Proof of God

[Mangafranga]

I'm not at all sure how that obviates anything. Care to explain?

I'll answer this by first showing how this progressed, to make sure we are on the same page. You summarised what BillyJoe said thusly.

Proposition: things happen over time (change)
Premise: No time.
Conclusion: No change.

Which you then translated thusly.

Let T = Time
Let C = Change

If T, then C
T.
Therefore C.

But the actual form should be

If T, then C
~T
So, ~C

This form is the logical fallacy commonly referred to as denying the antecedent.

You originally said that BillyJoe may well be committing a logical fallacy. My point does not refute this. My main point is just to keep the translation consistent. Of course it also rebuts the claim that you have turned what he said into modus ponens.

 

[Belz...]

Faith is the proof of God.

Assuming it wasn't sarcastic (didn't read the link), if faith is proof, then everything is true. No exceptions.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Assuming it wasn't sarcastic (didn't read the link), if faith is proof, then everything is true. No exceptions.

No, it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. I discovered the writings of George MacDonald through a Christian friend. I began by reading a biography titled, George MacDonald, Scotland's Beloved Storyteller by Michael Phillips.

I read the original version that was published in 1987.

http://www.amazon.com/George-Macdon...9479623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189187790&sr=8-1

Originally published in 1987, this revised and updated edition commemorates the 100th anniversary of MacDonald's death. It starts off slow because of the abundance of background information, but it's a great read for those who want to get to know a life that despite challenges and controversy was exceptionally noble.

http://www.amazon.com/George-MacDon...9479623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189187790&sr=8-3

Here's a brief description of all of George MacDonald's published works, some of which may be familiar to you.

“I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself.”
—C.S. Lewis, 1946

http://www.macdonaldphillips.com/bibliographygeorge.html

 

[Belz...]

I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself

It's hard to be closer or further away than anyone from something that doesn't exist.

 

[Hardenbergh]

It's hard to be closer or further away than anyone from something that doesn't exist.

Apparently C. S. Lewis thought differently.


Here are two articles from Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

Now obviously, just because the vast majority of people believe in God or a god of some kind, we cannot conclusively say that therefore, God exists. Near universal belief in God throughout known history is a significant argument, but it doesn't amount to proof. But are there not other signposts for belief in God?

In his classic novel Crime and Punishment, Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky tells the story of a young man who rejects the existence of God. This young man murders an old woman. Believing there is no righteous God who will judge, and therefore no absolute standard of right and wrong, he knows that he should not feel guilty. However, he is consumed with a sense of guilt until he confesses his crime and hands his life over to the God he once rejected.

http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=1275

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3

 

[Foster Zygote]

Apparently C. S. Lewis thought differently.

And?

Now obviously, just because the vast majority of people believe in God or a god of some kind, we cannot conclusively say that therefore, God exists. Near universal belief in God throughout known history is a significant argument, but it doesn't amount to proof. But are there not other signposts for belief in God?

In his classic novel Crime and Punishment, Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky tells the story of a young man who rejects the existence of God. This young man murders an old woman. Believing there is no righteous God who will judge, and therefore no absolute standard of right and wrong, he knows that he should not feel guilty. However, he is consumed with a sense of guilt until he confesses his crime and hands his life over to the God he once rejected.

You'll have to do better than presenting a fictional example as evidence. I reject the idea of god and I feel that this does not in any way justify the taking of an innocent life. Quite the contrary in fact. My conclusion that this life is all anyone gets leads me to view it as that much more precious. I know many other atheists who would agree with me. I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear that your god would punish you.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4

This is a fine example of quote mining. It still may be the case that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

This entire argument is false. What the atheist says is not "If one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist". The atheists says "If one has no evidence for the existence of gods then one is not obliged to believe that gods exist". Atheists don't claim to know gods do not exist. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existence of gods and that therefor there is no rational reason to assume that they exist.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

So you are agnostic about the existence of every mythological and fictional being ever conceived of by human imagination? This argument seems to assert that belief in a deity is just as erroneous as non belief. This argument assumes that there are only three states:


+1. Certain belief in the existence of a god or gods.
0. Pure neutrality
-1. Certain belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods.

But the reality is that someone can be +.95 just as easily as -.95. So the statement "Given the lack of evidence for the existence of gods I will provisionally disbelieve in their existence until such time as evidence may be presented" is rational. If you still don't think so then perhaps you should replace the word "gods" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "leprechaun".

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

Why is belief in Santa Clause or mermaids not on the same level as belief in gods? This assertion is made but not supported. What "strong evidence" of the nonexistence of these things do we have that does not apply to gods. And I mean all gods. If you mean to defend the existence of the Christian god then you are going to have to convince me that the Aten, Hanuman or Huitzilipotchli are not equally as likely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I found the "Paul Copan - "The Presumptuousness of Atheism" arguments to be poor as well. 'Rule rigging' is the woo position on why they cannot prove their claims with scientific inquiry. Failing to see or believe what I believe (My God belief is real and your Tooth Fairy belief isn't) is not a valid argument either. It isn't even an argument, it's a leap of faith. Foster Z addresses the problems with Copan quite well.

 

[BillyJoe]

Foster Zygote,

What is the real reason then?
(for your line drawing)

This entire argument is false. What the atheist says is not "If one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist". The atheists says "If one has no evidence for the existence of gods then one is not obliged to believe that gods exist". Atheists don't claim to know gods do not exist. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existence of gods and that therefor there is no rational reason to assume that they exist.

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".
(Especially, when you get right down to it, that is not actually what they mean.)

Why is belief in Santa Clause or mermaids not on the same level as belief in gods? This assertion is made but not supported. What "strong evidence" of the nonexistence of these things do we have that does not apply to gods. And I mean all gods. If you mean to defend the existence of the Christian god then you are going to have to convince me that the Aten, Hanuman or Huitzilipotchli are not equally as likely.

What about belief in the deistic god and belief in the tooth faerie?
Are they equivalent in your opinion?

 

[BillyJoe]

Hardenburgh,

Nice to see you again

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

If, for God, you susbstitute deistic god; and if you ackowledge that there are degrees of agnosticism/atheism (the more fantastic the claim and the longer you look without any evidence being forthcoming, the less likely something is to be true), I would agree with the above.

It is actually a very good summary of this thread from page 14.
(where it changed from "Proof of God" to "Disproof of god")

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".
(Especially, when you get right down to it, that is not actually what they mean.)

Speak for yourself, it's what I mean.

...What about belief in the deistic god and belief in the tooth faerie?
Are they equivalent in your opinion?

They are in my opinion. So you think Zeus beliefs and deistic gods are equal? Of course they are. To say, well gee, all the god myths and religious texts are less than credible, but I just can't let go of that god concept so I'll just invent one and make it conform to the laws of physics or something like that is silly in my opinion.

Where is there a single bit of evidence (aka a reason) to add this deity to one's conceptualization of the Universe?

 

[Mobyseven]

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!

For Shiva's sake BillyJoe, why can't you just freaking let this go?

Your opinion here is inconsistent with how language functions to let people communicate clearly. You don't think that atheists should say, "There is no god," because we cannot claim omniscient knowledge of the universe. However, that would have to apply to every negated existential statement - you cannot hold god to a different standard, because to do so assumes that god is somehow more important, which in turn assumes that god exists!

This means that we could no longer say, "There is no bigfoot." "There is no Santa Claus." Hell, if you were out of tea and a guest asked you for some, you would not be able to say, "We have no tea." You'd have to say, "Based on the lack of evidence for the presence of tea in this house, I have provisionally concluded that there is no tea here."

You wish to couch the high-probability (99+%, less than 100%) non-existance of god in such unnatural language as, "Given the current state of evidence it seems that there is no god, though the state of evidence could change in the future." Why? To make your opinion sound more scientific? Or is it just that you are so afraid of being wrong that you shy away from definite statements of any type?

Either way, you should bloody well man up and accept that this is the way that the English language is used, and that your opinion means very, very little in the wide ocean of common understanding.

 

[Robin]

Robin,

Dear friend.


Firstly, I see you have made no further comment about that quote, so I take it that that is as close as I'm going to get to an apology.

Which quote? I lose track with the blow-for-blow and try to concentrate the argument on the important stuff. But I will certainly give an apology if one is due.

Secondly, I do not have "hissy fits". You would be surprised ar how calmly and good naturedly I repond to the posts in this thread. But, in reference to that so called "hissy fit", you will have to link to it because I can't think of a single reason why I would have denied that "began to exist" is the same as "came into existence". They very obviously mean the same thing.

Go back, then and read your reply - it does not come across as calm and you appear to be rejecting my words as misrepresenting yours.

Thirdly, universe as I have used it here is interchangeable with "multiverse", "bubble universe", or "everything that has ever existed". This is why "something from something else" is out of the range of my question about origins. Remember that I have been talking about ultimate questions. If this universe is not all there is, then we can use one of the other terms.

Let me consider this a while then, I am also reading up on some comments about time by RandFan and l0rca.

BTW, do you ascribe to circular time as a solution to our little problem.

No - in I still stick to the "something that did not begin to exist" and that this is not necessarily the same as "time without beginning", but again, let me reformulate in light of a couple of things.

 

[RandFan]

If T, then C
~T
So, ~C

This form is the logical fallacy commonly referred to as denying the antecedent.

You originally said that BillyJoe may well be committing a logical fallacy. My point does not refute this. My main point is just to keep the translation consistent. Of course it also rebuts the claim that you have turned what he said into modus ponens.

Thank you very much. Yes. You are correct on all counts.

I really should have spoted it. Damn logic.

 

[BillyJoe]

Randfan & Mangafranga.


Seems you are now both in agreement.
Which is a pity because now you are both wrong.
This is inexcusable because we have already covered this topic.


This is not "Denying the Antecedent", which is a logical fallacy.
It is "Modus Tollens", which is actually a valid argument.


"Modus Tollens" is of the following form:

If, and only if, P, then Q.
~P.
Therefore, ~Q

If, and only if, Time, then Change.
~ Time
Therefore, ~ Change

So simple!


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Let me consider this a while then, I am also reading up on some comments about time by RandFan and l0rca.

No - in I still stick to the "something that did not begin to exist" and that this is not necessarily the same as "time without beginning", but again, let me reformulate in light of a couple of things.

I will wait.

 

[BillyJoe]

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".
(Especially, when you get right down to it, that is not actually what they mean.)

Speak for yourself, it's what I mean.

Yeah, I know, "Burden of Proof"!
Or are you Dawkins' category #7?

They are in my opinion. So you think Zeus beliefs and deistic gods are equal? Of course they are. To say, well gee, all the god myths and religious texts are less than credible, but I just can't let go of that god concept so I'll just invent one and make it conform to the laws of physics or something like that is silly in my opinion.

But, if it conforms to the laws of physics, it is not disproven.
And until the laws of physics expands to include the question of origins....

Where is there a single bit of evidence (aka a reason) to add this deity to one's conceptualization of the Universe?

As far as I know, there is none.
But the deistic god is not disproven either, hence it's Dawkins' category #6 for me, not #7.

 

[BillyJoe]

Skeptigirl,

For Shiva's sake BillyJoe, why can't you just freaking let this go?

Your opinion here is inconsistent with how language functions to let people communicate clearly. You don't think that atheists should say, "There is no god," because we cannot claim omniscient knowledge of the universe. However, that would have to apply to every negated existential statement - you cannot hold god to a different standard, because to do so assumes that god is somehow more important, which in turn assumes that god exists!

This means that we could no longer say, "There is no bigfoot." "There is no Santa Claus." Hell, if you were out of tea and a guest asked you for some, you would not be able to say, "We have no tea." You'd have to say, "Based on the lack of evidence for the presence of tea in this house, I have provisionally concluded that there is no tea here."

You wish to couch the high-probability (99+%, less than 100%) non-existance of god in such unnatural language as, "Given the current state of evidence it seems that there is no god, though the state of evidence could change in the future." Why? To make your opinion sound more scientific? Or is it just that you are so afraid of being wrong that you shy away from definite statements of any type?

Either way, you should bloody well man up and accept that this is the way that the English language is used, and that your opinion means very, very little in the wide ocean of common understanding.

See what I mean.

 

[Mangafranga]

Randfan & Mangafranga.


Seems you are now both in agreement.
Which is a pity because now you are both wrong.
This is inexcusable because we have already covered this topic.

Randfan was translating what you said. I was keeping his translation consistent. I don't really care to defend Randfan's original translation from what you said to his paraphrase. I'll leave that part to him, that is if he considers it worth doing.

This is not "Denying the Antecedent", which is a logical fallacy.
It is "Modus Tollens", which is actually a valid argument.


"Modus Tollens" is of the following form:

If, and only if, P, then Q.
~P.
Therefore, ~Q

MTT is of the form

If P then Q,
~Q,
So ~P

(p.77, Rudiments of Logic, Myro, Bedau & Monroe)

Yes, (P iff Q, ~P, So ~Q) is a valid argument, but it isn't MTT (with some natural deduction you could extract an MTT form, but the biconditional form still isn't MTT). So this objection falls flat.

If you wish to claim that what you said, in the post Randfan was translating, contained a biconditional, go ahead. But to make this objection I contend that you actually have to show us the working that gets you the biconditional. And again, this part (from you to Randfan) wasn't my concern. My concern was to keep the translation consistent (namely to correct the clear blunder which forgot to keep the negations).

 

[RandFan]

Randfan & Mangafranga.


Seems you are now both in agreement.
Which is a pity because now you are both wrong.
This is inexcusable because we have already covered this topic.


This is not "Denying the Antecedent", which is a logical fallacy.
It is "Modus Tollens", which is actually a valid argument.


"Modus Tollens" is of the following form:

If, and only if, P, then Q.
~P.
Therefore, ~Q

If, and only if, Time, then Change.
~ Time
Therefore, ~ Change

So simple!


regards,
BillyJoe

Sorry Billy, I've got to go with manga on this one. That's not Modus Tollens and it is a fallacy (please note: the conclusion, as it relates to the equation is trivially true but can't be derived from Modus Tollens).

My point was that it was wrong to claim that there was no logic to your statement. FWIW, I don't have a dog in this hunt. However, the statement, "if there is no time there is no change", is both logical and true.

 

[Mangafranga]

Sorry Billy, I've got to go with manga on this one. That's not Modus Tollens and it is a fallacy (please note: the conclusion, as it relates to the equation is trivially true but can't be derived from Modus Tollens).

I am not sure I understand this, are you saying that (P iff Q, ~P, so ~Q) is a fallacy?