Yes. “Born” a catholic, I once knew that state of mind so well.
“I do fear you for the things you do
And don’t trust you for the things you don’t.”
Because the Bible describes him that way and christians do believe that its statements are not solely human intervention but (at least) inspired by “God”.
And if its words are meant as we know them, we are allowed to compare them to our knowledge, experience and observations.
If they mean something different that we can’t define, we don’t find anything conclusive about God in the Bible. But then it is totally worthless as a guidance for what is and what is not, what’s wrong or right (as long as you don’t change perspective and perceive it as an cultural endeveour by humans for humans to explain “life, the universe and everything” in a way that makes sense, somehow).
But they remain clouds. They do not change their characteristics: still consist of vapour and airborne particles, tend to follow the wind and behave in any way rather cloudily ;).
Therefore the words we use to describe their nature are true whether we watch them from the earth or the sky (though you might have added a layer of comprehension).
It is precisely this kind of logic that encourages sceptics to use terms such as Magical Sky Pixie as a synonym for God. We are not talking about proofs but beliefs.
You are contending that the better ‘bet’ is to believe in God because there exists a possibility of proving his existence but not his non-existence. You can never be proven wrong, only right…
Is it really a better ‘bet’ to believe in unicorns because there exists a possibility of proving their existence?
Is it a better ‘bet’ to believe that there really are secret schools for trainee witches and wizards?
The fact is the majority of people do NOT believe unicorns or Hogwarts to be part of the ‘real’ world. Why should this be so, if by your logic, it is the safer bet? The answer is that people live their lives based around their beliefs, not what they can prove to be true. A belief is a conclusion drawn from a body of evidence, and on the subject of such things people are faced with an overwhelming LACK of evidence. This leads people to the conclusion, or belief, that such things are non-existent constructs of (a) (wo)man’s fertile imagination.
They cannot prove the non-existence but they believe it to be so because it has more practical relevence to their lives than the alternative.
People are so convinced in their beliefs of ‘non-existence’ that if a real Harry Potter were to spontaneously appear riding a real unicorn through Trafalgar Square, the vast majority of the onlookers would think it were a publicity stunt. On closer inspection they may draw the conclusion that they were witnessing a clever conjuror on a genetically modified horse. Perhaps if a Magical Sky Pixie then appeared out of thin air and with a wave of his wand, cured the sick, provided shelter for the homeless and turned Nelson’s Column into an unfeasibly large cucumber, some may start to doubt their convictions that there was no such thing as magic or MSPs or unicorns. But until evidence starts to accumulate it will be difficult for people to doubt or change these beliefs.
My (rather long-winded) point is that what you are suggesting; that we should side with group ‘A’ because it is illogical to posit an argument for ‘non-existence’ - has no application to the reality of life, and as such adds no weight to the argument for belief in God. At least no more than it does to the argument for belief in anything for which we lack evidence, which brings us back to the OP.
We formulate our opinions, and live our lives accordingly, based on bodies of evidence. The sceptics consider the body of evidence for the existence of God to be somewhere between highly-debateable and conspicuous-by-its-absence. On a par with the body of evidence for the existence of wizards, unicorns, and all other supernatural entities. The reason they join debate is because they struggle to understand the apparently double standards of people who believe in God and not in Magical Sky Pixies.
Beryl_Mooncalf: Two general comments for you. First off, you seem to be making an argument very similar to the famous “Pascal’s Wager” described in this thread. I suggest you visit that thread and read about the many fallacies that have been pointed out regarding that argument.
Second, a large part of your argument seems to revolve around the old chestnut that “it’s impossible to prove a negative.” As discussed in this thread, however, it is actually possible to prove a negative in many cases. If you want to argue simply that somewhere in the universe there exists some sort of God, I would agree that it would be impossible for anybody to disprove this statement. However, once you start describing a God with specific attributes and ascribing to him specific actions, it becomes possible to disprove his existence by, for example, showing that the attributes of this supposed God contradict known physical laws, or that his attributes and/or actions are internally inconsistent.
So, for example, if somebody simply wants to argue that there is a being who exists outside of time and who started the universe going in the first place, at most I can say that there is no evidence for such a being, but I cannot disprove its existence. On the other hand, though, if somebody claims that there is a being who loves all his children equally and will help them in times of need if they but call upon his name (as an example), I can disprove the existence of that particular God simply by offering counter examples of people who called upon his name and did not receive any help.
Basically, the only God whose existence cannot be disproven is one that has no qualities whatsoever, makes no claims, and has performed no deeds that can be verified. This God may very well exist, but he’s certainly not the God of the Bible or the Koran, and I would have to ask what the value would be in believing in him? This God neither promises eternal life for those who believe in his name nor threatens eternal punishment for those who do not believe in him. No, I cannot prove that this God does not exist, but neither can you prove that it actually matters whether he exists or not.
Beryl said (to Kalhoun), “BTW, from your post I would guess that you are in a scientific of possible financial field. Am I close?”
Heh. I’m actually sort of an IT newbie geek (not very technical at all) with my heart firmly planted in the arts. I was an art major in college and love all creative outlets. Go figure, huh?
Hey – I was starting to wonder if anybody was even paying attention to my posts before that!
As an aside, I didn’t realize that changing my sig line worked retroactively. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread, I now appear to be quoting you before you actually made the statement in question. Holy prescience, Batman!
When I say I’m a skeptical agnostic, the possibility of a god, to ME, would be the one described in Godzillatemple’s post above. The god who created the universe and then walked away. The only trend I’ve seen with regard to a supreme being, is that of utter apathy. I’ve not seen the loving christian god who intervenes with man at every turn. I’ve not seen anyone saved. I have, on the other hand, seen perfectly lovely people endure horrific pain, perfectly loyal spouses lose their partner to disease, innocent children die horrible deaths…
There are too many examples of “MAN” writing, defining, or creating the attributes of God. I don’t want to discuss the Trinity, but this is an attempt by man, to put words to a concept, that other men are to accept. Putting words to any concept creates a situation where those words can work against the concept, confuse the concept, or create disharmony in the concept. Having a minister or priest tell you what your beliefs are is questionable in my opinion too. If you don’t adopt those views, then you aren’t a “whatever” yet you know you are a “something”, and not a “non-anything”. Man should be less dogmatic in promoting religion, especially where it comes to guilt. fear, and eternal suffering.
Finding God isn’t necessarily finding any specific religion herein. If one accepts that God exists, he doesn’t necessarily have to accept that that God is Allah, or the Christian God, or the God of Abraham. But simply “God”.
Somnambulist
If you happen (in theory here) to have a honest belief that they exist, and choose to make that belief public, then you may find the need to support that belief with facts sufficient to define what a unicorn is, how we might recognize one, where we might expect to find one, etc. The point is that if your belief in unicorns is honest, whether or not they exist, you can promote unicornism until proven incorrect. The more specific you are in defining the beasts, as for instance they live on Catalina Isnald, are 50 feet tall, colored bright orange, make strange noises heard for miles and miles every night at precisely 10 PM, etc, the more you offer the other side the opportunity to disprove your unicornism.
Godzillatemple
Re: Pascal’s wager. No, not close to Pascal’s wager. Not that it matters, but I see problems with the wager. The difference is that Pascal made initial assumption regarding the existence of God. Thereafter he assigned a value to that assumption. I’m looking at “whether God can be proven”, not “God’s probability of existing” or the “Probability that God can be proven”. Simply "Who has a possibility of proving God does or does not exist, under the standard of evidence that has been set in the matter.
Remember, I argued that the sides had rejected circumstantial evidence, and had therefore set the standard of evidence higher, that standard being of “a physical nature”, or something that can be seen, measured, and examined. Under this higher standard, the critics have lost the probability to prove God’s non-existence. Even under a multitude of mathematical applications and laws of thermodynamics, and wagers, etc,. there would still exists, however slim, a possibility that God could be proven, by the proponent, if God existed. And the possibility would remains so long as the standard of proof was at this level.
Also, regarding the thread about proof of a non-existent.
Originally posted by The Great Unwashed
x2=x+1 (X squared intended here)
That makes sense to me, but, Unlike the example above, he item in question with respect to the original post was “God” and whether God existed. God being “physical” in nature,(or Spiritual, in the sense that Spiritual is a “something”) and not as above, where the matter to be proven is a variable.
In my earlier post I almost clarified this point with;
(edited by me from original)
Also cited in the referenced thread was Proving a Negative(1999) by Richard Carrier
“For instance, “there are no big green Martians” means “there are no big green Martians in this or any universe,” and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition–”
Again, Richard fails for generalization. If we say there are no “big green Martians” we mean, there are no “big green inhabitants of Mars” Our mars, the one orbiting around our sun. If it was said “there is no life other than that on earth”, (modified from Richards example) which side is the proponent arguing for, is he positively promoting a negative fact? Is he defining life? What would I look for to prove this either way? Life like here on earth?
In our matter, the field is set, the players are specifically defined. God vs. No God, and proof being more than circumstantial evidence that is , with enough to convince the most critical critic, or physical in nature… I’m not promoting any side, merely arguing that the standard of proof has become one that can be met by only one side in that debate.
In that post I was attempting to make a point that the debate was fruitless, from the point of one side retaining the possibility of meeting the standard and the other not. Therefore, either the standard had to be reexamined, or the reality of not being able to meet the standard should be addressed.
Kalhoun
I noticed his ability to focus, and clearly define (can’t use this in a sig line now) his thoughts a while ago. I’m thinking about calling him Mr. godzillatemple. (But there are a few who deserve the same though, I’m not sure if they are Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. or Other)
If we could take the God of every accepted religion, and somehow find, in the characteristics they attach to their God, a common denominator that applies to all of the “Gods,”, then exclude the religion specific characteristics of their God, then this is the God I reference. One who exists, in some form, who created all in some manner, and who somehow oversees, and who is approachable.
(Created means either the architect or the contractor. Oversees means more of a macromanager than a micromanager, and approachable means that his existence can be found by those who search)
The real definition of God in this case, should come from the proponents of God, as they believed them to be, at the time I interrupted.
Beryl_Mooncalf (mind if I just call you “Beryl”?): If I may be so bold, allow me to summarize your argument as I understand it in a concise, easy to digest form:
Have I got it? If so (and I apologize in advance if I inadvertently set up a straw man), here’s my response:
First of all, I once again challenge the statement that it is not possible to prove that something does not exist. If a being is defined with enough specificity that it can be identified, its existence can be disproved. When most people talk about God, they are talking about a God that has specific attributes, has done certain things, and has made certain claims.
Similarly, I will concede absolutely that it is impossible to prove that the does not exist some form of God somewhere in the universe. That does not preclude my ability, however, to prove that any particular description of God does not exist.
Even your watered-down definition of God lends itself to the same problem. As soon as you talk about a God that is “approachable” you are making a claim that can be disproved. Moreover, unless your definition of God goes beyond simple approachability and includes such things as an ability to grant eternal life, heal the sick, etc., punish disbelievers, I would once again assert that there is absolutely no value in believing in him in the first place.
In the second place, while logic may state that it is impossible to prove the universal nonexistence of a being, basic scientific principles state that no theory thory can ever be proved true; it can only be disproved by counter evidence. The existence of God is a theory that has been created to explain certain aspects of the universe. If I can provide counter-examples that better explain observed phenomenon without having to resort to the existence of God, and if I can also show that the purported existence of God is rife with internal inconsistencies, and if I can show that no evidence as to God’s existence can be verified, then I have disproved the theory as to his existence. Now, people are free to come up with an alternate theory that posits a different type of God, one with different attributes than the one originally discussed, but that doesn’t change the fact that God’s existence as originally postulated was proven to be false.
In the third place, I do believe that you yourself may have set up a straw man argument. Nobody is actually trying to disprove the existence of God. As I said earlier, I may think that the existence of the God of the Old and New Testament, or the Koran, or whatever document describes his attributes and deeds, can be disproven, but I acknowledge that there is no way to disprove an amorphous concept of a “God” who neither interacts with the physical world, nor makes any claims or promises whatsoever. I have no need to disprove the existence of this “God” since, by definition, it can have no affect on my life one way or the other.
Finally, it is, I think,+ rather disingenuous of people to redefine God so late in the game, historically speaking. For thousands of years people have been writing and preaching about a God of miracles, a God who talks to his prophets, a God who rewards the faithful and punishes the infidels, etc. Yes, you can now try claiming that this isn’t the “God” you are talking about, to which I would respond that your definition of God isn’t really “God” in the first place.
I should learn the above quote word by word and trot it out every time someone asks me what my beliefs are. Because it not only encapsulates my beliefs beautifully, but because it shows how terribly limiting and misleading labels such as ‘atheist, agnostic, secular, infidel, etc.’ can be – and usually are. OTOH, I think that ‘mythology’ and ‘religion’ is a distinction without a difference.
In that vein, best I’ve come up with so far when trying to keep my self-description short and sweet, is to call myself an “atheist” when it comes to man-made gods and an “skeptic agnostic” when it comes to The Final Answers, i.e., a Creator, life after death, etc. This latter part means that even if at this point there’s no evidence beyond faith that a supernatural Creator exists, I don’t discard – as opposed to “plain” agnostics – that we may someday have an answer to these questions.
With two caveats.
One. That based on what we currently know there’s no basis for belief other than faith. IOW, no creator needed and no pie in the sky after death.
Two. That once the ‘supernatural’ becomes known, it will, by definition I should think, not be supernatural anymore. But rather something we didn’t know or were aware of before.
In any event, I very much doubt we’ll know the definitive answers to those questions – either way – in my lifetime. While the debate will surely rage on, it’s not something I am overly worried about.
Again, Godzilla hits the nail on the head. I’ve often wondered why people DON’T lose faith after countless prayers for family and friends who are sick, in trouble, or whatever. Or why so many soldiers have died while popes and ministers lead their flocks in prayers for peace. Then suddenly someone gets a sunny day for a picnic and they’re all praising the lord for the good fortune. The disappointment ALONE would wear me out!
Thanks godzillatemple for the response.
Credit godzillatemp all quotes, Unless otherwise noted
Yes,( sort of) lack of proof, though, in this case, would prove only that there is not yet proof, nothing more.
Not true, I can prove a person is not pregnant by having that person examine by a Doctor. I can prove I don’t own a particular boat by showing who owns that boat. I can not prove that flying saucers do not exist. There is nothing that I can do that will provide evidence of this. Basically, the issue of whether they exist will remain open until they are proven to exist. I’ll return to the issue of God later herein.
godzillatemple
Not true, they are doomed to failure under and because of the rules that they have set. That was the point, they set a standard they can’t meet!
godzillatemple
Remember, you have to play by the rules here, not the ones I set, but the ones that were set by the participants. Specifically,the rule regarding the standard of proof that required.
This Standard came after an offer of proof by a proponent, that was circumstantial evidence to the readers, although direct to the writer, but unacceptable non the less They (the critics) rejected as delusion or as the result of a misunderstanding, or simply coincidence. By rejecting that level of proof, the “critical” side forces the proponent to a higher level, a level which both sides are obligated to meet to prove their cause.
I addressed and defined this elevated level in each of the earlier posts, but quoting from the last
Quote - mine
Any proof that is to be offered by either side bears the burden of meeting this standard. Proof of a God, proof that there is no God, even
We really aren’t discussing my what I offered as a version of God, I offered it because you asked
From a prior godzillatemple post
No, no, no, no…you can offer “as evidence” facts supporting" non-existence, , but this is not “proof” of non-existence. Additionally, one single person who came forth and showed they were healed by God would defeat your argument. So again, you have to elevate the standard of proof to one that allows more than the evidence or circumstance, or all you have is a bunch of “did not, did to” witnesses.
Approachable as used here refers to the quality of being available and responsive to the needs of his creation. No, I can’t answer why it might appear that he is selective, or even punitive, in the application of this quality. I don’t know the answers. It wasn’t my point in the posts to champion either side, but to comment on the requirements of proof.
godzillatemp
One can justifiability assume that if there is a God who created all, this God has other capabilities we do not understand. the least of which may be those you have mentioned. I have not been healed, nor resurrected by God, so I can’t comment. But I’ll bet you could not prove that God could neither heal nor resurrect? (with clear, and convincing evidence sufficient to convince the most skeptical skeptic…)
(emphasis mine)
Assume we were discussing this on a park bench, and a voice comes from heaven saying “Believe in me for I am real”. Silly example, but it would prove the heretofore unproven “theory” and disproves that a “theory can not be proved true”
[quote}The existence ofGod is a theory that has been created to explain certain aspects of the universe[/quote]
(emphasis mine.)
If we are to accept your scientific principal , “basic scientific principles state that no theory… can ever be proved true” Then by your own words you have just proven that God is not the theory you previously defined him as. theory because God can be proven true. Otherwise, you have successfully defeated your “, basic scientific principles state that no theory… can ever be proved true” and proven that it is false. Either way, the outcome runs contrary to your position?
No godzillatemple, all you can show is that evidence of God’s existence has not yet been provided because there is no time limit to do so.
Certainly you can verify that there is no evidence, in fact you don’t have to, let’s accept anothers word on that.
Albert Einstein’s last thought…( religion) "I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can’t. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there.
But Einstein also said “But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”
Neither rejecting, electing , or defining “God” Einstein instead calls this entity a “spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man”.
godzillatemple, That is half of it, the other half is stated above, all along here you have agreed with me partially anyway…
godzilatemple, this wasn’t about God, it was about proving God does or does not exist, and whether it would be possible under the standards set herein
So the bottom line remains
The players, in the thread, have set a standard of evidence so high that only one side has the possibility of meeting the burden of proof required to reach that standard and successfully championing their cause.
godzillatemple, I’m glad that you have at least agreed with the basics of my position in this matter.
You misunderstand. Nobody was trying to prove that Polycarp had not spoken with God. The question was simply whether the existence of God was a rational explanation for his experiences or not. Polycarp wasn’t trying to prove that God exists, nor were we trying to prove God doesn’t exist.
Polycarp offered to share his experiences in order to “prove” that his choice to believe in God was a rational one, based on Ockhamic methodology (accepting that as accurate description which most simply explains the phenomena under consideration and does not require assumptions beyond those necessary to explain them). What I and others endeavored to point out was that, by ascribing his experiences to God, Polycarp was, in fact, choosing to believe the most complex and improbable explanation possible and not the simplest as he claimed.
This has never been about proving the non-existence of God. Instead, it has been about proving the irrationality of believing in him. Or, to phrase it another way, the only “God” that can rationally be believed in isn’t one worth believing in.
Suppose I experience something remarkable. I search and search and search for a good explaination, but the only sufficient explaination found is the existence of God.
If no explaination, save one, is sufficient, and I choose to espouse the singular belief that is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, how am I being irrational.
I think you’re confusing “rational” with “airtight.”
Don’t be silly, Soup_du_jour. There’s always the possibility of being mistaken.
Given sufficient evidence, the conclusion that a God of some sort exists might indeed be a reasonable one. But depending on the characteristics of this hypothetical God, the justification needed varies from signficant to truly remarkable.
The scenario you suggest is extremely unlikely; as such, it would require circumstances that stretch credulity to come about.
Let me give a counter-example to illustrate my point.
Suppose I see a light in the sky moving at incredible speeds and making extremely sharp turns. I search and search for a good explanation, but the only sufficient explanation I can find is that the lights were space craft piloted by beings from another star system.
Would this mean that I am being rational when I choose to believe that aliens from another star system are buzzing around in our night sky, especially given the fact that such an explanation would require all sorts of additional assumptions? Or is it more likely that (a) I didn’t search long enough for a better explanation and/or (b) I chose to ignore any explanation that made me uncomfortable (e.g., that I was seeing things, or that I was the victim of a hoax, etc.)?
If you experience something you cannot explain, the rational response is to assume there is a rational explanation anyway and acknowledge that you may not be able to come up with that explanation yourself. The irrational response is to believe that, just because you cannot explain something, it must have been caused by supernatural forces.
Early man had no concept of electricity or shock waves and therefore had no clue what caused thunder and lightning. Rather than admit they didn’t know the cause, however, they decided to believe that it was caused by a supernatural “God of Thunder.” Today, of course, we laugh at such primative superstitions. This doesn’t, however, stop some people from inventing their own Gods to explain whatever seemingly inexplical phenomena they themselves experience.
To answer our question more directly, if the existence of God is the “only sufficient explanation” you can find to explain something, then I submit that you (a) haven’t looked long or hard enough and/or (b) refuse to accept any alternative explanations that, while sufficient, make you feel uncomfortable (or, at the very least, less comfortable than the existence of God makes you feel).
