I believe that the burden of proof lies on the person who wishes to change the opinion of another person.
I don’t want to convince anyone that God exists. So, I feel no such burden.
So far, no one has explained why they feel that their denial of God is somehow above such a burden, when they want me to believe them.
Perhaps there is some rule of logic unknown to me why such a thing is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that ranting and saying that my experience and faith are bullshit falls short of convincing me. I am content to leave you with your disbelief.
I think trying to put God in a box, or take Him out of one are equally blasphemous, and I don’t wish to try.
rfgdxm, my only claim is that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of god. If you disagree with this claim, I’m curious as to why.
Triskadecamus, as I said in the OP, the positive hypothesis that god exists does indeed bear the burden of proof. I started this thread because I wanted to ask the question of whether or not it is possible to do so, either for or against the hypothesis.
Well, this should be a short debate (note: should be, not will be). No, it’s not possible to prove or disprove the existence of god, any more than it’s possible to prove or disprove the existence of anything else. You can amass enough evidence to convince some people, but that’s about it.
The notion of disproving the existence of god is especially ludicrous. How do you disprove the existence of something, anything?
It is absolutely impossible to disprove the existence of God. Any conceivable set of observations one might make is consistent with the possibility that God exists and for inscrutable reasons of His own just wants you to make those observations. It might conceivably be possible to prove that, if God exists, He has or does not have certain properties, but that’s a much weaker statement. And if God exists as He is understood by most religions (a possibility which cannot be disproven), then He is most certainly not just a social phenomenon, since He would have preceded all society.
The OP does not seem like it belongs in GD, since there doesn’t appear to be any “debate” (neither in the post nor implied by the title), and this thread certainly is not “great”. At least, not yet. :rolleyes:
And, I personally think that anyone who thinks the burden of proof is on either the theist or the atheist needs to take a step back and think again.
Well. It seems that despite my best intentions, this thread has become one hopelessly muddled mess.
Chronos, my only point regarding god as a social phenomenon is that every idea anyone on this planet has ever had about anything that could be called “god” is a social phenomenon. I make no claims as to whether or not any of the myriad ideas that satisfy the above description are true, nor do I claim that there cannot be something else out there which we might call god.
In the interests of salvaging something out of this thread, let’s take the question down to its bare minimum: Is it possible to conclusively prove (by which I mean whatever sense of the word you feel allows you to best answer the question), one way or the other, that some superhuman intelligence/agency actively created the Universe?
sigh if this doesn’t work, mr moderator man, feel free to toss this into the pit
Being a short timer now, may I prove my godhood by predicting the course of this thread?
First, you will all talk past each other because no one will define what they mean by god. Since god can mean many different things, god can’t be disproved being too diffuse. One could disprove (using that word usely) the literal Biblical god. One can’t disprove the deistic god since the universe with or without this god looks just the same.
As a response to the request for proof, Liberal will trot out his. It will confuse the hell out of everyone, but it doesn’t matter, since it just “proves” that a god is supreme existing everywhere - whether hairy thunderer, cosmic muffin, or hedgehog. What the characteristics of this god are beside being existent will not be covered.
And someone (usually me) will point out that god can easily demonstrate his existence by reprising some of his tricks in the Bible. Why theists say he will refuse to give evidence of his existence when he supposedly did is beyond me.
The point under debate has actually been defined: “Did some superhuman intelligence/agency actively create the Universe?” We may have to define “superhuman”, but you could skip that word and the definition works anyway.
This wouldn’t prove god’s existence, nor that some intelligence/agency actively created the Universe.
Moderator’s Note: You know, we’ve had lots and lots of Great Debates about the existence of God, whereas…well, OK, we’ve also had lots and lots of flamefests and debates-with-cussing about the existence of God in the Pit. But what the hell, I’m moving it anyway.
No. It cannot be either proven or disproven. How can this alone determine the existence of God? Or a “supernatural” being? Randomness occurs, sometimes a group of seemingly random events congregate to combine into a magnificent, monumental event. Some choose to see pure coincidence, some choose to see divine intervention. Why must there be a choice? Why cannot it not be that whichever answer best suits - and niether answer is wrong, because - well, no one can ever prove otherwise - why cannot both be correct. And then theists and atheists alike can be happy with the science.
From what I understand, and my father has a PhD in Physics, science has never outlawed the hand of God in science. In some cases, scientists have even remarked that there has to be some otherworldly/divine interference because randomness and percentages of possibilities are too incredible to be believed.
Is there a reason to try to disprove the existence? I’m sorry, I didn’t follow your original post too well, but I’d like to answer coherently. I was practically raised by nuns and priests as my father taught in a Seminary as I grew up, I lived across the street from the Bishop, my family sang/led song at the Saturday evening 5:15 mass (dad - guitar. singing, mom - wooden recorder, singing, me - singing second soprano (ah the days before cigarettes) and listening to the descants echo down the halls…) Digression.
I am not a religious person. I am a spiritual person. But during my formulative years, I was privileged to be surrounded by priests and nuns who were also teachers of science, maths, theology, history, and more. And they didn’t give me the run around, even as a child. They gave me straight, direct answers, for which I will always be thankful. But if priests and nuns Can acknowledge the standards of science, why make it so science has no room for theism? As far as I can see, there is no need to deny one to advance another.
Sorry. My first foray into GD. Hope I presented at least slightly coherently.
I’d love a book when you finish, if you’ll buy a copy of mine, someday…
No, I don’t think so; I think we’ve established that before. I think I can say with almost complete certainty, no one on earth will ever prove the existence of God to everyone, ever.
And I don’t think that, because that is the case, that you can conjure a burden of proof regarding God’s existence and drop it on theists. If you do that, not only will you never get anywhere, you’ll probably also piss people off.
Umm…yeah. Oh, fuck it. Lookit, have a couple of shots and read some Charles Fort. Won’t resolve the existence-of-God issue, but might make you feel a little better.
Have a look a this recent post of mine, Rift. If you think it’s bullshit, I’d be interested in your specific criticisms of it.
You seem to be elevating science to the position of being the only valid epistemology and merely suppressing any suggestion to the contrary with a bellow of “bullshit!” Now, I have my own reasons for arriving at a working conclusion that only the physical exists, but I am also perfectly well aware that I can only ever argue this position, write or speak sentences in support of this position: I can never prove it, since there will always be reasonable doubt that, actually, I’m wrong.
Those cognitive scientists and physicists were, actually, just doing their jobs. They were saying what is within the scope of their subjects, and what isn’t. Science cannot address supernatural questions. It can only, at best, provide natural explanations for everything and leave it as a personal decision whether or not that’s enough - if someone wants to believe in something “other”, it can only shrug and say “OK”.
Perhaps I can help you write your book. Perhaps I can even help it appeal to both theists, atheists and people who class themselves as neither, by presenting the issues in as bullshit-free a manner as possible.
It is impossible to disprove anything, let alone something that everyone seems to define differently. I will put my two cents in (like it really matters) and say this: it is on the person making a claim to provide evidence of that claim. If someone cannot provide evidence it doesn’t mean that the claim isn’t true, but you also shouldn’t be surprised if your claim, with lack of evidence, fails to impress logical thinking individuals.
First, let us pop this myth, along with the old “You can’t prove a negative” canard. I can disprove the gorilla standing behind me, ie. prove that there is not a gorilla behind me, by turning around and looking. I could disprove it, prove it isn’t, to all of you by photographing the space behind me.
One can disprove things and prove negatives if their existence is contingent on observable properties. Gorillas have the property of optical reflectivity thus allowing their disproof, the proof of their absence, in a given optical region.
The phrase we are searching for here is that One cannot disprove the existence/prove the nonexistence of something with no observable properties.
Let’s say God appears to me and millions of others as a 20 mile high glowing humanoid, his voice audible all over the world, and proclaims, “HERE I AM!” He changes the sky to a colour nobody has ever seen before, and rearranges the stars to spell out “GOD IS REAL” in all languages and makes them bright enough to be seen in the daytime. Would that prove God’s existence?
Strictly speaking, no. I can offer other hyptheses for these events - e.g. I’ve completely lost it and am currently in a rubber room, I’ve been kidnapped by aliens and stuck in a Holodeck, or I’ve always been living in the Matrix and someone has changed the software. BUT…
Hallucination, Matrix, Holodeck or Reality (whatever that is), I have to deal with existence on its own terms. Anything else is daft - if holographic rain is cold and uncomfortable I’m going to go indoors, and if holographic God insists that I wear purple and abstain from chocolate I will do so to avoid holographic Hell. So for all practical purposes, I would take an overtly active, directly intervening God as “proof” and get myself to church.
Disproof of God:
Let’s say humans make it - we get out into the Universe, spread across the Cosmos and survive till all the stars go out and beyond. We observe life spontaneously arising from non-life, observe and record evolution actually happening over billions of years, create artificial conciousness in non-organic matter. And in all that time, we find NOTHING that requires a God - everything ever observed or reported arises spontaneously from the laws of physics and the Initial State of the universe. Would that disprove God’s existence?
Clearly not. There’s no barrier to a Creator taking the “wind it up and watch it go” approach to the universe - create the laws of physics, fire the shebang off and sit back with beer and nachos. But for practical purposes such an entity is irrelevant - it makes no difference to the universe whethere the laws of physics and the Initial State had intent behind them or not. So again, dealing with existence on its own terms I take absence of evidence as “proof” enough and assume that there is no such entity.
That would certainly be evidence that there isn’t a gorilla there, and it would be enough evidence to persuade me personally, but that doesn’t mean you’ve proven it. Maybe there’s an invisible gorilla there. Maybe you’re hallucinating the absence of a gorilla, and we’re hallucinating the absence of a gorilla on the photograph.
This is what makes this discussion so pointless. It’s bad enough with gorillas. With god, we don’t even have something to hallucinate the absence of.
Now, one can give arguments one way or the other, but I say proof is impossible.
The word “proof” does indeed have more than one sub-entry in the dictionary. Ignoring its logical/mathematical, alcohol content or resistance related sub-entries, its usage in criminal justice and scientific falsifiablity does allow us to “prove that there isn’t a gorilla behind me”. If you argue that the possibility of hallucinations or simulations require us to remove this from our dictionaries well, OK, but a heck of a lot of other entries must follow it.
by predicting the course of this thread?