Proof of God

[Belz...]

That's why I stopped posting. Obviously, someone's unwilling to have a decent conversation.

 

[Paulhoff]

You can't be talking about me.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

For the record...

Good riddance.

I'm back!

God of the Gaps (variation of Argument from Ignorance):

It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant of the Arument form Ignorance is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument.

I have never stated that...

...because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model

I have never stated that...

...therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God

Therefore, I have not used the god of the gaps fallacy.




I cannot help it that people cannot follow an argument.

cya,
BillyJoe

 

[Paulhoff]

What argument, there is no so-called god, no proof at all, only words and words why some think there is one and/or should be one, but no proof, none, zip, etc, end of story.

Paul

 

[edge]

Never in the history of humankind, have so few, known so little, about so much.

 

[Paulhoff]

Never in the history of humankind, have so few, known so little, about so much.

That has to do with inventions edge, inventions, you of course miss-read everything. You this have not shown proof, not knowing something is not the prove of something.

Paul

 

[Robin]

No, I've finished.

You show me.

I did. You ignored it. Remember?

Your claim that something from nothing or time without beginning and no third option.

I pointed out something from something else was the obvious third option.

So are you finished because you admit you are wrong, or because you still insist you are right?

PS:

No moon here.

Sure there is. Just zoom out a little and you will see it.

[edit]About half a million kilometres should do it[/edit]

 

[Robin]

Except you can never actually prove the second claim: There is no way to prove that there isn't a second moon that disappears every time someone tries to observe it in any way. Certainly, we can say that it is highly, highly unlikely, but to prove that such a thing does not exist? We would have to observe it - and yet it has been defined as unobservable.

By the same lights you can't prove that the moon we observe has not been zapped into our minds by some superintelligent race with advanced technology. Or that everything we experience is not an illusion.

In other words you can't prove there is even one moon

So if metaphysical proof is the goal you can't prove an existential positive either. So why single out existential negatives? You cannot prove any existential claim.

If that sounds silly, or supernatural, well - duh. That's the point. And certainly, it should sound silly to anyone used to science. But, unless one is omniscient, one is unable to prove the non-existence of anything. That's entirely why we test hypotheses through empirical experimentation and observation, and it is why we feel comfortable in saying that there isn't a second moon orbiting Earth. It has never been observed, and it has no explanatory power if we hypothesise its existence. We are perfectly justified in saying that it does not exist, even though we cannot prove it does not exist.

We can also calculate the gravitational effect that a body of that size would have and observe that this effect is not evident. You don't need to lecture me about the scientific method.

But this is the point I am making. If you can prove there is a Moon, then you can equally prove false the proposition that there is another moon. However if you cannot prove there is no other moon, then equally you cannot prove there is even one moon. Or the earth. Or you.

So we can talk about metaphysical proof or proof beyond reasonable doubt. I would agree with the positivists that any metaphysical statement is meaningless.

Incidentally I think this is interesting. He as much as admits that he owes the last student the hundred dollars - I would agree. I would have said that if his unicorn even supervened on one point in time and space it would not be immaterial and if it didn't it would not be in the classroom - so you can prove there is no immaterial unicorn in his classroom.

 

[Robin]

The can also mean an indicating generic class.

Paul

That neatly illustrates the problem. You would think the Earth and the Moon were solid enough referents, but then somebody quibbles about the meaning of "the".

So what chance does a concept like God stand?

I was assuming that from the context nobody would think I was talking about dirt. But "earth" is often used generically to mean planets capable of sustaining complex biospheres - so I specified.

I realise now I should have just capitalised "Earth"

 

[Paulhoff]

I realise now I should have just capitalised "Earth"

No, I'm sure that someone would find something wrong with that too.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

I was assuming that from the context nobody would think I was talking about dirt. But "earth" is often used generically to mean planets capable of sustaining complex biospheres - so I specified.

I realise now I should have just capitalised "Earth"

You should also realise when someone is having a little joke.

 

[BillyJoe]

Your claim that something from nothing or time without beginning and no third option.

I pointed out something from something else was the obvious third option.

So are you finished because you admit you are wrong, or because you still insist you are right?

I thought you were joking!



edit:
I see from your reply to Mobyseven, that you are deadly serious.
So I will just reply that your reply to my reply is out of context.
Something from something does not resolve the problem posed.

 

[Robin]

I thought you were joking!

Not unless you were joking when you made the claim. So how about it? Your claim that either something came from nothing or time was without beginning and asked if anybody could supply another option.

I pointed out something from something else was the obvious third option.

Something wrong with that?

 

[The_Animus]

I do not expect this response to have any effect. From my experience religious people care little for evidence or logic and prefer to continue with false belief in the face of facts. Nonetheless I will respond to part of the argument. My name is Dustin too. It's nice to meet you.

Now then...

I would now like to get into an interesting set of evidences which will suggest many unbelievers arguments are inherently flawed for one primary cause: Biology. Scientists have been studying our Genome for years and only recently have they found new and exciting evidence suggesting a biological basis for religion. Dr. Dean Hamer from the U.S. National Cancer Institute has proposed a very intriguing theory about the biological basis of religion which points out the VMAT2 gene which is responsible for religious experiences. VMAT2 is a monoamine and monoamines are neurotransmitter which are with the many chemicals related to emotional sensitivity including Epinephrine, Dopamine and Serotonin.

Please provide a link telling exactly what this VMAT2 gene is and how it works. Please also provide a link showing that religious people have this gene and atheists do not. Or please provide a link to a study which shows that people with a working VMAT2 gene have religious experiences and those with a broken one do not. If there is no study to prove that this entire argument is pointless. Even if there was a correlation you then still have the issue of explaining this gene in relation to atheists who become religious and the religious who become atheists.

What implications does this have for our argument? Think back to the deaf and blind man who can not perceive the fire truck right in front of him. Let’s say he is genetically deaf and blind and was born that way. Given that religious people make it clear that they can “feel” the prescience of God what are we to say about this? Can we say their sense of God existing is faulty and nothing more than a delusion? Can a blind deaf man say that the fire truck is nothing more than a delusion? What right does the man who lacks adequate perception to perceive such a deity to say to those who do perceive it that they are delusional? Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck. Albert Hofmann said: “God only speaks to those who understand the language.” Perhaps the people who are unable to perceive a creator are just as crippled as those who are deaf and blind and can not see the fire truck when it is obviously right in front of their faces. Those who deny a creator are as biologically crippled as the man who was born blind and deaf.

First majority belief is not evidence. At one point it was majority belief that the world was flat. It used to be widely believed that Zeus threw lightning bolts from the sky and Poseidon sunk ships. Throughout human history religions have risen up, been found to be outdated and ridiculous, and have been cast aside only to come up with another religion that on the surface appears a little less outdated and ridiculous.

Second there is a slight problem with your blind man and the firetruck analogy. This is that the man who can see and hear the firetruck doesn't become blind and deaf and the blind and deaf man isn't suddenly able to see and hear the firetruck. This analogy would make sense IF religious belief and experience didn't flip flop with people. There are many people who have been atheists for years. Who have made claims that religious experience is BS, that there is no god, and then claim to have had a religious experience. These persons went from atheist to religious, from blind and deaf to not. There are also many people who have been very religious, even pastors, who once claimed to believe in god, to believe in religious experience and all that, but who no longer do. From religious to atheist, from being able to see and hear to being blind and deaf. So as you can see the analogy doesn't fit or account for this flip flop issue. It would seem that a more appropriate description would be temporary delusion yes?

Most of your arguments are logical fallacy. I highly suggest you read, "The Atheist debaters handbook". It goes over many of your arguments and shows their logical fallacy. However, I highly doubt you will.

 

[Mobyseven]

Robin:

I suppose that is where Occam's razor comes into play: Certainly, I cannot prove that an alien race has not beamed the moon into our minds (I see you've been reading the Stundies ), but there is no evidence of such, and given that these aliens would be an unnecessary entity I feel perfectly justified in dismissing their existence - at least until further proof is offered.

In terms of the extra moon, I suppose I could pull out the argument that, by using science to determine its effect on the Earth we are indirectly observing it (and so it disappears until the next time we try), or that our current understanding of science is flawed and unable to explain the moon adequately. Certainly such arguments sound silly, because they are, but similar or identical arguments are used everyday to justify the existence of the paranormal or pseudoscientific.

I suppose it all comes down to being a matter of evidence. When we have evidence for something, we feel confident in saying it exists, or that it is a real effect, even though we know that there is always the possibility of an alternate hypothesis being correct. When we have a distinct lack of evidence for something, when we have tested but received negative results, and when there are alternate hypothesis (or in fact, no need for any hypothesis in the first place) we feel confident in saying that such a thing does not exist, even though we know there is always the possibility that we are incorrect. And when we are unsure about the evidence in front of us, we generally reserve judgment for a later date, when either further evidence has been presented, or the research has reached a dead end.

Scientific research plays mainly in the blurred area between truth and falsehood, but there are many things in life that, provided we accept a few axioms that deny a solipsist universe, we can assert with near complete confidence (99.99...% - percentage provided by the bureau of thin air).

Such a thing is the statement, "The Earth we inhabit has exactly one moon." I accept, because of a number of factors, that there is at least one moon - I have seen it with my own eyes (though I accept my own falliability), it has an effect on the tides (to which alternate hypotheses are inadequate in explaining), people have landed spaceships on the moon and walked on the surface of the moon (I know this from a number of reliable sources, though I accept that I did not walk there myself), and so on. Similarly, I accept, because of a number of factors, that there is not more than one moon - I have never seen a second moon (though I accept my own falliability), the effect it would have on the Earth should it exist is not seen (though I accept that it is possible that our knowledge of science is simply insufficient to highlight and explain the effects caused by this moon), and so on.

The important difference between these two 'proofs' is that in order to deny the proof of a positive, one must deny the evidence itself, or else explain how the evidence does not lead to the conclusion given. In order to deny 'proof' of a negative, one must simply assume falliability in the observer. As such, the evidence for positive existential statements has far stronger confirmation than the non-evidence for negated existential statements. This imbalance in certainty is exactly why you can prove a positive, but you cannot prove a negative.

Gotta rush to lunch sorry, hope that reads well...

 

[BillyJoe]

Not unless you were joking when you made the claim. So how about it? Your claim that either something came from nothing or time was without beginning and asked if anybody could supply another option.

I pointed out something from something else was the obvious third option.

Something wrong with that?

It has nothing to do with the question of origins.
...unless you can show how.

 

[Belz...]

I did. You ignored it. Remember?

Your claim that something from nothing or time without beginning and no third option.

I pointed out something from something else was the obvious third option.

Woah, there, Robin. You're treading dangerously close to what I was saying, which apparently now gets me ignored by our good friend Billy.

 

[Robin]

It has nothing to do with the question of origins.

How can a claim in the form "either x had no beginning or something came from nothing" have nothing to do with the question of origins? That statement says in effect x is necessary and not contingent. What else is the statement about but origins (or lack thereof)?

...unless you can show how.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that I cannot even raise the possibility that time could have had a non-temporal origin unless I can demonstrate the physics of it?

No, you will really have to come up with a better reason for ignoring this possibility.

 

[Robin]

Woah, there, Robin. You're treading dangerously close to what I was saying, which apparently now gets me ignored by our good friend Billy.

I skipped a bit in this thread. I should have realised that this would already have been pointed out.

 

[BillyJoe]

How can a claim in the form "either x had no beginning or something came from nothing" have nothing to do with the question of origins? That statement says in effect x is necessary and not contingent. What else is the statement about but origins (or lack thereof)?

No, I mean your third option, something from something else, has nothing to do about origins.
...unless you can show me how.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that I cannot even raise the possibility that time could have had a non-temporal origin unless I can demonstrate the physics of it?

No, just that something from something else, doesn't solve the problem of origins.