# Is there any proof of a 'religious' God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2003, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287 "2003-09-23T11:03:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/21 "2003-09-24T15:01:28Z")
No, we don’t have any difficulty with processing **Polycarp** ’s comments. We simply state that his conclusion is unjustified and leave it at that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/22 "2003-09-24T15:44:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blink \* > \*\*Interesting. What form would God have to take for you to accept that it was really God? \*\* A very good question. It would certainly need to be more than a jewish carpenter in a beard and sandals knocking on the door and performing a few parlor tricks. Now, if I saw him actually walk through a wall, that might be a different story. It seems to me there are a _great many_ things that I would accept as proof, should God decide to pay me a personal visit. And no, dreams and visions don’t count… ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/23 "2003-09-24T15:49:43Z")
**Roundguy** When dealing with proof of God with logic and probability, you have to make assumptions. There are things in math that are taken for granted without any proof, but it doesn’t make them any less valid. For instance, Euclid’s axiom is that things equal to the same thing are eual to each other. Either we study every single thing, or we believe that the truth is obvious, or we accept it as is. Even in 1+1 you are starting with a basic amount of beliefs, and rightly so. But if I say 1 bunch of nothing plus 1 bunch of nothing gives you 2 bunches of nothing, is it still correct? And if 1 bunch of nothing is equal to 2 bunches of nothing, is it then safe to say 1=2? ---
**Author:** ![Blink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b38774/32.png) [@Blink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blink)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/24 "2003-09-24T16:08:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **…** My anti-troll device must be working. All I saw was, “bleep farp roodle doodle doo.” Yes! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > **Now, if I saw him actually walk through a wall, that might be a different story.** So you want him to: - look like a man - have legs - be small enough to fit into your house Well let’s hope that God never chooses to appear to you as a twenty foot one-legged chicken. 😉 When you refer to parlour tricks, I presume you mean that a simple raising from the dead, curing of leprosy, or conversion of water into wine wouldn’t suffice. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/25 "2003-09-24T16:20:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Sorry for the essay in response to a yes-or-no question. But that’s Great Debates for you! 🙂 \*\* Actually I was hoping you’d elaborate :D, thank you for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/26 "2003-09-24T16:45:48Z")
While I still do not understand why we are talking about “mathematical proof” when dealing with the existence of God, I’ll play along for a moment. > [@](#): > > For instance, Euclid’s axiom is that things equal to the same thing are eual to each other. Please explain why this is an “abstract” concept, as opposed to a concrete one. > [@](#): > > Either we study every single thing, or we believe that the truth is obvious, or we accept it as is. The truth of the notation to Euclid’s Axiom[s] _is_ obvious, isn’t it? Why is that abstract? > [@](#): > > Even in 1+1 you are starting with a basic amount of beliefs Abstract beliefs? Like what? > [@](#): > > But if I say 1 bunch of nothing plus 1 bunch of nothing gives you 2 bunches of nothing, is it still correct? And if 1 bunch of nothing is equal to 2 bunches of nothing, is it then safe to say 1=2? Please, **Svt4Him**. Can you show me this “bunch of nothing”? If you can show me your “bunch of nothing”, and then show me another “bunch of nothing”, then I will agree that you have 2 bunches of nothing. And then I will also show you how 1 is not equal to 2. This is much like the argument for the existence of God. You’re starting out with a “bunch of nothing”. I started out believing you had no idea what you were talking about, and you have done nothing to convince me otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/27 "2003-09-24T16:52:13Z")
> [@](#): > > My anti-troll device must be working. All I saw was, “bleep farp roodle doodle doo.” Yes! . Careful, son. You don’t want to do this, even in jest. > [@](#): > > Well let’s hope that God never chooses to appear to you as a twenty foot one-legged chicken. We could make that work, too. > [@](#): > > I presume you mean that a simple raising from the dead, curing of leprosy, or conversion of water into wine wouldn’t suffice. Well, rarely do I have dead bodies or lepers in my home, so that would be tough to accomplish. As for water to wine, no, that would not suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Blink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b38774/32.png) [@Blink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blink)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/28 "2003-09-24T17:03:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > **Careful, son. You don’t want to do this, even in jest.** “Son”? Well, agree or no, TVAA is clearly trolling elsewhere, and IMO here also. But yes I guess my method of conveying this view was a little rude. My apologies, TVAA. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > \*\*As for water to wine, no, that would not suffice. \*\* Under controlled laboratory conditions? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Zahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e0b2c6/32.png) [@John\_Zahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Zahn)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/29 "2003-09-24T17:12:27Z")
Nothing negates a bunch; it’s a contradiction of terms. JZ ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/30 "2003-09-24T17:23:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, agree or no, TVAA is clearly trolling elsewhere, and IMO here also. But yes I guess my method of conveying this view was a little rude. You are not allowed to “convey this view” at all. You have now done so twice. Please read the rules of the board. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/31 "2003-09-24T17:23:45Z")
one bunch of nothing plus one bunch of nothing would translate as 0+0=0 in my mathbook. ---
**Author:** ![Papermache\_Prince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Papermache\_Prince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Papermache_Prince)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/32 "2003-09-24T17:29:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blink \* > “Son”? > > Well, agree or no, TVAA is clearly trolling elsewhere, and IMO here also. But yes I guess my method of conveying this view was a little rude. My apologies, TVAA. Rude does not enter into it; it’s against the [rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106617)to accuse someone of being a troll. From “FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB”: Arnold Winkelried Administrator > [@](#): > > Q: What should I do when I see a user “trolling” at the SDMB? > A: Do not publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB. Use the “Report this post to a moderator” facility below the “trolling” post. Do not reply to the troll in any way in the thread, that will only encourage the troublemaker. > > Q: What if I’m not sure if the person is a troll? > A: Treat the person as a user in good standing. Respond to the post if you have something useful to add, otherwise say nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Blink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b38774/32.png) [@Blink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blink)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/33 "2003-09-24T17:37:25Z")
Ah. I am a dope. That’s three threads now that I’ve publically made mistakes in. I think I shall go home. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/34 "2003-09-24T17:44:36Z")
If there were concrete rules-of-physics type proof of God, “God” would cease to be subject matter for religion and would be a facet of the natural world, leaving other things not easily reduced to the attention of empirical data and quantifiable observation to constitute “religion”. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/35 "2003-09-24T17:49:06Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s three threads now that I’ve publically made mistakes in. I think I shall go home. The SDMB offers a pretty steep learning curve for new posters, and the Great Debates forum is certainly one of the steepest. I don’t see that you’ve committed any mortal atrocities yet, but you should probably get a feel for the depth of the waters before jumping in head first. ---
**Author:** ![Blink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b38774/32.png) [@Blink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blink)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/36 "2003-09-24T17:53:38Z")
Point taken. ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/37 "2003-09-24T19:07:27Z")
RoundGuy, Sure I can show you a bunch of nothing. If you’ll look in my out box, you’ll see I have a whole bunch of nothing, and my done box has an equal amount of nothing in it. But here is a great site for Mathematic Logic and it’s basis. Now I can go into it in more detail, but I was under the assumption that when you said you were not a mathematician, then the technical jargon wouldn’t be apropos. Now my experience with math is that it was going to be my major. I still may minor in it, after I finish my accounting, but I had a bad experience with a math prof, and it turned me off for a while…oh about six years already. (had to do with a major assignment due and a murder in my apartment that we were witnesses to, and not being able to get an extension for the report…) But I don’t consider myself an expert, but I do try and understand as best I can. [http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/03-XX.html](http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/03-XX.html) All mathematical operations (plus, minus, multiplication, etc) are defined in terms of logical systems. All of the number systems and counting we use are defined in terms of logic. Everything. Logic is the grand unification of, and the foundation of, all mathematics. Scott McMahan …logic has become more mathematical and mathematics has become more logical. The consequence is that it has now become wholly impossible to draw a line between the two ; in fact the two are one. … Bertrand Russell, from “Mathematics and Logic”, ch. 18 of Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy As for 1+1, you are basing the conclusion on a truth table that you probably learnt in school. That doesn’t go into the mathematical logic of why 1+1 is 2. Now that said, I think my post said that to prove the existence of God with mathematical logic can’t be done, which goes back to what kind of proof do you need. Is the only way to prove my son exists is if he shows up at your house? There are different ways to prove something. Now some would say that there are birth records that prove my son exists, but if the records are destroyed, does he still exist? ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/38 "2003-09-24T20:10:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Sure I can show you a bunch of nothing. If you’ll look in my out box, you’ll see I have a whole bunch of nothing, and my done box has an equal amount of nothing in it. No, you cannot show me “a bunch of nothing”. You are simply showing me they are empty, and contain no existing data or items. How can that be a “bunch”? This discussion started with your assertion that “mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract”, and, given your credentials, I am even more confused as to why you would continue to attempt to defend this position. My definition of “abstract” is – difficult to understand, insufficiently factual, theoretical. As opposed to “concrete” – real, factual, provable. Are we using different definitions? > [@](#): > > As for 1+1, you are basing the conclusion on a truth table that you probably learnt in school. No, I’m basing it on the concrete fact that if I have one apple, add another apple, then I have two apples. > [@](#): > > Is the only way to prove my son exists is if he shows up at your house? If there is no other evidence to support your assertion, then yes, that is the only way to prove it. > [@](#): > > There are different ways to prove something. How, other than empirically? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/39 "2003-09-24T20:54:36Z")
No, **Svt4Him** is correct. An empty set is a set, as distinguishable from the absence of any sets. We have zeros for necessary and sufficient reasons. “100” is able to replace the Roman “C” due to the decimal system’s ability to reference the tens and the units to the right of the hundreds, even when those sets are empty. And yes, mathematics depends on some starting points, some postulated “givens” that are accepted as true rather than being derived, demonstrated, or proven from other elements within the system. As Gödel rather famously pointed out, the system (_any_ such system) is inherently capable of generating statements which are true yet which cannot be proven to be true within the confines of the system’s own rules. ---
**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287/40 "2003-09-24T21:02:54Z")
It is my experience that the number of things God would need to do in order to prove Himself as God (and not just David Baline) is almost always n+1, n being the number of things he’s already done. WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS AN ANALOGY TO BETTER SHOW A POINT . IT IS NOT INTENDED TO OFFEND ANYONE. A similar thing happens with Holocaust-deniers. No matter how much proof you show them they’ll never believe because they don’t want to, not because they can’t understand the facts. END ANALOGY [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-proof-of-a-religious-god/203287.md?page=3)