Nerdfighters

I have been an atheist for a while and have always been looking for an argument that will prove the existence of A GOD. A GOD is in all caps to show that I am not looking for you to prove the christian god or the greek gods, all i want is proof of the existence of a higher power that created all things. He does not have to be a moral being, nor does he have to give to craps about his creation. I just want someone to prove that he is there (I use he because in the English language we assume masculine when no gender is put forth). So anyone of any background of any knowledge level go for it. 

Oh and as a side note, yes you do have to prove that god is there, i don't have to prove he is not. It is like asking someone to prove that a dragon exists when the dragon will become undetectable the minute a person looks at is. The same is true for god. He does not exist in our plane of being as I have been told oh so many times and therefore cannot be detected in any way. So don't come in here and say that I have to prove that there is no god. That is for another debate.

Tags: eleven, existence, fish, god, moose, pie

Views: 3816

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, YOU described it as a physical phenomenon.  I quoted you.  I do not think that the behaviors of objects and beings on earth is  in itself gravity.  I think these behaviors PROVE gravity because these things could not happen without gravity.  I also believe that the mathematics prove gravity's existence.  But they are not required to prove it.  It's like if you were to list the characteristics of a certain person without saying their name.  Someone who knew that person would guess who it was very quickly without having to that person's genetic makeup, because they would be more apt to recognize an acquaintance based on who they are, not the chemistry of their body.

Your still not getting me.

The physical phenomenon do not prove gravity.

Gravity is one possible explaination for how the phsycial phonomeon are caused, but the fact that they are there does not, in and of itself prove gravity.

To explain why, imagine if someone said "That's not gravity, that's the invisible elfin beams, pulling everything to make it work and stick together" you might say that that's stupid, but they would say "but look, everything is sticking together, that proves the beams are there".

Saying that the physical phenomenon, the behaviours of these things, proves gravity exists, is wrong. It is more complicated than that.

Except that I can prove gravity exists, and it doesn't matter if you call it by another name (like invisible elfin beams).  it has an effect on our world in a meaningful, measureable way. 

No, you can't prove it exists. Positive proof is practically impossible. All you can do is describe the phenomenon and disprove alternative explanations. The fact that you have an explanation that fits all the available facts does not mean you have the correct explanation.

The question behind is God there is not a question of facts and truth. It is a matter of faith.

 

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He whom this emotion is a stranger who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dulll faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms. This knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

Albert Einstein.

Actually, you can be asked to prove that there is not a God.

Another common claim of the New Atheists is that you ‘can’t prove a negative’ – where what is typically meant is a negative existence claim of the form ‘X does not exist’. Rhetorically, this claim functions to legitimize the idea that evidence needn’t be provided for God’s nonexistence. After all, if evidence cannot be provided for a proposition it would be irrational to expect one to provide some, and so reasonable to believe that evidence isn’t needed. But the claim that you can’t prove a negative cannot help the atheist. That is because, on each of two possible ways of interpreting what it means to ‘prove’ something, it is generally false that you can’t prove a negative (and often true that you can’t prove a positive).

Consider first, proofs which deliver certainty, as in mathematics or logic. Such proofs are sometimes possible for negative existence claims, such as the claim that there is no greatest prime number. One can also prove with certainty that there are no Xs whenever the concept X can be shown to be incoherent (like the concepts round square, or 3pm on the sun). Of course, it is true that many negative existence claims cannot be proved with absolute certainty, but the same holds for positive existence claims, for example, from science or common sense, such as that there are electrons or tables and chairs. So there’s nothing special here about negative existence claims.

Turn next to proofs which aim to establish only the probable truth of their conclusions. These are the sorts of proofs which result from successful scientific and other empirical investigations. In this sense of ‘proof’, it is easy to prove the non-existence of many things: for example, that there is no pomegranate in my hand, or no snow-capped mountains in the Sahara Desert. And while it may be difficult or impossible to even in this weaker sense prove the non-existence of many things – goblins, sombreros in the Sombrero Galaxy – the same goes for many positive existence claims – that Aristotle sneezed on his 20th birthday; that there is a transcendent deity; that there is a sombrero somewhere in the Sombrero Galaxy. So, again, there is nothing unique about negative existence claims. The unfortunate saying that one can’t prove a negative should be dropped.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

The examples given for proving a negative here are different in nature from proving the non-existence of God, in that God is an unfalsifiable claim, due to God's alleged immaterial nature, there's no criteria or method by which to test it, whereas there is a criteria and method for testing if there's a pomegranate in the author's hand or a mountain in the Sahara (which, just to be nit-picky, there are, and they're snow-capped, I was in Morocco earlier this month.)

The point is that the fact we can't prove God does not exist doesn't mean that we default to thinking God does exist, much in the same way, to use a tired argument, that you can't prove there isn't an infinitesimally small teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, but with the caveat that it's too small to be detected by any instruments we have. That doesn't mean the teapot exists.

To be fair, there's a distinction between not believing that God exists and believing that God doesn't exist.

 

Nnot believing that god exists can be agnosticism, but believing that God doesn't exist can only be atheism. All of the latter are the former, but not all of the former are the latter.

I think this is a very important point that I have never been able to put so succinctly.  The former is much more defensible as far as the nature of scientific knowledge and method.  However, I'm not convinced that there is a huge philosophical difference between the two views, and I think that many people who identify with the latter would be perfectly comfortable with the latter.

Like rectangles and squares.  Nice profile pic.

The point is that the fact we can't prove God does not exist doesn't mean that we default to thinking God does exist, much in the same way, to use a tired argument, that you can't prove there isn't an infinitesimally small teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, but with the caveat that it's too small to be detected by any instruments we have. That doesn't mean the teapot exists.

It doesn't say that. It simply says that the atheist, in his lacking evidence of any kind, is as "irrational" as he who would believe in God, since it is clearly possible to prove a negative. The point the article is making is that the atheist's lack of evidence is itself a failing which they would not recognise.

(which, just to be nit-picky, there are, and they're snow-capped, I was in Morocco earlier this month.)


Wrong. Those mountains are not in the Sahara. The Sahara is significantly south of there. I know. I too have seen the mountains.

Such proofs are sometimes possible for negative existence claims, such as the claim that there is no greatest prime number. One can also prove with certainty that there are no Xs whenever the concept X can be shown to be incoherent (like the concepts round square, or 3pm on the sun).

These concepts are, however, very different from the concept whether or not a god exists. The no largest prime rests on a definition we've given; namely that the set of all real numbers is a countably infinite set, thus no upper bound, thus no largest number, and same goes for subsets of this. As for the round squares, this rests too much on interpretation since I am to assume that they're talking geometry rather than round numbers and square numbers. And since we haven't defined time on the sun it's logical that we can "prove" the non-existence of x's for 3pm on the sun.

Then again a great number of gods (let's call them x's) have been coined by various religions and their concept (X) can be shown to be incoherent *see note below*  so we could say that there are no x's.

*note: the only coherent part in this X would be the acknowledgement of divinity; which is much on the same scale as that the coherence between the concept of round (e.g. circular) squares is that they (circles and squares) are bounded planar geometrical shapes.*

If you're looking for analogies I'd rather look at the Higgs Boson and the physicist's quest on finding that particle rather than comparing it to the mentioned mathematical concepts. The Higgs Boson particle has been predicted by the standard model (similarly gods are predicted by religious teachings) and certain theoretical properties have been defined with that prediction and the model surrounding it (similar for gods in religious teachings). The caveat in this comparison is, however, that for the existence of the Higgs Boson we have ways to 'prove' their existence which can be objectively verified, while this is not so for gods.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service