Proof of God

[RandFan]

Don't worry, I am not pointing out any mistakes in this post. Just to be clear, what I meant was that I am not taking a position on which truth value it has (that is to say, I accept that it is either true or false).

Hey, I think we have a consensus. Cool.

 

[BillyJoe]

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?

Neither.

According to Quantum theory, "vacuum energy"
exists even in space that is devoid of matter.
So, even in a vacuum, there is time and change.

 

[BillyJoe]

Because they're not HIS belief.

...HER.


Unless I'm mistaken, Hardenburgh's avatar is a self-portrait.

 

[Belz...]

Isn’t it amazing how people know everything about their so-called god, what it likes, what it doesn’t like, the list is almost endless and they know everything about that so-called god of theirs, but asked them why they like something like cherry-pie, and they haven't got a clue.

What's really amazing is how they know everything about their god's feelings, but when you ask them something they don't know or when you speculate, yourself, about what god would think, his ways are suddenly "mysterious".

 

[Belz...]

How about cuz all things are created by him and for him. God is the one thing that defines us and gives us purpose. We are here to give glory to God. He created us for fellowship with him and eachother. How's that for pinpointing it a bit.

Circular reasoning, but I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Science can give us some of the how things work, but only God completes us and answers the why's.

Which doesn't preclude the fact that he doesn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

...HER.


Unless I'm mistaken, Hardenburgh's avatar is a self-portrait.

I stand corrected.

But the point stands.

 

[BillyJoe]

skeptigirl,

Thanks for your response.
I am not entirely clear what you are saying here, so I will make some comments and see where they lead.
Your deas seem to be a bit of a hybrid between my ideas and those of ny adversaries in this thread.

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.

No, it was not me trying to do that
Seems others around here, who have put that view, disagree with you.
I actually agree but, it seems, for different reasons....

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.

The subject of your post here is "belief in god".
On the other hand, the subject in this thread is "the existence of god"

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.

Okay.

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.

Fine.
But what if the subject is "the existence of god".
Democritus thought all matter was composed of indivisable particles that he named "atoms". There was absolutely no evidence for these "atoms" and he was justifiably ignored. Yet, as we now know, atoms do exist.
This doesn't mean god exists, of course, but it should caution us not to outright reject "human inventions" such as "the existence of god" - especially when science has not yet answered the questions which lead to the (deistic) god hypothesis.

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.

Yes, that is the classic case where the "you can't prove a negative" argument holds.

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.

Again I agree.
But there are others here who would have it that you cannot prove a negative, period.

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?

Okay, here we have the "god" as the subject.

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.

Yes, you cannot possibly prove ETs don't exist because there are just too many places to look for them. Hence, I agree, you can't prove a negative applies to ETs.

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.

Except that - for the deistic god - you have the fact that science has not yet explained the existence of the universe. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that science will ever be able to explain the existence of the universe (even if given enough time and allowing for evolving human intelligence).

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.

This is my argument against the tooth faerie.
But it was denied me in this thread.
The tooth faerie was never meant to be other than fiction and amusement for children and, in any case, parents are perfectly capable of doing everything that the tooth faerie wass fictionalised to do.
The deistic god, is a little different - the existence of the universe has not been explained.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

I stand corrected.

But the point stands.

Yeah but....don't you feel just a little more religious now.
(Hey, there are hairs growing on my knees, but I am perfectly willing to sacrifice them)

 

[Paulhoff]

Science can give us some of the how things work, but only God completes us and answers the why's. Once we know him through faith we are complete and find purpose. People need purpose don't you agree?

Oh, so-called god, show me how to save a child from cancer.... no answer, silence.
Oh, so-called god, why haven't you parted any waters in the far east and saved the people there or at least the children..... no answer, silence.

So now we wait to hear from a believers for the reasons (pitiful excuses really) why their so-called god didn't show up again.

Paul



Oh, so-called god must love us so much, because beats us down so often.

 

[Hardenbergh]

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.

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty. I think there would be a lot more murders without it although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

This is the same statement with the "death penalty" in its place:

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

 

[volatile]

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty. I think there would be a lot more murders without it although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

This is the same statement with the "death penalty" in its place:

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

Stuff and nonsense. Compare homicide rates between countries with the death penalty and those without and there is, as far as I know, no discernible correlation.

You are wrong.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Stuff and nonsense. Compare homicide rates between countries with the death penalty and those without and there is, as far as I know, no discernible correlation.

You are wrong.

You are correct about the homicide rates. I was just looking at some documents. I was rather surprised. I guess I don't listen to the news often enough.

Here's an excerpt from one of the articles. Most of the article supports your statement. However, the excerpt below shows reasoning that may be in favor of the death penalty or at least bear some consideration:

Part of the support for capital punishment comes from the belief that the death penalty is legitimate under a theory of "just deserts" (Bedau, 1978; Finckenauer, 1988). This justification suggests that murderers should be executed for retributive reasons; "Murderers should suffer, and life imprisonment is insufficient suffering as retribution for taking a life." While such views are important and worthy of debate, no empirical research can tell us if the argument is "correct" or "incorrect." Empirical studies cannot answer the question of what specific criminals (or non-criminals) "deserve," or settle debates over the moral issues surrounding capital punishment.

On the other hand, much of the public and political support for capital punishment rests on its presumed value as a general deterrent: we need the death penalty to encourage potential murderers to avoid engaging in criminal homicide. Unlike the issue of retribution, empirical studies can answer questions about the death penalty's general deterrent effects.

Politicians and prosecutors are often quick to use some version of the deterrence rationale in their cries for more and quicker executions when they see such appeals as a promising way to attract votes (Bright, 1995; Pierce and Radelet, 1990-91). Examples are not difficult to find. Rep. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, believes that mass executions of "27 or 30 or 35 people at a time" will reduce the importation of illegal drugs into America (Taylor, 1995). When signing legislation that returned the death penalty to New York in 1995, Governor George Pataki said, "This bill is going to save lives" (Dao, 1995). Governor William Weld, who is trying to get his state of Massachusetts to return the death penalty to its law books, bolsters his belief in the deterrent value of the death penalty with data he gets from his "gut." "Beyond a certain point, I think you have got to make a choice and go with your gut. My gut is that ... capital punishment is a deterrent" (Lehigh, 1991). Ken Nunneley, an Alabama assistant attorney general in charge of the state's capital litigation division, obtains his data from the same source. "My gut tells me it has a deterrent effect, let me put it that way" (Lehr, 1993).

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence

 

[Belz...]

Yeah but....don't you feel just a little more religious now.

Nope.

 

[Belz...]

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty.

Except that the people doing it are not omniscient.

I think there would be a lot more murders without it

Statistics tend to disagree, I think.

although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

God is.

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

Yes, indeed. The reason why I have morals is not fear of punishment.

 

[Paulhoff]

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

So it should also be the fear of hell and a so-called god, so is that what makes a person moral then, the fear of a so-called god and hell. So are you saying that morals only comes with fear, and that people have no true morals without fear.

Paul



You don't think much of humans then.

 

[Hardenbergh]

So it should also be the fear of hell and a so-called god, so is that what makes a person moral then, the fear of a so-called god and hell. So are you saying that morals only comes with fear, and that people have no true morals without fear.

Paul



You don't think much of humans then.

Morality can be innate but social mores influence our behaviour. Social mores are always changing but that's what different about God and the Bible. The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

 

[Paulhoff]

Morality can be innate but social mores influence our behaviour. Social mores are always changing but that's what different about God and the Bible. The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

Well here comes a shocker for you, many countries in this world have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments and they still have so-called morality. The U.S. Constitution as nothing in it about the Ten Commandments either.

Paul



By the way, there is nothing against slavery in the Ten Commandments or in the bible.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

More than half of the Ten Commandments are just silly, some of them have absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics. We should only be grateful that something stays the same if that thing is actually good. The ten commandments are not good, some are rather disturbing. For example, worshiping one god, that goes totally against the american value of freedom of religion. No idolatry, again, freedom of religion. What really disgusting is what the bible outlines as punishments for these two silly "crimes." Should people be killed for worshiping the wrong god?

 

[Hardenbergh]

This is an article from the Rutherford Institute titled, The Ten Commandments: The Role of Religion in Modern Society, written by Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead.

Religion, it must be remembered, once helped inspire and fuel important American social movements and reforms such as the abolition of slavery, temperance, the advancement of and movements against civil rights, war, nuclear weapons and abortion. However, today there is less agreement about the spiritual contours for modern-day solutions. Presently, there is a spiritual vacuum in the United States—a vacuum which is partially the result of history. The religiously homogenous America of some 200 plus years ago simply no longer exists.

History records that, from those who crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower to the modern televangelists, traditional Protestant Christianity has been the dominant religious stream flowing through the American consciousness. Indeed, as historian G. K. Chesterton remarked in 1922, America is “a nation with the soul of a church…the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.”

The “self-evident” truths, as described in the Declaration of Independence, were understood by the Framers of America’s founding documents as stemming from traditional Judeo-Christian principles. At the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the American people lived under laws that were either taken directly from the Bible or influenced by it.

Despite some differences in theology, the Framers generally agreed that just laws were God-given, absolute and revealed to human beings through Scripture (such as the Ten Commandments), nature and conscience. Religion, they believed, must be assured access to public processes, as religion was thought to be a requirement for the proper functioning of a nation’s political institutions. With these presuppositions, the Framers created institutions they hoped would guarantee freedom as well as justice in America—defined, of course, in Protestant Christian terms.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=326

Here's an article about Thomas Jefferson regarding the display of the Ten Commandments:

http://www.covenantnews.com/davidnew040312.htm

 

[Paulhoff]

Here's an article about Thomas Jefferson regarding the display of the Ten Commandments:

Which is someones idea of what Thomas Jefferson would do, not what he said he would do, that is a big different.

Paul