Proof of God

[Herzblut]

Sustained by? It's the people that make supreratural claims that are sustained, enriched even, by the proles they impress. Their claims are extraordinary where the rest of us are concerned.

Your value judgement is questionable since you selectively declare your own claims as "ordinary" although the vast majority of humans disagree to you.

Please accept as well: your personal naturalistic worldview, which you implicitely deploy to declare "supreratural claims" as extraordinary, is neither shared by the majority of mankind nor by those people you want to dispute with here.

You understand your fallacy?

Herzblut

 

[D'rok]

Your value judgement is questionable since you selectively declare your own claims as "ordinary" although the vast majority of humans disagree to you.

Please accept as well: your personal naturalistic worldview, which you implicitely deploy to declare "supreratural claims" as extraordinary, is neither shared by the majority of mankind nor by those people you want to dispute with here.

You understand your fallacy?

Herzblut

Yours would appear to be argumentum ad populum.

 

[BillyJoe]

Then you're not paying attention. There is no god = I very much doubt your claim god exists.

There is no god = I very much doubt your claim god exists.
If you say so.

There is no bending of rules here. It's perfectly legitimate to say there is no god without any worry of evidence, just like it's perfectly legitimate to say that there are no pixies, fairies, FSM's, IPU's and Sasquatch.

Strictly this also applies to these other characters.
It's fine just to say "There is no evidence for faeries"
But, if you say "There are no faeries", you need evidence.

The burden is always on the positive assertion that is not established fact.

But that doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of providing evidence if you state the opposite as fact.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But that doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of providing evidence if you state the opposite as fact.

Yes, it does. It's a fact that the person claiming a god exists is the one with the burden of evidence, not the one claiming for a fact that it doesn't exist.

Claiming for a fact that god doesn't exist = claiming for a fact that the claim "god exists" hasn't been proven.

You will still disagree, but that's your shortcoming, not mine.

 

[vexed]

But that doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of providing evidence if you state the opposite as fact.

Not being able to prove something doesn't exist in no way proves that it does, and shouldn't even be considered as a plausible concept.

 

[Herzblut]

Yours would appear to be argumentum ad populum.

Which is quite reasonable for such a dispute between followers of pretty dissimilar notions. At least you cannot simply declare your minority philosophy as "ordinary". This is dishonest.

If you have a better idea, I am open minded.

BTW, if you disputed with me - the two of us had not much dissent regarding existence of "god" possibly. But you are not. Respect the others or they wont respect you. Which seems to be happening here.

Herzblut

 

[kmortis]

Your value judgement is questionable since you selectively declare your own claims as "ordinary" although the vast majority of humans disagree to you.

Please accept as well: your personal naturalistic worldview, which you implicitely deploy to declare "supreratural claims" as extraordinary, is neither shared by the majority of mankind nor by those people you want to dispute with here.

You understand your fallacy?

Herzblut

1) Is your avatar from "The Third Man"?

2) It would seem that you are positing a fallacy as well. Ad populum?

The Luminiferous Aether was considered normal by all learned people. Fully accepted as existing, and having real effects on the world. That is, until those pesky kids came by and actually tried to find it. **shakes fist at timely gust of wind** DAMN YOU, MICHELSON AND MORLEY! They had no direct evidence of it existing. The onus was on the claimants to find it, not the few who doubted it. Even though it was popular. Even though "80% of people" believed in it.

A deity, by definition, is EXTRAordinary. It HAS to be SUPERnatural. Unless you live in some Bizzaro world where you have Loki over for tea every day (and if so, remind the bastard that he still owes me five bucks) and are dating Innana, gods are extraordinary. Their abilities are described as fantastic and superhuman. They are sometimes fatal to even look at. I mean, I'm fat, but no one would ever describe me as omnipresent (which leads me to think that Yahweh but be a REAL porker...um, fatso! I mean fatso.)

Like I said to ken, if he were to claim that he's 6'2", that's an ordinary claim, no matter what his real height it. There are plenty of people who ARE 6'2". Not that believe they're 6'2", or believe in 6'2" or other populist argument, but really ARE 6'2". Nothing strange there. Now, if he were to claim that he was 62' tall, then we'd be moving into the "extraordinary" category, and I'd be totally in the right to require from him some really DAMN good evidence. He'd better be willing to come to me and let me measure him. If he were to claim that he was omnipotent, i'd laugh at him and call him my bitch, cause that's just silly.

So, no, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if one person or 1 billion people think that way. If they're believing something that breaks every known law of the universe, then they need to bring the evidence to the table. Until then, I'm totally in the right to say "Sorry, I just think that you're wrong and that Sky Daddy doesn't exist."

And it's not that I don't understand a concept of god. I was well on my way to becoming a pastor before I had a "crisis of faith" (actually, I decided that I could make a better life as an engineer, and that I really don't have the people skills to make it as a good pastor). I fully understand the concept of the Christian god, as well as most of the other deities (I wandered in my religious persuits before becoming an atheist), so it's NOT intellectual laziness on my part.

I ask you, how else are we to probe the universe except by a naturalistic POV? If there's no good evidence for anything violating the natural laws, why complicate matters? Could there be a deity that perfectly follows the laws? Sure, but how would we know and why add a layer of complexity? If it makes you feel better to do so, then fine, but don't expect me to agree just because you like a more baroque system. I, personally, don't really care if you accept my more simplistic POV whereas only things that are naturalistic exist. Now, if you want to step into a more bizare realm (e.g. faith healing) then I'll have to say that you're a nutter, but if we're just arguing over whether or not there's a conductor on this train, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Note: that last paragraph doesn't necessarily hold for others. I just don't see the need to throughly destroy religion, as I see that it still has a function. I mean, c'mon, I've read The Prince.

 

[BillyJoe]

I have a great problem with something that is a super-complex so-called god always being that way.

You may have a problem with it, but can you prove that it is not so?

This universe did not start out as being super-complex, complexity came over time, not all at once.

This universe certainly does look like it started out simple and became more complex.

However, the beginning point of simplicity producing complexity is nothing producing something or something always being there meaning time/space without beginning.
If you can't get your head around these concepts then there may be othe concepts you can't get your head around.

Consider also that, if, according to a popular hypothesis, a quantum fluctuation produced the universe, then the possibility of a quantum fluctation had to exist before that quantum fluctuation actually occured. But that possibility of a quantum fluctation contains within it all of universe that developed from it because there was nothing else there to contribute to it.

Also a so-called god explains nothing, seeing that a so-called all-knowing all-powerful god as no bonds, it can be anything someone wants it to be.

Nevertheless, if you cannot provide evidence against it, it remains as a possibility (however remote you believe that possibility to be), especially when we haven't resolved the ultimate questions of our existence.

So a so-called god does not explain why time may have had a beginning and the universe came out of nothing. Because it would then mean that a so-called god would have to make a so-called god that would have to make a so-called god that would have to make etc and once again a so-called god explains nothing.

Yes, who or what made god?
Like the question: who or what made nothing produce something, which contained within it, and solely within it, the instructions and the matter/energy from which the whole of the universe evolved.

 

[Herzblut]

Claiming for a fact that god doesn't exist = claiming for a fact that the claim "god exists" hasn't been proven.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

You enjoy to be proved blatantly wrong?

Herzblut

 

[kmortis]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

You enjoy to be proved blatantly wrong?

Herzblut

From your linky...

Exposure:

There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it:
Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent. Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that I claim that I was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged I can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that I visited another planet, therefore I probably didn't do so.
We sometimes have meta-knowledge—that is, knowledge about knowledge—which can justify inferring a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For instance, schedules—such as those for buses, trains, and airplanes—list times and locations of arrivals and departures. Such schedules usually do not attempt to list the times and locations when vehicles do not arrive or depart, since this would be highly inefficient. Instead, there is an implicit, understood assumption that such a schedule is complete, that all available vehicle departures and arrivals have been listed. Thus, we can reason using the following sort of enthymeme:

There is no departure/arrival listed in schedule S for location L at time T.
Suppressed Premiss: All departures and arrivals are listed in schedule S.
Therefore, there is no departure/arrival for location L at time T.

This kind of completeness of information assumption is often called the "closed world assumption". When it is reasonable to accept this assumption—as with plane or bus schedules—it is not a fallacy of appeal to ignorance to reason this way.
Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:

If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

For instance, one might reason:

If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

To be honest, I cannot think of another topic that has been more ardently discussed, argued and tried than the theistic existance question over the last 1600+ years. I'm open to any evidence to the contrary, but I'm at a loss (I'm also over tired, so take it for what it is).

 

[BillyJoe]

It's a result of holding evidence based beliefs.

Like "there is no god"?
So, show me the evidence.

It's Pre-heliocentrism, I know that the sun revolves around the earth. New evidence comes to light that shows that there is a disparity between my knowledge and the way things really are. As a result of this new evidence, I now know that the earth revolves around the sun. Likely, there was a process whereby the evidence caused me to doubt my original knowledge, and the preponderance of evidence caused this doubt to eventually lead to new certainty.

The pronouncements of science must always be provisional.

This means that, pre-Copernicus, the correct statement is "there is some evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth", not "the Sun revolves around the Earth". Post-Copernicus the correct statement is "there is almost introconvertible evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun", not "the Earth revolves around the Sun".

That is the way science works.
(I don't expect you to make that qualification in everyday speech though.)

I know that there is no god. But there could be a disparity between my knowledge and the Substance of concrete reality. If evidence ever arises for god, I will no longer be certain and I will begin to doubt my previous belief. If there is a preponderance of evidence, my belief will change and I will become certain that god exists.

But the lack of evidence for god doesn't allow you to say "I know that there is no god". For that you have to have evidence that there is no god.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
It seems rather straight forward to me.

The correct statement pre evidence for god is: "There is no evidence that there is a god", and the correct statement post evidence for god is: "There is some evidence that there is a god", or, as the evidence mounts inexorably: "There is almost incontrovertible evidence that there is a god".

That way you won't be making any false statements.

Without any evidence whatsoever, and with no reasonable possibility for evidence to be forthcoming, I am certain there is no god. All I need to begin to doubt is evidence.

If you had have said "Without any evidence whatsoever, and with no reasonable possibility for evidence to be forthcoming, I am certain there is no god."

The problem is you cannot exclude the possibility, however remote you feel that possibility might be.

 

[BillyJoe]

You will still disagree, but that's your shortcoming, not mine.

I wonder how you knew.
Lack of conviction about your point of view perhaps.

It's a fact that the person claiming a god exists is the one with the burden of evidence, not the one claiming for a fact that it doesn't exist.

Someone who claims as fact that "there is a god" requires evidence.
Someone who claims as a fact that "there is no god" requires evidence.
If there is no evidence for god, then the only correct statement is "there is no evidence that there is a god".
Or even more correctly ""there is no evidence, at present, that there is a god".

Claiming for a fact that god doesn't exist = claiming for a fact that the claim "god exists" hasn't been proven.

One of us has a problem with langauge comprehension, because these two phrases do not mean the same thing to me.

 

[BillyJoe]

Not being able to prove something doesn't exist in no way proves that it does, and shouldn't even be considered as a plausible concept.

I didn't say it does.

 

[D'rok]

Like "there is no god"?
So, show me the evidence.

Evidence-base belief means that I require evidence to believe that something exists. It is absurd to demand evidence for non-existence. This has already been explained to you by other posters.

The pronouncements of science must always be provisional.

This means that, pre-Copernicus, the correct statement is "there is some evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth", not "the Sun revolves around the Earth". Post-Copernicus the correct statement is "there is almost introconvertible evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun", not "the Earth revolves around the Sun".

That is the way science works.
(I don't expect you to make that qualification in everyday speech though.)

I am not a scientist. The Earth revolves around the Sun. There is no God. Show me otherwise and I'll believe you (or at least begin to doubt my previous convictions) if your evidence is convincing enough - especially if that evidence comes from scientists doing science.

But the lack of evidence for god doesn't allow you to say "I know that there is no god".

Yes it does. Kmortis has conveniently bolded the relevant part of his post that explains this.

For that you have to have evidence that there is no god.

Absurd.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
It seems rather straight forward to me.

That is because you have an absurd definition of the function of evidence.

The correct statement pre evidence for god is: "There is no evidence that there is a god", and the correct statement post evidence for god is: "There is some evidence that there is a god", or, as the evidence mounts inexorably: "There is almost incontrovertible evidence that there is a god".

That way you won't be making any false statements.

Once again, see the exceptions for the argument from ignorance fallacy. There is no reason for me to assume that my statement "god does not exist" is false. Evidence would change that.

If you had have said "Without any evidence whatsoever, and with no reasonable possibility for evidence to be forthcoming, I am certain there is no god."

The problem is you cannot exclude the possibility, however remote you feel that possibility might be.

You have simply expressed the epistemological limits to an evidence-based belief system. My beliefs exist within that epistemological framework. Within that framework, there is no god, the earth orbits the sun, and Monday follows Sunday. It means flexible certainty, with evidence as the wild card.

 

[BillyJoe]

Kmortis;


From your quotes:

Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false.

For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence

Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false.

when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it

if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe

Applying this to the statement "there is no god", we would have:

"As a result of the lack of evidence for god, it would be reasonable to make the presumption that there is no god."

Of course, like the "presumption of innocence" in a court of law, and "it being reasonable to conclude" that that drug is safe, that may not actually turn out to be the case, as subsequent evidence has often shown in the cases of both "presumed innocents" and "reasonable to conclude safe drugs".

So nothing here is of any relevance to your point.
In fact to the contrary.
Would you say: "this drug is safe", or "there is evidence that this drug is safe"?

 

[Herzblut]

1) Is your avatar from "The Third Man"?

Yep! Orson Welles - legend!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_SQyCJega8

2) It would seem that you are positing a fallacy as well. Ad populum?

Is ad populum a fallacy in any case?

The Luminiferous Aether was considered normal by all learned people. Fully accepted as existing, and having real effects on the world. That is, until those pesky kids came by and actually tried to find it. **shakes fist at timely gust of wind** DAMN YOU, MICHELSON AND MORLEY! They had no direct evidence of it existing. The onus was on the claimants to find it, not the few who doubted it. Even though it was popular. Even though "80% of people" believed in it.

Oh yeah! And in Annus Mirabilis 1905 a hitherto unknown assistant examinar at the Zurich patent office published three papers in the Annalen der Physik that changed the world. His Theory of Relativity actually made this aether approach void. Nevertheless, Michelson & Morley frenetically kept seeking a glimpse of the frikkin aether, millions of measurements but zero result.

Eh..where were we? Yes, there is no doubt about how science functions. I just doubt discussions between beliefers and non-beliefers function best in the same way.

A deity, by definition, is EXTRAordinary. It HAS to be SUPERnatural.

Wait: deities are (mostly) supernatural. And claims about their existence are extra-/ordinary. Right?

So, no, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if one person or 1 billion people think that way. If they're believing something that breaks every known law of the universe, then they need to bring the evidence to the table.

Existence of gods is mostly not against natural laws. Neither does physics even bother about gods. You wont get any support from science if you seek a disprove for common transcendental notions. These are non-falsifiabe anyways, not science business. Thus, you cannot hope for science here. You need to use your own head.

Until then, I'm totally in the right to say "Sorry, I just think that you're wrong and that Sky Daddy doesn't exist."

Of course! But you might be curious to understand why someone believes in this and that. If not, why discuss with them in the first place? Your standpoint is clear anyway. So, what?

And it's not that I don't understand a concept of god. I was well on my way to becoming a pastor before I had a "crisis of faith" (actually, I decided that I could make a better life as an engineer, and that I really don't have the people skills to make it as a good pastor).

Ha! It was the women, dont cheat on me!

I studied physics btw, so you couldnt surprise me with that aether thing. The more so as I cant help beaten off these c*ckheaded RT deniers in German forums.

...so it's NOT intellectual laziness on my part.

I think, I referred to different candidates here, not to you. If so, I apologize.

I ask you, how else are we to probe the universe except by a naturalistic POV?

Now, thats the point! I dont think that natural science carries a mandatory worldview, naturalism. Christians, muslims etc. might as well become scientists without any cognitive dissonance. Science restricts itself to researching nature and thereby excludes supernatural areas altogether. As long as the areas dont conflict with each other - whats the problem?

If there's no good evidence for anything violating the natural laws, why complicate matters?

Yeah, sure, Occam. I agree. But a believers notion might not be to research the world. It might be to get along with a personal crisis, to find meaning in life, to accept his own death etc.
Occam leaves you alone here.

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

Evidence-base belief means that I require evidence to believe that something exists.

...unless you are saying that something DOES NOT exist.
Then you need evidence that it DOES NOT exist.

It is absurd to demand evidence for non-existence.

An astronomical anomaly make lead you to the hypothesis that some planet exists at a particular point in space. When that planet is not found at that point in space, you have evidence that that planet does not exist.

In any case, just because it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to provide evidence for non-existence (ie unicorns exist somewhere in the universe), is neither here nor there (you still cannot legitimately say "there are no unicorns in the universe").

This has already been explained to you by other posters.

And refuted by myself, as again to you above.

The Earth revolves around the Sun. There is no God. Show me otherwise and I'll believe you (or at least begin to doubt my previous convictions) if your evidence is convincing enough - especially if that evidence comes from scientists doing science.

I don't mind if you take this as a practical stance.
Strictly speaking, though, both of these statements are not correct, the second less so than the first, which is almost certainly true.

Yes it does. Kmortis has conveniently bolded the relevant part of his post that explains this....Once again, see the exceptions for the argument from ignorance fallacy. There is no reason for me to assume that my statement "god does not exist" is false. Evidence would change that.

See my demolition of his quotes.

You have simply expressed the epistemological limits to an evidence-based belief system.

You don't accept these limits?

My beliefs exist within that epistemological framework. Within that framework, there is no god, the earth orbits the sun, and Monday follows Sunday.

True "within the epistemological framework" may turn out to be false as that "epistemological framework" changes or expands.

It means flexible certainty, with evidence as the wild card.

"flexible certainty" sounds like another oxymoron.
Certainly evidence is the wild card - hey, I think deep down you really agree with me.

Absurd.

Not absurd. If you say "THERE IS NO GOD", you need evidence. Period.
If you are willing to qualify your view as "There is no evidence that there is a god", I have no argument

 

[Herzblut]

From your linky...

Yes?

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

An animal is part of living nature and as such subject to scientific research. God is not. The analogy is invalid. Dont mix the areas, I said already. This only leads to fallacies.

To be honest, I cannot think of another topic that has been more ardently discussed, argued and tried than the theistic existance question over the last 1600+ years.

What you can think of and what is - with due respect - differ dramatically. Also, what evidence have we got after 1600+ years of ..well.. discussions? Exactly: ZERO. Please read my statement (3), then return again and enlightenment is on the way.

The important point is actually this one:

(1)
the assertion "There is (no) Christian God" is no statement of facts. It is neither falsifiable nor verifiable such that evidence discussions are worthless.

(2)
"There is no God" cannot be taken literally because it faked a non-existing statement falsifiability. The two correct wordings are very well known and anything else is nonsense.

(3)
Whoever claims the (non-)existence of God can be verified/falsified whatsoever, has to provide evidence to this assertion by delivering scientific research results supporting his claim. If he cannot, he's an agitating, conniving, two-faced, slippery, lying weasel.

Good luck.

Herzblut

 

[Kopji]

An animal is part of living nature and as such subject to scientific research. God is not. The analogy is invalid. Dont mix the areas, I said already. This only leads to fallacies.

How do you know anything about what God is like to claim this comparison is a fallacy?

 

[Herzblut]

How do you know anything about what God is like to claim this comparison is a fallacy?

I refer to the standard notion of e.g. the christian god which - as far as I remember - has not much to do with a big, fat animal paddling across a Scottish lake.

Thus, I only know what others said about God and nothing about God itself from personal experience.

Herzblut