# Is there "Evidence" of God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044 "2005-02-26T20:12:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/241 "2005-03-10T20:59:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Okay. 😃 > Testable? Since when is a definition — any definition — testable? How do you test that gravity means “Solemnity or dignity of manner”? What is untestable is if a given existent or spiritual entity falls into the class of entities defined by the definition. We have our coherent definition of god. How do I know if I have been in contact with God or something less than God? (Less in your sense of not being existent in all possible worlds - that is the only possible meaning of less in this context.) A definition that cannot be used to distinguish things in the class of those defined from those that are not is not useful. > [@](#): > > I think you meant ~~~G, since~~~ G is contradictory prima-facie. But that’s what I’ve said all along. You may deny “it is possible that God exists” by asserting “it is possible that God does not exist”. But if you do, you have the onus of defending the untenable position that there might not be existence in all possible worlds. If they are possible, why don’t they exist? Well, as we saw in the last go round, I am less than convinced by your proof of necessary existence. Specifically my problem was in the application of the identity axiom to non-existent things, which seemed to me to lead to a contradiction. You didn’t seem to get it. My fault, no doubt. However, my analysis of this is from the view of not accepting necessary existence, which I hope helps you to understand my point. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/242 "2005-03-10T21:01:25Z")
I am sure that you love high level philsophical talk. For me, I have always been satisfied with the personal argument against a historical god, i.e. the picture of god that appears when put together all the contradictory statement of god’s nature as described in the holy books. You don’t seem to have answered my point that a person could call this “force” a giant gravity elf. Oh, well, I wasn’t serious anyway. For your own amusement, here is a refutation of “necessary existence” For my own amusment, I will do something else, for I still do not see it as convincing proof of a “god” [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham\_oppy/godel.html](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/godel.html) also here is a pretty satisfying ref I found on [usenet](http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.bible.errancy/browse_thread/thread/2503c1a3ab83774d/f0bf9f3905de474c?q=necessary+existence+%2Batheist#f0bf9f3905de474c) No, you are making a huge leap in logic here. Why does the necessary existent have to be a “being,” a term which implies intelligence and personality? Why can’t the necessary existent be the simplicity of material particles? In other words, why does the necessary existent have to be something with life and intelligence? I also fail to see why a necessary existent would have to be immutable. You are simply projecting your personal religious biases into the mystery of existence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/243 "2005-03-10T21:06:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If you ask a random sampling of people the meaning of supreme being, will not a sizable number respond, “God”? I hope not. God may be the tag of supreme being, but it is hardly the meaning. I’d bet they’d say the being that is greater in all respects than any other. I doubt they’d say the being that is existent in all possible worlds. Not that what a poll says is of any importance, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/244 "2005-03-10T21:13:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I said, " But if you do, you have the onus of defending the untenable position that there might not be existence in all possible worlds. If they are possible, why don’t they exist?". Somehow, I read that as "there might be alternate universes that are nothing but empty rocks. That is to say, I was looking a existance as "animals exist’, while you were using the philosphical def. of existance. Now I see. My defintion is not the philosophical view, nor is it even correct. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/245 "2005-03-10T21:17:16Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What is untestable is if a given existent or spiritual entity falls into the class of entities defined by the definition. We have our coherent definition of god. How do I know if I have been in contact with God or something less than God? (Less in your sense of not being existent in all possible worlds - that is the only possible meaning of less in this context.) A definition that cannot be used to distinguish things in the class of those defined from those that are not is not useful. Oh, I see what you mean now, and I understand your quandary on some level. But necessary existence is distinguished from possible existence and actual existence by quite rigorous definitions. It is in fact a logical truth. I don’t understand the “contact” part though. A thing is useful if it can be used. I’ve never made contact with modus ponens, but I find it to be useful all the same. > [@](#): > > Well, as we saw in the last go round, I am less than convinced by your proof of necessary existence. Specifically my problem was in the application of the identity axiom to non-existent things, which seemed to me to lead to a contradiction. You didn’t seem to get it. My fault, no doubt. However, my analysis of this is from the view of not accepting necessary existence, which I hope helps you to understand my point. Yeah, I had forgotten about that, and I should have remembered since I had never before (nor have I since) encountered an objection to the Axiom of Identity. But if that’s all that’s bothering you, here is a proof sketch that does not invoke it: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/ltrueNE.html](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/ltrueNE.html) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/246 "2005-03-10T21:18:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I hope not. God may be the tag of supreme being, but it is hardly the meaning. I’d bet they’d say the being that is greater in all respects than any other. I doubt they’d say the being that is existent in all possible worlds. > > Not that what a poll says is of any importance, of course. I didn’t say it was. Scott did. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/247 "2005-03-10T21:22:13Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Somehow, I read that as "there might be alternate universes that are nothing but empty rocks. That is to say, I was looking a existance as "animals exist’, while you were using the philosphical def. of existance. Now I see. My defintion is not the philosophical view, nor is it even correct. I very much appreciate that concession. You’ve made a giant step toward our developing a mutual respect. With regard to the musings on usenet, that’s where the notion that you cannot prove a negative apparently began. What you read there must be taken with a gigantic grain of salt. You must sift for truth very carefully. Inasmuch as I already quoted a reputable source as both defining existence as being, and calling them synonymous, we can discard the usenet rant that “being” implies something else. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/248 "2005-03-10T21:22:54Z")
Yep, see post 233 and the ones further down. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/249 "2005-03-10T21:24:04Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I am sure that you love high level philsophical talk. For me, I have always been satisfied with the personal argument against a historical god, i.e. the picture of god that appears when put together all the contradictory statement of god’s nature as described in the holy books. You might not know what God is, but you’ve got strawman nailed. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/250 "2005-03-10T21:32:44Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > For your own amusement, here is a refutation of “necessary existence” > > For my own amusment, I will do something else, for I still do not see it as convincing proof of a “god” > > [Graham Oppy Godel – Internet Infidels](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/godel.html) > > also here is a pretty satisfying ref I found on > [usenet](http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.bible.errancy/browse_thread/thread/2503c1a3ab83774d/f0bf9f3905de474c?q=necessary+existence+%2Batheist#f0bf9f3905de474c) Good one, Scott. Lib’s proof did not include the notion of “positive” but just existence, but it has the same issue - I don’t see why you can not construct an unlimited number of necessary entities with it. That’s one of my problems with calling Lib’s god a “supreme” being. Supreme usually implies uniqueness, but Lib’s definition has no such implication. For instance, if we decide that strings are the basis of existence (of any frequency) than strings are necessary entitities, and are god, being necessarily existent in each world by definition. Note the "if: there, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/251 "2005-03-10T21:32:54Z")
I don’t really see how that is a strawman. It seems like when people want to define god, they reach into the holy books and pull out concepts like “love” and omnipotent, never minding the fact that they contradict each other. What I should say “seem” to contridict each other. In this discussion we seem to be having a discusson about a god, about who nothing is know, but that should not stop me from saying that is the definition of god used practically and historically, i.e. however anyone wants to , with support from the “holy books” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/252 "2005-03-10T22:06:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > For instance, if we decide that strings are the basis of existence (of any frequency) than strings are necessary entitities, and are god, being necessarily existent in each world by definition. > Note the "if: there, by the way. It suddenly occurs to me that you might be trying to establish some sort of identity and attach it to the being in the proof. Is that the case? And if so, why? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/253 "2005-03-10T22:22:16Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I don’t really see how that is a strawman. It seems like when people want to define god, they reach into the holy books and pull out concepts like “love” and omnipotent, never minding the fact that they contradict each other. What I should say “seem” to contridict each other. In this discussion we seem to be having a discusson about a god, about who nothing is know, but that should not stop me from saying that is the definition of god used practically and historically, i.e. however anyone wants to , with support from the “holy books” What is known is that Its existence is necessary. It’s a proof about _existence_. Ontological, and all that. At any rate, I don’t know why you have such an axe to grind against religion. But I can tell you that it will severely retard your intellectual growth. It is not the case that there are two people in the world — you and all-others-as-one. There are idiot atheists, dumbass Christians, moronic Muslims, stupid Jews, Neanderthal Wiccans, and pea-brained agnostics. There are also erudite atheists, brilliant Christians, wise Muslims, intelligent Jews, well-informed Wiccans, and perspicacious agnostics. By wearing your generalizations like a chip on your shoulder, you are denying yourself much edification and enlightenment. I understand that lashing out at religion might seem somehow daring, or fashionable, or cutting-edge to you. But it is the intellectual equivalent of a starvation diet. You seem to think people of faith are close-minded, and yet your own mind is a slammed shut bear trap. I urge you to put aside your prejudices and start respecting people just for being people. You are a half-step away from blind hate, making yourself indistinguishable from religious fundamentalist fanatics. If you don’t do something about it, your ignorance will be your downfall. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/254 "2005-03-10T22:34:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But it is the intellectual equivalent of a starvation diet. You seem to think people of faith are close-minded, and yet your own mind is a slammed shut bear trap. Indeed I seem to be unable to get over the fact that I don’t like religion, and think it is bad for society. I justify it by saying that while I am close minded, it is the close minded religious people who have done the greater harm to this world. I see all attempts to point out good aspect of religion as being "cherry picking” However, in my last post I believe I addressed the fact that the definition of god I use is not the immaterial Supreme Being used in this discussion, and that it is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/255 "2005-03-10T22:38:59Z")
Well, you are showing some signs of growth in this thread, at least lately. It doesn’t mean that you have to agree with anyone else. But it does mean that you have to respect them if they argue their views with intellectual honesty. It is possible for two people to hold opposing views and still respect one another. If you continue on this path, you will be amazed at the doors that open to you. May your journey be fruitful, and bring you peace. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/256 "2005-03-10T22:39:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I understand that lashing out at religion might seem somehow daring, or fashionable, or cutting-edge to you. But it is the intellectual equivalent of a starvation diet. Oh, and before I forget, it is an attempt to get away from the mindset that everything religous is perfect that I grew up with, not some fashionable thing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/257 "2005-03-10T22:43:47Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Oh, and before I forget, it is an attempt to get away from the mindset that everything religous is perfect that I grew up with, not some fashionable thing. Whatever. Do yourself a favor, and lose it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/258 "2005-03-10T22:52:16Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > However, in my last post I believe I addressed the fact that the definition of god I use is not the immaterial Supreme Being used in this discussion, and that it is irrelevant. something to take up space ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/259 "2005-03-11T13:41:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > With respect to existence (the topic and context of the proof), what would you say is superior to existence in all possible worlds? Also, rather than merely disagreeing with the conclusion I reached, would you mind pointing out a specific flaw in the argument that I built to reach it? Again, it’s all ghoti. If, by supreme being, you mean, “That thing that kicks everything else’s ass at **being** ,” then you’re technically right. The problem is that this is not the common parlance of supreme being. In common usage, a Supreme Being is an entity better than all other entities, not just the entity that won first place in the existing-really-hard contest. When you take the words as defined in a specific (and, to my mind, devoid of significant meaning) context, and then move them into a different context, their perception among the new audience changes. Since the Common Parlance has seniority in usage of this fairly common phrase, I prefer to respect that; I think you’re better off not using that term with its entirely different meaning in the proof, in order to avoid confusion. What’s wrong with, instead, using the term Necessary Existence? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044/260 "2005-03-11T13:49:51Z")
If I may add something: ask a random sampling of people what Supreme Being means, and a significant number will answer, “God.” An insignificant number will answer, “Necessary Existence.” That’s the map I dispute. Similarly, ask this sample what God means, and an insignificant number will answer, “Necessary Existence.” Or vice versa. Most of your philosophical quotes seem to me to suggest that existence is a necessary component of a Supreme Being, that a being that doesn’t exist cannot be a Supreme Being. I’d agree with that. They don’t seem to establish that necessary existence is a **sufficient** criterion for being a Supreme Being–therefore, the mapping doesn’t hold, just as you run into problems if you define zero as “the product of 0 and 17,” and try to reverse-engineer any equation producing zero thereby. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-evidence-of-god/292044.md?page=14)