• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of God

Mangafranga said:
I am not sure I understand this, are you saying that (P iff Q, ~P, so ~Q) is a fallacy?
Click to expand...
Have you ever taken one of those formal logic tests on the net, you know the real hard ones? Damn, I feel that way today and this really isn't that hard.

No, I'm wrong. I'm typing and not paying attention to what I'm saying. This is what happens when you have been out of class for 20 years and haven't taken a refresher course in all of that time and yet think you are an expert.

I'm thoroughly embarrassed.
 
So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?
 
BillyJoe,

I have a particular atheist viewpoint. And I do not speak for all atheists. You are trying to use the rule in the scientific process which says you cannot prove a negative and apply it to god beliefs. I do not apply that rule to god beliefs. That is not the majority viewpoint, but that doesn't bother me.

God beliefs exist. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are inventions of humans. There is zero evidence god beliefs originated when humans had actual interactions with real gods.

Applying the rule you cannot prove the negative to something for which you have sufficient evidence to conclude the positive (gods were invented by humans) is not the appropriate application of that rule.

The rule that does apply is the rule of theories. Theories are not proved, they are operating conclusions. For all practical purposes, gods are human inventions. There is overwhelming evidence of that theory of god beliefs.

The rule about not proving the negative applies to things for which the questions are still open. You cannot prove there is no life in the Universe outside of the Earth. The rule applies because you cannot test for life in every corner of the Universe.

Do we talk of the theory of evolution and say you can't prove it is wrong? No, because if it were wrong, you could prove that. That is proving a negative isn't it? Can you prove the theory of gravity is wrong? And so on.

So, can you prove the theory that gods are human inventions wrong? You could if it was wrong. You could show that the Bible contained wisdom humans couldn't have known about and that would begin to suggest the possibility god beliefs were real and the theory was wrong. But that evidence has not been found. Nonetheless, the theory could be proved wrong and you would be proving something negative.

Where does that leave the supposed technicality that you cannot prove there are no gods because just like ETs, you can't test every possibility?

Well in the latter case, there is logic to the question. You have life on Earth and an incredibly large number of other locations in the Universe which would have to be tested in order to prove the negative.

But in the case of disproving gods, you have nothing. You have people's god beliefs but we have already shown the theory that god beliefs are human inventions is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

If I write a science fiction story does anyone look at the thing I made up in the story and say, "you can't prove that isn't true." Does anyone apply the concept in science that you cannot prove a negative to my science fiction story? It would be an inappropriate application of that rule in science. Technically true, but for all intents and purposes a useless application of the scientific process.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?
Click to expand...

Valid, yes. Sound, I'm not so sure. The idea that there can only be change through the passage of time makes intuitive sense because that's all we've lived with, but there is something about it that just doesn't seem right...for example, if I had created a perfect vacuum with no particles in it, sitting in a lead box on my desk - would it be correct to say that I had stopped time for that particular region of space? Or merely that I have (for all intents and purposes) stopped change, and the passage of time flows on?
 
Robin said:
So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?
Click to expand...
I would never claim a premise is valid. If we are talking logic, then validity is a feature of arguments, not premises. I would have no problem with saying the premise is well formed, or coherent, or meaningful (as a premise). I don't have a position on its truth value.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?
Click to expand...
I would have to take a different view point than manga on this one. Premises are propositions. I would claim that the premise is true.
 
RandFan said:
I would have to take a different view point than manga on this one. Premises are propositions. I would claim that the premise is true.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is a proposition. But on the crucially pedantic point of whether or not a premise can be valid, what is your position?
 
Hardenbergh said:
Apparently C. S. Lewis thought differently.
Click to expand...

Good for him.

Here are two articles from Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.
Click to expand...

Amuse me.

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's a work of fiction, mate. How does that prove anything ?

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.
Click to expand...

The same is true for the reverse. The problem is we do have evidence of his non-existence.
 
Foster Zygote said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what makes me wary of some theists. If they claim that fear of god is the only thing preventing them from commiting crimes, then they're sociopaths and should be locked up, somewhere.

Why is belief in Santa Clause or mermaids not on the same level as belief in gods?
Click to expand...

Because they're not HIS belief.
 
Mobyseven said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Moby. That sums it up.
 
Foster Zygote said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just about fear of God's punishment. When we believe in God and love God, we willingly do the things that are in accordance with His will. We want to please God. I heard a few minutes of Michael Youssef's radio program, Leading the Way while I was getting ready for work. He said surrendering to God isn't like having a tooth extraction. We surrender to God willingly and joyfully.

I wasn't suggesting that atheists don't have any sense of right and wrong and have more of an inclination to go around murdering people.
 
Hardenbergh said:
Well, it's not just about fear of God's punishment. When we believe in God and love God, we willingly do the things that are in accordance with His will.
Click to expand...
His will, and you have proof of his will. Where is this so-called proof, and don't point to the bible, a book written by men, (not women). And why is this so-called god a male, why would a so-called god have a sex.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Mangafranga said:
I would never claim a premise is valid. If we are talking logic, then validity is a feature of arguments, not premises. I would have no problem with saying the premise is well formed, or coherent, or meaningful (as a premise). I don't have a position on its truth value.
Click to expand...

Good point - when I mentioned validity and soundness before I was referring to the argument as a whole. ( t ≡ c, c, ∴ t ).

A single proposition cannot be valid, it can only be well-formed. t ≡ c is well formed, but I have doubts as to its truth value.
 
Hardenbergh said:
Well, it's not just about fear of God's punishment.
Click to expand...

Then why does Hell exist ?

When we believe in God and love God, we willingly do the things that are in accordance with His will.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. Christians do what they do for the exact same reason that Muslims do or Jews do or Atheists do: because they damn well please.

We want to please God.
Click to expand...

Why ? He's already perfect.

He said surrendering to God isn't like having a tooth extraction. We surrender to God willingly and joyfully.
Click to expand...

With a huge carrot hanging before your eyes, no ? Eternal bliss ?

I wasn't suggesting that atheists don't have any sense of right and wrong and have more of an inclination to go around murdering people.
Click to expand...

You weren't suggesting it ? But were you thinking it ?
 
I find it hilarious that the OP is so insignificant, that we're reduced to discussing other issues related to proof - or disproof - of God... and that Dustin hasn't been back to try his proof again on us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom