Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

Just finished reading the book for the second time. Here's a novel idea - how about you read the book before you tell us what is in it?

No, I don't think it's a novel, more a statement of his own beliefs by the looks of it.

And, I really have read the table of contents and it really does have a chapter titled "Why there almost certainly is no god".
Did I say more than that?


regards,
BillyJpe

 

[Mashuna]

No, I don't think it's a novel, more a statement of his own beliefs by the looks of it.

And, I really have read the table of contents and it really does have a chapter titled "Why there almost certainly is no god".
Did I say more than that?


regards,
BillyJpe

You mean the chapter where Dawkins talks about the absence of any evidence for God but because it's impossible to prove a negative allows for the theoretical chance of future evidence disproving his view?

 

[Mobyseven]

You mean the chapter where Dawkins talks about the absence of any evidence for God but because it's impossible to prove a negative allows for the theoretical chance of future evidence disproving his view?

He also discusses the probability of finding evidence for god, and the probability of such a complex being existing.

 

[Mashuna]

He also discusses the probability of finding evidence for god, and the probability of such a complex being existing.

I've not got the book to hand, is this also the section where he outlines his seven point line, from strong believer to strong atheist?

 

[BillyJoe]

To Mobyseven and his circle of friends:


Some quotes from the "The God Delusion" so far:

If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.

The argument from improbability comes close to proving that god does not exist

God almost certainly does not exist. That is the main conclusion of this book so far. Various questions now follow. Even if we accept that god does not exist doesn't religion still have....[the rest of the paragraph goes onto to question about the usefulness or otherwise of religion]

I submit that this is just a little more restrained than your statement:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

 

[volatile]

*sigh*

So we have to do falsifiability and why you can't prove a negative *AGAIN*?!

 

[Paulhoff]

I submit that this is just a little more restrained than your statement:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

So, do you have a need for a so-called god, and if so what is that need.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

I've not got the book to hand, is this also the section where he outlines his seven point line, from strong believer to strong atheist?

Here they are:

1) Strong theist: 100% probability: "I do not believe, I know"

2) Very high probability but short of 100% : "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe if god and live my life on the assumption that god exists"

3) Higher than 50% but not very high: Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism: "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god"

4) Exactly 50%: Completely impartial agnostic: "God's existence and nonexistence are exactly equiprobable"

5) Lower than 50% but not very low: Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism: "I don't know whether god exists but I am inclined to be sceptical"

6) Very low probability, but short of zero: De facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that god does not exist"

7) Strong atheist: "I know there is no god"


Dawkins goes on to say:

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated....Atheists do not have faith, and reason alone could not compel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.

Unfortunately he also puts himself in group 6 regarding faeries - hmmm, something to discuss with him when we meet.

 

[BillyJoe]

So, do you have a need for a so-called god, and if so what is that need.

Category 6: Very low probability, but short of zero: De facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that god does not exist"


The bolded part can be quoted from one of my posts in this thread, but I am too lazy to find it.

 

[BillyJoe]

So we have to do falsifiability and why you can't prove a negative *AGAIN*?!

I think you'll be left wanking on your own.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Mashuna]

Unfortunately he also puts himself in group 6 regarding faeries - hmmm, something to discuss with him when we meet.

Why unfortunately? It's exactly the same concept. No evidence for it, but impossible to prove a negative. You may as well call yourself an atheist, but if you want to avoid the whole 'atheism is a faith-based position' argument, you qualify your statement and opt for group 2.

 

[volatile]

I think you'll be left wanking on your own.

regards,
BillyJoe

Probably because everyone else has gotten cross explaining these thigns over and over again. We've spent pages and pages explaining to you that our position is NOT a 100% assertive "God does not Exist", but that the very unknowability skews the odds heavily in that direction.

That's what those quotes from Dawkins are getting at too, and you're still questioning it? It still hasn't sunk in? You just don't seem to be paying attention!

 

[Mobyseven]

Here they are:

1) Strong theist: 100% probability: "I do not believe, I know"

2) Very high probability but short of 100% : "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe if god and live my life on the assumption that god exists"

3) Higher than 50% but not very high: Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism: "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god"

4) Exactly 50%: Completely impartial agnostic: "God's existence and nonexistence are exactly equiprobable"

5) Lower than 50% but not very low: Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism: "I don't know whether god exists but I am inclined to be sceptical"

6) Very low probability, but short of zero: De facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that god does not exist"

7) Strong atheist: "I know there is no god"

I cannot speak for everyone here, but I place myself in category 6 - I have stated this implicitly many times, I cannot rememeber if I have explicitly stated it before now. At no point have I implied that I belong in category 7.

Unfortunately he also puts himself in group 6 regarding faeries - hmmm, something to discuss with him when we meet.

The whole, "You can't prove a negative," thing hasn't really sunk in with you yet, has it?

 

[Herzblut]

The whole, "You can't prove a negative," thing hasn't really sunk in with you yet, has it?

Wrong ideas don't sink in with me easily. "You can't prove a negative" is an evidentially false statement of facts.

Your answer to my question is still oustanding:

Is the statement "God exists" within the realm of science?

Would you please address this?

Herzblut

 

[Mobyseven]

Wrong ideas don't sink in with me easily. "You can't prove a negative" is an evidentially false statement of facts.

You should have no trouble providing an example of a negated existential that has been proved then.

Is the statement "God exists" within the realm of science?

Yes, if the god is supposed to have had some influence over the universe in any way. That covers most notions of god, at least the thiestic god. The deistic god is hypothetically detectable, as it supposedly created the universe (and therefore should have left some evidence of its existence).

The panthiestic god is, by definition, undetectable. It is also not what most people think of when they think of god. The panthiestic god is, for all intents and purposes, 'nature' or 'matter' by another name - really a matter of definition more than anything else. After all, if I define my TV as 'god' then I have essentially defined god into existence. Such is the analogy to the panthiestic god.

So, in short, for me to answer your question properly, you are going to have to define 'god' for me. Define 'god', and I'll give you a straightforward answer.

 

[Herzblut]

You should have no trouble providing an example of a negated existential that has been proved then.

Why should I? You are making a claim for which you have to provide evidence! Please provide such evidence.

Further more, Robin has given you two striking examples which you happened to be unqualified to judge.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2777594&postcount=819
(he meant impossible, btw)

I don't see why I should add to this any more examples that you neither understand.

You are no scientist, although you constantly refer to it, right?

Yes, if the god is supposed to have had some influence over the universe in any way.

Don't just repeat unsubstantiated speculations. Please provide evidence for your claim by citing scientific papers who deal with the truth of the statement "God exists".

Or do your honestly claim, that such a fundamental topic is indeed within scientific realm but nevertheless no scientific investigations whatsoever have been carried out?

So, in short, for me to answer your question properly, you are going to have to define 'god' for me. Define 'god', and I'll give you a straightforward answer.

So, what you are saying that you permanently claim "God does not exists", although you cannot even define god?

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

If a so-called god is unknowable then it is as good as not being at all and is trying to describe it is completely useless.

So there is so-called god.

Paul

 

[Mobyseven]

Why should I? You are making a claim for which you have to provide evidence! Please provide such evidence.

* Sigh *​

For both statements, we will be using a very simple dictionary: Gx - x is a god.

First, the statement, "There is a god."

(∃x)Gx​

Translated, this reads, "There exists an 'x' such that 'x' is a god." In order for this statement to be true, one needs to find only one example of something that is a god. In order for this statement to be false one would need to examine every single object in the domain and ascertain that it is NOT a god. As the assumed domain in this case is 'everything', that is a helluva lot to look at.

Proving this statement to be false is therefore impossible, whereas proving this statement to be true is (in theory) simple.

Now lets look at the next statement, "There is no god."

~(∃x)Gx​

Translated this reads, "It is not the case that there exists an 'x' such that 'x' is a god." For this statement to be true, one would have to examine every object in the domain to ascertain that it is not a god. For this statement to be false, however, one simply needs to find a single example of an object in the domain that is a god.

Proving this statement to be true is therefore impossible. However, proving this statement false is, again, simple.

If you wish to argue this, provide a single example of a negated existential claim that has been proved.

Further more, Robin has given you two striking examples which you happened to be unqualified to judge.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2777594&postcount=819
(he meant impossible, btw)

I don't see why I should add to this any more examples that you neither understand.

A little bit of explanation would go a long way, quite frankly. I have accepted that I know very little of the topics presented, and rather than chiding me for this you would do well to actually explain the damn topics a bit. I did however notice that both of the examples given seem to be related to mathematics? I cannot say for certain, but applying formal logic to mathematics is not an easy task - I would wonder quite frankly whether numbers could be said to 'exist' at all, and whether an existential statement could be sensibly formed about them.

You are no scientist, although you constantly refer to it, right?

No, I am not a scientist. I am, however, a skeptic. Does it matter that I do not currently have a formal science education beyond high school? (I say currently, because I am seriously considering changing my course, if the university will allow me.)

Quite frankly, I don't see how my not being a scientist relates to the topic at hand any more than you not being priest.

Don't just repeat unsubstantiated speculations. Please provide evidence for your claim by citing scientific papers who deal with the truth of the statement "God exists".

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

Here's a study that attempted to detect divine intervention through a study of prayer:

Benson H, Dusek JA et al. "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer." American Heart Journal. 2006 April; 151(4): p. 762-4.

If you want a scientific paper that actually looks at the hypothesis, "God exists," I'm afraid I can't help you. Thankfully, the mere fact that there is no paper published specifically with that hypothesis yet has no bearing on whether or not the 'god hypothesis' is fair game for science.

Or do your honestly claim, that such a fundamental topic is indeed within scientific realm but nevertheless no scientific investigations whatsoever have been carried out?

Another study looking at whether prayer has any quantifiable effect:

Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Gallup D, Blankenship JC, Cuffe M, Guarneri M, Krieger RA, Kshettry VR, Morris K, Oz M, Pichard A, Sketch MH Jr, Koenig HG, Mark D, Lee KL. Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study. Lancet 2005;366:211-7.

So yes, there have been studies carried out that are, effectively, testing to see if god exists. By most definitions humans cannot just 'go' to god like we would go to the moon, or 'see' god like I can see this computer in front of me - instead we can search for the effects that god is supposed to produce in the universe.

So, what you are saying that you permanently claim "God does not exists", although you cannot even define god?

That's the most nonsensical thing I think I've seen so far. I don't have to define god - the person claiming that god does exist must define god.

I can also say that, "The Advarakian Fooblesnatch does not exist." I haven't the faintest clue what that is - I just made up the words then - but I can plainly state that it does not exist. Similarly it is not up to me to provide a definition of god simply because I claim that, "God does not exist." If anything, you can take my claim to mean any god that anybody has ever thought up - because they all have zero evidence for their existence!

So I'll ask you again - if you want to know whether or not god is 'within the realm of science' then you are going to have to define god!

 

[Mashuna]

Wrong ideas don't sink in with me easily. "You can't prove a negative" is an evidentially false statement of facts.

Your answer to my question is still oustanding:

Is the statement "God exists" within the realm of science?

Would you please address this?

Herzblut

Totally off topic, but whenever I see your avatar (good choice, by the way), I start to whistle the theme music to The Third Man.

 

[Herzblut]

If you wish to argue this, provide a single example of a negated existential claim that has been proved.

Let me put it this way then, Mobyseven:

your claim "There is no proof for a negative claim" is self-refuting because it is as well a negative claim! Thus, your claim declares itself as non-provable!

You still want examples that rebut you? Walk that long, dirty road towards your total rebuttal?

A little bit of explanation would go a long way, quite frankly. I have accepted that I know very little of the topics presented, and rather than chiding me for this you would do well to actually explain the damn topics a bit.

If you know little about it, how can you then be so self-assured? Honestly, who told you this about non-provable negative claims? Give me the source, please, and I will have a look.

I did however notice that both of the examples given seem to be related to mathematics? I cannot say for certain, but applying formal logic to mathematics is not an easy task - I would wonder quite frankly whether numbers could be said to 'exist' at all, and whether an existential statement could be sensibly formed about them.

You want to exclude mathematics from your claim? This excludes sciences alltogether, because they are built on mathematics.

No, I am not a scientist. I am, however, a skeptic. Does it matter that I do not currently have a formal science education beyond high school?

No. But as a skeptic you should be aware that by using scientific reasoning you might be wrong because you are not a subject matter expert. You should be more self-skeptic if you deploy technics you don't fully understand.

Here's a study that attempted to detect divine intervention through a study of prayer:
....
Another study looking at whether prayer has any quantifiable effect:

That is independent from the (non)-existence of god.

If you want a scientific paper that actually looks at the hypothesis, "God exists," I'm afraid I can't help you. Thankfully, the mere fact that there is no paper published specifically with that hypothesis yet has no bearing on whether or not the 'god hypothesis' is fair game for science.

It proves the statement that the claim "God exists" is NOT within the realm of science. It is NOT scientifically investigated. Because it is NOT falsifiable. So you can NOT argue in scientific terms, because science does NOT support you. You are pulling science into the discussion where there is in fact no backup from science to be hoped for. Please be cautious to degrade science to just an instrument for your claims.

So yes, there have been studies carried out that are, effectively, testing to see if god exists.

*sigh*

That's the most nonsensical thing I think I've seen so far. I don't have to define god - the person claiming that god does exist must define god.

A believer who believes in a god can define that god. But you're claiming that no god exists, never asking which god at all! Now, all of a sudden you want to know which god. Why's that?

I can also say that, "The Advarakian Fooblesnatch does not exist." I haven't the faintest clue what that is - I just made up the words then - but I can plainly state that it does not exist.

I can say "the superluminal signal-propagation in Casimir vaccums exist" and you can't plainly state absolutely nothing.

So I'll ask you again - if you want to know whether or not god is 'within the realm of science' then you are going to have to define god!

You already defined god when you cited the prayer research, didn't you? To which god did you refer there, to an undefined one? About which god are we talking here most of the time? You don't make any case with your strategy of argumentation, I'm afraid.

Herzblut