What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But what is this "I" that thinks?


(That wasn't much of a revelation after all this buildup. Glaucon is disappointed)

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English."

 

[PixyMisa]

As strathmeyer said, any evidence at all would be nice.

If God walked among us, suspending the laws of physics as a personal favour to petitioners, restoring the dead to life and so on, then you get into walks-like-a-duck territory.

But there's a better answer: Define "God", Dustin, and we'll tell you what evidence would suffice to bring us to consider such a creature as likely. Without knowing what attributes you believe it has, we can't say.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What evidence is there of that, that can't be explained by a hallucination?

Hallucinations require thought. Rocks don't hallucinate. Therefore if one is hallucinating one must exist. "Nothing" can't hallucinate after all.

But perhaps you are just hallucinating that what you are doing is common and everyday, when what you are really doing is lying in a hospital room with an IV drip of LSD going straight into your veins.

What I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor.

But what if you were just hallucinating that it went against everything you've ever experienced yada yada yada...

I don't believe hallucinations work that way. Changes the way one perceives past incidences or ones past knowledge. However we can only work within our frame of reference. Right now as I type I am experiencing something that 'may' be a hallucination however I dismiss the fact because there currently is no reason to believe it's a hallucination and it's not so odd or uncommon or out of the ordinary to give me a reason to believe it is a hallucination.

Do you see my point? Saying "Maybe you are hallucinating" makes every argument, every bit of evidence, come crashing down. It is therefore totally useless as a counterargument to any specific scenario.

Only some arguments.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm just saying that if one can't prove (in general, not to me) that something isn't a dream or illusion then how can they prove it to themselves?

That's exactly what the world needs - objective criteria for subjective beliefs.


I just wish someone would prove to me that he is a true Scotsman.

 

[D'rok]

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English."

But....

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.

There's one there.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As strathmeyer said, any evidence at all would be nice.

This is too vague to mean anything. One must be very specific as to what evidence one would require to believe in a God. Saying "any evidence" doesn't answer the question and leaves the answer undefined.

If God walked among us, suspending the laws of physics as a personal favour to petitioners, restoring the dead to life and so on, then you get into walks-like-a-duck territory.

Except I'm sure there are numerous "deities" in various beliefs who could do the same thing but aren't defined as "God" as in creators of the universe.

But there's a better answer: Define "God", Dustin, and we'll tell you what evidence would suffice to bring us to consider such a creature as likely. Without knowing what attributes you believe it has, we can't say.

I did in the original post.

God being defined as [SIZE=-1]the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, I'll modify my previous post:

Define God in empirical terms. In attributes we can observe, directly or indirectly. Because all that we can know comes from what we observe, any evidence for God must be empirical. The creation of the unvierse, lying as it does outside of space and time, is necessarily outside of empiricism.

So, if God is the ruler of the universe, what does he do? If we find evidence that what you say he does is in fact happening, and there is no simpler and more useful explanation, then maybe that will constitute evidence for God.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But....



There's one there.

No. I'm saying that in "Cogito, Ergo sum" there isn't necessarily an "I" however the argument itself can prove ones own existence. If thought exists even if you aren't the thinker then it must be perceived, if it's being perceived then someone has to be perceiving it and since you're experiencing the perception you must exist to do so. Though a lot more than this can be deduced from "Cogito, Ergo sum.


P.S. We're still in the build up phase.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sorry, I'll modify my previous post:

Define God in empirical terms. In attributes we can observe, directly or indirectly. Because all that we can know comes from what we observe, any evidence for God must be empirical. The creation of the unvierse, lying as it does outside of space and time, is necessarily outside of empiricism.

You're not making much sense here. I'm defining "God" as the dictionary dictates not as anything else. All you know must come from what you observe? Not necessarily true. Most deductive reasoning doesn't work this way. Nor do A-priori conclusions about the world.

So, if God is the ruler of the universe, what does he do? If we find evidence that what you say he does is in fact happening, and there is no simpler and more useful explanation, then maybe that will constitute evidence for God.

Sometimes a ruler doesn't exercise his rule. Sometimes he does nothing.

Perhaps God can exercise his rule using the laws of physics as his mechanism. Meaning he manipulates events in such a way we can't necessarily predict his presence simply from his actions alone.

 

[D'rok]

No. I'm saying that in "Cogito, Ergo sum" there isn't necessarily an "I" however the argument itself can prove ones own existence. If thought exists even if you aren't the thinker then it must be perceived, if it's being perceived then someone has to be perceiving it and since you're experiencing the perception you must exist to do so. Though a lot more than this can be deduced from "Cogito, Ergo sum.

Which brings us back to my original question, paraphrased as what is this perceiver that perceives?

P.S. We're still in the build up phase.

Good to hear. Glaucon's expectations are quite high.

 

[PixyMisa]

You're not making much sense here. I'm defining "God" as the dictionary dictates not as anything else.

The dictionary definition is, as is so often the case, useless for a technical discussion.

All you know must come from what you observe?

Yep.

Not necessarily true. Most deductive reasoning doesn't work this way.

Deductive reasoning - unless it is based on something you have observed - tells you nothing. Remember that arguments aren't evidence.

Sometimes a ruler doesn't exercise his rule. Sometimes he does nothing.

If he does nothing, then what is the difference between that and not existing?

Perhaps God can exercise his rule using the laws of physics as his mechanism.

That would be Deism. What is the difference between that and not existing?

Meaning he manipulates events in such a way we can't necessarily predict his presence simply from his actions alone.

Does he manipulate events or not? QM is very well defined; if it was being manipulated, we'd know. If quantum mechanical processes were consistently being manipulated to produces specific and desirable macro-scale events; if this was apparently being done by a being who walked among us and took requests from petitioners and claimed to be your God, then we'd be back in walks-like-a-duck territory. If that's what you claim your God to do, and something appears that does that, might as well call it God.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Which brings us back to my original question, paraphrased as what is this perceiver that perceives?

Without getting into anything deeper in this thread, Let's just stick with a "perceiver".

 

[Complexity]

1. "Proof" and "Evidence" are often synonymous.

No, they're not synonymous. Proof provides certainty relative to a set of axioms. Evidence may support a model, but no accumulation of evidence can provide certainty. Science is a realm in which there is no certainty, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

2.'Logic' isn't used in science or philosophy?

The validity of a proof is only as good as the validity of its premisses. Neither science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs. I doubt that they ever will be.

Logic is used as a tool in science and philosophy. The result of using logic in these domains is suggestive rather than conclusive.

So how are you different from the creationist who says "I don't think I could be persuaded that Evolution occurs"? He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.

I have great respect for the concept of proof, where it is relevant, and where it is not. I've already said that I don't think that 'proof' has any meaning in science or philosophy (including religion).

You asked what I would accept as PROOF of the existence of a god.

There can be no proof of the existence of a god.
There can be no proof of evolution.

There is an extraordinary amount of strong and persuasive evidence for evolution.

There is no strong or persuasive evidence that a god exists.

There are things that could persuade me that there is a god, though I have a very high threshold for persuasion these days. I've been religious in the past. I am an atheist now. I have no idea what will happen in the future.

I know that my thinking is flawed, that I am ignorant of most things, that I can be tricked, that I can deceive myself, and that I am often irrational.

I share these shortcomings with everyone.

I also know that I and many others take medication for approximating mental health.

There is no certainty in mathematics; there certainly is none in the rest of the world.

If the only evidence for the existence of a god is a phenomenon that I experience, I suggest that it is far more likely that my perceptions and thinking are flawed than that there is a god.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The dictionary definition is, as is so often the case, useless for a technical discussion.

How's that?

Deductive reasoning - unless it is based on something you have observed - tells you nothing.

No. It's based on premises which may be true.

Remember that arguments aren't evidence.

They're not just 'evidence' they're proof if the premises are true and reasoning valid.

If he does nothing, then what is the difference between that and not existing?

Is 'existing' a verb?

That would be Deism. What is the difference between that and not existing?

Existing.

Does he manipulate events or not?

Perhaps he can cause something to occur for which we would normally define as "natural" but which was his own doing.

QM is very well defined; if it was being manipulated, we'd know.

How?

If quantum mechanical processes were consistently being manipulated to produces specific and desirable macro-scale events; if this was apparently being done by a being who walked among us and took requests from petitioners and claimed to be your God, then we'd be back in walks-like-a-duck territory.

1. How could we tell if the QM processes are being "manipulated"?

2.How can we identify such a being doing the manipulating? Is "God" the only imagined being who can? I can imagine "Being A" who can alter QM processes and produce desirable macro scale events to peoples favor but isn't the creator if the universe.

If that's what you claim your God to do, and something appears that does that, might as well call it God.

Except we can't prove such a being (as you described above) made the universe which is the most important aspect of being "God" as I defined in my original post.

 

[Tony]

10 million dollars in 100 dollar bills suddenly appearing in my lap.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I see we have an Everclear fan in our midst. Good for the burn, but not the flavor, to my palate.

What's your take on the Jeremiah Weed?

DR

In all seriousness, I'll take the mellow flavor of oak over carburetor cleaner any day.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, they're not synonymous. Proof provides certainty relative to a set of axioms. Evidence may support a model, but no accumulation of evidence can provide certainty. Science is a realm in which there is no certainty, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

Proof-
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof

The validity of a proof is only as good as the validity of its premisses. Neither science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs. I doubt that they ever will be.

Explain how science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs.

Logic is used as a tool in science and philosophy. The result of using logic in these domains is suggestive rather than conclusive.

How can science use logic if as you say "science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs."?

Moreover, Explain what you mean by "suggestive rather than conclusive".

You asked what I would accept as PROOF of the existence of a god.

There can be no proof of the existence of a god.
There can be no proof of evolution.

Explain how ERV's don't prove evolution.

There is an extraordinary amount of strong and persuasive evidence for evolution.

Which is proof.

There is no strong or persuasive evidence that a god exists.

Persuasive according to whom?

There are things that could persuade me that there is a god, though I have a very high threshold for persuasion these days. I've been religious in the past. I am an atheist now. I have no idea what will happen in the future.

Give an example.

I know that my thinking is flawed, that I am ignorant of most things, that I can be tricked, that I can deceive myself, and that I am often irrational.

I share these shortcomings with everyone.

I also know that I and many others take medication for approximating mental health.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

There is no certainty in mathematics; there certainly is none in the rest of the real world.

1+1=2 isn't a certainty?

If the only evidence for the existence of a god is a phenomenon that I experience, I suggest that it is far more likely that my perceptions and thinking are flawed than that there is a god.

Why hold God to such high standards and not everything else? Like let's say...Evolution? The evidence for anything (from your perception) is a phenomenon that you experience, Why isn't it far more likely that your perceptions and thinking are flawed in other cases aside from God?

 

[D'rok]

Without getting into anything deeper in this thread, Let's just stick with a "perceiver".

Yes, we wouldn't want you to lead us out of the Cave too quickly...we might get blinded by the sun.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, I don't know that anything would "prove" a god or gods to me. If there was a lot of evidence for a god or gods I would accept the existence of said god/s provisionally, pending further evidence. In other words, pretty much just like everything else in the universe.

 

[Puppycow]

Personally I'm an agnostic. I wouldn't need absolute PROOF to believe in a God, I think I would accept a "preponderance of the evidence." A coherant, understandable account that agrees with scientific and other evidence, and which is not rife with obvious fallacies and incredible claims without evidence such as can be found in the "holy scriptures" I've encountered.