is the last time I'm going to say this:

Whilst there remains doubt, it is not reasonable to take any position other than "there is no God" until the evidence suggests otherwise. I take this same stance on the truth of evolution, on the existence of gravity and on the non-existence blinking tooth fairy.

I am not saying that there is 100% certainty that God does not exist. That was in bold at the very beginning of my lengthy explanation of my position, and it's in bold again. I then went on to explain why I was saying that, and what inferences I could draw from it. I already answered this question, at length. How much clearer can I be?

Though I cannot say "There is no God" with 100% certainty, critical thinking and analysis must be applied to exactly how high this "probability" actually is, and how it shapes our belief systems and daily lives. For example, there is a very high probability that gravity exists, and whilst there is a chance that it might not, I'm not going to jump out of any high windows any time soon.

All the arguments we've laid out to you explain this quite clearly, but you still haven't got it. I don't know what more I can do!

I think you have been absolutely clear about what you mean.
Thank you.

 

[Mashuna]

BJ: I dismiss the tooth faerie out of hand because it is a deliberate fantasy used by parent to amuse their children and because he is never posited as doing anything that cannot be exlpained by more mundane means. God, on the other hand.....

Now, I know that you responded to one of my earlier posts in post 881. This was my view of your position, and you clarified it by leaving in the parts you agreed with, and striking through the parts you disagreed with.

The parts you struck through refered to the God of the gaps argument. The part of your post that I've quoted above looks pretty much like textbook God of the gaps to me - God is more likely to exist because you posit him as being able to do something that is currently not explicable by other means.

I find it tricky enough to describe what I'm thinking, so my attempts to clarify what you're thinking may be way off .

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe - once again, you have completely failed to grasp the point here.

I have never, ever said that I am 100% certain that there is no god. What I have repeatedly said is that in the absence of any evidence for god, it is perfectly reasonable to take the stance that, "There is no god."

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop arguing against this strawman you have created in my image - either argue against my position or agree with me. Or do neither, just stop posting. I don't really care. What I do care about is your incessant assigning me attributes and opinions that I don't have.

BillyJoe, am I ever allowed to say a sentence of the form, "'x' does not exist," or must I always say, "There is no evidence for 'x',"?

Depends on whether you want to use "converstional convention" or be strictly correct.

Anyway, I think we are beginning to understand each other a little.
(except for that little point about the assertion "there is no god" being not falsifiable - that hasn't been cleared up yet; and my differentiation between god and the tooth faerie. Minor squibbles I'm sure you'll agree )


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Robin]

I did however notice that both of the examples given seem to be related to mathematics?

The claim appears to have changed from "you cannot prove a negative" to "you cannot prove an existential negative. Well "existence" means a different thing in maths as it does in general philosophy, so my examples only apply to the first claim.

I cannot say for certain, but applying formal logic to mathematics is not an easy task

Where do you think formal logic comes from? In fact mathematics is expressed completely in formal logic. The problem starts when you try to apply formal logic to anything except mathematics. For the logic underlying a great deal of science would be considered a formal fallacy.

- I would wonder quite frankly whether numbers could be said to 'exist' at all, and whether an existential statement could be sensibly formed about them.

However with respect to the non-mathematical meaning of "exist" you are spot on here, this would probably account for a large chunk of any philosophy course.

But it is not that important. You can prove an existential negative just so long as the thing that is sufficiently defined. The problem with God is that the concept is not defined, or keeps changing by the argument. I was arguing with a theist in this forum who absolutely denied that omniscience was ever considered to be an attribute of God, accused me of making it up to discredit the concept of God.

If something were defined as "a perfectly just, infinitely merciful being who tortures people for eternity for choosing the wrong religion" then we could safely say that such a being does not exist, since it comprises a contradiction.

And the Archbishop of Sydney only recently confidently reasserted that non-Christians were in for eternal burning. That in fact non-Anglicans should probably beware.

But of course the definition will slightly change so that hell will become a place where God honours man's choices or some such rubbish.

So it is not that you can't prove an existential negative - it is just that you can't prove anything about an undefined entity.

 

[Belz...]

Here are just a few so-called gods, there are billions more, which so-called god do we have to unprove.

Kali!! KALI!!! Let's disprove Kali!

 

[Belz...]

Belz,

Wow. What a rebuttal.

Who ever said something came from nothing, Bill ?

Who ever said time had a beginning, Bill ?

Because one of them has to be true.

Why ? what the hell are you babbling about ? Why would something need to come from nothing ? Why would time have to have a beginning ?

I think you're confused about the current theories. Maybe you should drop that Bibble and read up some real stuff.

Maybe if you respond with more than just dismissive one-liners, I may get a clue what on Earth you're talking about.

That was very clear. That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant. What MATTERS is whether or not it's true. And what makes it true is evidence. Get it ?

 

[Herzblut]

That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant.

Wrong. The opposite is correct, to be more precise. Example:

That rainy weather seems unlikely is relevant for my decision to not carry an umbrella.

What MATTERS is whether or not it's true.

No. It only matters that I believe it will rain. This makes me carry the umbrella, even if it turns out later that it doesn't rain.

And what makes it true is evidence. Get it ?

Wrong. A scientific theory, in spite of having an arbritrary high level of profound evidence, can never be called "true".

Get it?

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

Wrong. A scientific theory, in spite of having an arbritrary high level of profound evidence, can never be called "true".

This sounds like solipsism. And in any case one properly speaks of 'valid' or 'tested'. If you define true as some categorical pure truth then don't even use the word at all, you can't even say any comprehension we would have of truth is true. You've defined it out of being useful so you can 'cleverly' bite people by saying 'what is true?'

Well let me ask you then, 'what is true?', and 'how do you know?'

I can live with truth being an asymptote, but please don't steal the word from us by defining it infinitely out of reach.

For myself I am comfortable thinking that things like gravity and kinetic energy are true;p Or enough so that I do not jump out my office window

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. The opposite is correct, to be more precise. Example:

That rainy weather seems unlikely is relevant for my decision to not carry an umbrella.

Uh-huh, but whether you DEEM it likely or not doesn't change whether it's going to rain.

Wrong. A scientific theory, in spite of having an arbritrary high level of profound evidence, can never be called "true".

Get it?

What I get is that you're playing philosophy in a discussion about science and evidence. Good luck.

 

[Herzblut]

This sounds like solipsism. And in any case one properly speaks of 'valid' or 'tested'.

Yes! A theory can be "valid", "tested", "correct", "reliable". In the sense that its predictions have so far turned out to be correct. To say a theory is "true" would imply (for me at least) that science will never find any observation that contradicts it! This is a strong claim, to say the least.

Another useful attribute to describe a theory is "good". There are good theories, and bad ones.

And, of course, a theory can be wrong!

Description and Prediction
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Description_and_prediction

So, description and prediction are essential elements of a theory.

Well let me ask you then, 'what is true?', and 'how do you know?'

Good question. Truth is defined in mathematics (being a tool of science of course!). The statement "1+1=2" is true. Truth is also important in religion, and it is discussed at length in philosophy.

I can live with truth being an asymptote,

Truth isn't meant to be asymptotic, is it?

For myself I am comfortable thinking that things like gravity and kinetic energy are true;p Or enough so that I do not jump out my office window

Hehe. But I honestly don't understand what you mean by saying "gravity is true" or "kinetic energy is true". I think statements can be true, but gravity is not a statement. Would you explain?

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

Uh-huh, but whether you DEEM it likely or not doesn't change whether it's going to rain.

Don't distract. You said it was irrelevant whether I deem it likely. Which is blatantly wrong.

What I get is that you're playing philosophy in a discussion about science and evidence. Good luck.

You are playing the game "I am right! If you disagree **** off!"

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

Wow. What a rebuttal.

I see you got my point.
Now, instead of cheap one-liners, please explain how you arrived at them.
That would be a good start.

Who ever said something came from nothing, Bill ?
Who ever said time had a beginning, Bill ?

First of all, you might care to read what I wrote.
(hint: one of your sentences falsely states what I said)

Why ? what the hell are you babbling about ? Why would something need to come from nothing ? Why would time have to have a beginning ?

Why don't you supply a reason why not?
(after first identifying my correct statements, of course)

I think you're confused about the current theories. Maybe you should drop that Bibble and read up some real stuff.

Instead of just saying so, you could identify my confusion and better inform me.
But I guess one-liners are just too easy!

That was very clear. That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant. What MATTERS is whether or not it's true. And what makes it true is evidence. Get it ?

Except when It is an exercise in logic.
Then, you need logical argument.
Get that?

 

[Mobyseven]

The claim appears to have changed from "you cannot prove a negative" to "you cannot prove an existential negative. Well "existence" means a different thing in maths as it does in general philosophy, so my examples only apply to the first claim.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. The claim has not changed at all - what has changed is that I wrongly assumed when this all began that people understood that, "You can't prove a negative," meant, "You can't prove a negated existential." I have, however, already covered this in previous posts - the second or third post of this 'series' I believe.

As I thought, there is no conflict between the examples you provided and not being able to prove a negative.

And before anybody goes off at me for this - yes, I did say, "You cannot prove a negative," but that is commonly understood as meaning, "You cannot prove a negated existential." I assumed knowledge in the audience that I should not have assumed. My apologies.

Where do you think formal logic comes from? In fact mathematics is expressed completely in formal logic. The problem starts when you try to apply formal logic to anything except mathematics.

This statement confuses me a bit, primarily because formal logic and mathematics are, for the most part, incompatible. It is possible to describe mathematical formula in formal logic, however to do so you need to introduce pre-defined functions into the language of logic which do not entirely belong there - they are not reducable and you cannot define them using logical connectives. They are, as it were, out of place in a formal logical argument which is far better suited to describing language than numbers. Yes maths is logical, but mathematical logic is far removed from formal predicate logic.

For the logic underlying a great deal of science would be considered a formal fallacy.

That statement is just flat out wrong - simply because science relies on inductive logic and not deductive logic does not make that logic fallacious. The logic only becomes fallacious when you try to apply one type of logic to a situation better suited to the other type.

However with respect to the non-mathematical meaning of "exist" you are spot on here, this would probably account for a large chunk of any philosophy course.

Yes...mathematics is a non-empirical beast unto itself, really...

But it is not that important. You can prove an existential negative just so long as the thing that is sufficiently defined.

No, you cannot, and I have previously outlined the exact reasons that you cannot. Unless you are claiming complete omniscience, you cannot prove a negative, and I challenge you to find one (non-mathematical, obviously) entity or effect that has been conclusively proven not to exist!

The problem with God is that the concept is not defined, or keeps changing by the argument. I was arguing with a theist in this forum who absolutely denied that omniscience was ever considered to be an attribute of God, accused me of making it up to discredit the concept of God.

Agreed - such an inability to form even something approaching a consensus is certainly one weakness in the god hypothesis.

If something were defined as "a perfectly just, infinitely merciful being who tortures people for eternity for choosing the wrong religion" then we could safely say that such a being does not exist, since it comprises a contradiction.

You cannot simply define away certain descriptions of god because they are 'contradictions', after all if there really is "a perfectly just, infinitely merciful being who tortures people for eternity for choosing the wrong religion" then we wouldn't have a contradiction on our hands, merely a paradox - and it is well established that some things that appear to be paradoxical are in fact now well accepted as science (Theory of Relativity; Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; etc.)

Simply presenting what seems to be a contradiction is not enough to 'prove a negative'.

[Snip Archbishop of Sydney discussion.]

So it is not that you can't prove an existential negative - it is just that you can't prove anything about an undefined entity.

Unfortunately you are wrong about this - you cannot prove a negated existential. Ironically, in order to 'prove' an negated existential one would have to be omniscient...and then you'd be better evidence for god that anything presented so far!

 

[Belz...]

Don't distract. You said it was irrelevant whether I deem it likely. Which is blatantly wrong.

It's irrelevant to reality.

You are playing the game "I am right! If you disagree **** off!"

No, I'm playing the game "You are wrong because all you use is rhetoric!"