[nitpick]
The proof technique is indirect proof. The law of the excluded middle is the logical basis for it.
[/nitpick]
Ah. You’re right, Ultra. I’m sorry about that.
Here’s a link to a thread in which somebody offered to prove to me that God doesn’t exist; it didn’t go terribly well:
Showing Mangetout that God doesn’t exist in ‘another thread’
If you wish a general discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of ID, you might find this thread of interest.
Dammit! I gotta get to the boards more often! I was gonna post the Babel Fish proof!
Somebody call me? Welcome to the boards, there ckondek.
She told me she loved me like a brother. She’s from Arkansas, hence the Joy!
We can rule out ‘specific’ gods (for example, ones who would leave behind certain kinds of evidence), but logic itself can’t rule out all gods. (Whether or not logic can rule out all possible gods depends on what it means for something to be possible, which we don’t really understand.)
That being said, I think science has pushed the ‘standard’ idea of gods into the ‘highly improbable’ category.
Ahh… the ages old question, and so far, this thread hasn’t solved it.
That’s the great thing about philosophy: it’s an argument that two people started thousands of years ago, and millions have participated in, but no one has come up with satisfactory answers. Come to think of it, what constitutes a satisfactory answer?
No one has logically and conclusively either proven or disproven the existence of God, or, for that matter, exactly what God is. If someone has, imagine keeping that one under wraps;)
Even if one’s logic was flawless, the proper premises would be required, but how can one use finite premises to prove the existence or non-existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and hence, infinite concept? Perhaps if an infinite amount of premises, whatever the hell that would be, would provide the answer, but I suppose that if someone had such premises, and hence, omniscience, one wouldn’t be so worried about proving the existence of God, would they?
Perhaps we are trying to fit an infinite peg into a finite hole. Or am I incorrect in thinking that the God we are seeking to prove or disprove the existence of is infinite (hence all that “what God is” talk)?
Maybe the deity in question is quite finite, not all too omniscient, and in certain instances, can be bested at Scrabble 2 out of 3 times, but is quite adept at eluding us.
Great, now I have to figure out what the God I am seeking to prove the existence or non-existence of is like. Perhaps I should characterize God as a beetle in a box, then I shouldn’t have as much of a problem.
I guess with philosophy, it’s not necessarily about the destination, but the journey itself. It’s not necessarily answering the sought after question, but the revelations experienced while seeking the answer.
Respond if you like, but right about now, I think I just confused myself:confused:
I guess “revelation” can be construed broadly;)
This would be a good one for the Internet Infidels to handle if you wanted more discussion about it.
My first attempt at fulfilling my college philosphy requirement dealt with this question.
I find the whole concept annoying. By definition, we can not know during our life, and will all know at our deaths. So, what are we going to feed the kids for dinner?
Logic and God are like fish and bicycles; not contradictory, but not really belonging to the same reality.
I dropped the course, and eventually fulfilled the requirement with a course called ‘Women and Society’ [Feminism 101].
Can logic prove or disprove the existence of God? Certainly not to my satisfaction, it can’t. I’ll repeat the notion that the burden of proof is on those who claim that God does exist. My brand of atheism, and that of most of the atheists I know, simply claims that there’s no evidence to support the existence of God, not that there is clear evidence to support God’s nonexistence.
And logic, particularly modal logic, doesn’t cut it. Given the tenuous premises that such “proofs” are forced to begin with, almost anything could be “proven.” Again, they don’t satisfy me, but I always get some laughs out of them.
Fish and bicycles, as j66 said. Even the Christian Bible seems to recognize that logic, or human intelligence in general, is not the way to understand God. I Corinthians 2:14, for example:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Spiritually discerned. Not a very precise way of knowing, and certainly not proof to offer anyone else. I don’t deny that there are things I know but cannot prove, and some things I have faith in. (My faith generally requires at least some evidence, but that’s another issue.) But when it comes to God, I’m pleased to call myself a “natural man.” Not a stupid one, and in most cases a pretty logical one. One that is not in any tiny way convinced or even impressed with any of the “logical proofs” for God that I’ve encountered.
Depends on what your definition of god is.
You can disprove the Christian god as defined by Christian doctrines via a number of ways.
If the god is just some nebulous concept however, then you can’t.
That sounds impossible from a Computer Science point of view, because you are saying that information is created from nothing.
I am very interested in seeing what his assignment is and what program he wrote.
If human intelligence can’t understand this god, by definition then your god is incomprehensible to humans.
That’s what some atheists have been saying all along.
How do you define your brand of atheism? From what I read here it seems that to you atheism is a recognition that there is no conclusive logical proof that God exists. It does not, however, recognize that there is conclusive logical proof that God does not exist.
Where does that leave you as far as belief?
If one cannot logically prove the existence of God, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one cannot believe in the existence of God.
That then begs the question, do you believe in a “God” of some sort? If not, why? If so, why?
MrO does sound like an agnostic to me, rather than an atheist, but he would of course know his own beliefs.
Most of the atheist I know are sort of ethical humanist, which I believe leads to the best behavior.
I (as a scientist) profoundly distrust irreligious scientists, but my definition of religious is very broad.
Proving the existence of God strikes me as purely sophmoric intellectual masturbation, in the nastiest sense of the final three words.
Whoa, Ranger, hold on there. I ain’t got no god.
The one I’ve read about in the Christian Bible does seem pretty incomprehensible to me.
**
It leaves me with no belief in God. I have no conclusive logical proof that God does not exist, and don’t know why I should feel compelled to provide any. I can’t think of anything I believe in without proof or at least evidence, and in the case of God, I don’t have either.
Sure, some believe in God without proof. I don’t. Why not? For the same reason I don’t believe in Santa Claus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. No evidence except hearsay, and it all seems too implausible to me. I did try to believe in God, for many sad years.
(Technically, the question was raised, not begged, but I’m aware that lots of people use the terms interchangeably.)
More terms that people often interchange, and in some cases they do overlap. I’m an atheist because I don’t believe that God exists. (A “weak” atheist, if you wish, because I don’t claim that God certainly does not exist. The idea seems pretty absurd to me, but lots of absurd things do exist.) I’m an agnostic because I don’t know this to be true. (Again, a “weak” one. A hard agnostic would say that no one can know one way or the other. I suspect that to be the case, but I’m not quite arrogant enough to make the claim.)
If you had conclusive proof, would it even be belief then?
Technically, you’re nitpicking
Lib: your modal logic proof interests me (although I must confess I don’t understand it); are there any mundane situations that you can think of where we can apply the same method and derive an answer that we know is wrong?
(perhaps my asking this question merely demonstrates my shocking ignorance of modal logic…)