Existance of unprovables.

[sobrique]

Sometimes there are theological discussions down the pub.
Provoked by that we sometimes come to the question:
Does lack of proof, imply proof of lack.

Sometimes the discussion will stray onto whether you can prove unicorns don't exist.

That always seemed somehow unsatisfactory, and I think I've managed to piece together why.

The problem is with the definition of God. Put simply, if you could prove, definitively that God did or did not exist, then it wouldn't be God.

It's like asking if you can see something invisible - the answer is clearly 'no' because if you could, it wouldn't be invisible.

So you end up with a circular argument of belief - both on the parts of the theists, and the atheists alike, as they make their assertion about something that is by it's very nature impossible to prove - if you could prove, one way or another, that God exists, then you'd be the God.

But that leads on to an interesting train of thought - if you cannot prove it one way or another, it's a matter of faith. But ... it's largely an irrelevant question - debate all you like, but the point is none the less moot.

But from there... well, what then? If you can't prove it, then you have to accept someone elses assertion. Someone who ... we have no way of knowing whether they're telling the truth or not - all the tales in holy books are from people reporting their account of what happened. Why is that intrinsically more credible than any other written source?

To accept the assertion that 'There is a God' is one thing. You choose to, or not. Problem is in what daisy-chains off that assertion - I mean if you accept the notion that there _is_ a God, then you also accept the definition - which is that God is powerful enough that he could completely deceive you, if he so chose. I mean, that's why it's impossible to prove (true or false) in the first place, right?

That's where I start to get to a point of picking at the question - given that, how do we connect the spiritual teachings of a religion, to it's source? I mean, there's been all sorts of well meaning spiritual people over time. Some of them have even had some really neat and/or radical ideas about how people could live together. I don't see how it follows that that's any more the will of God than the idea I had the other day, of 'going down the Pub' - because without the possibility of proof, we lack the ability to differentiate the ideas that someone had - I can make an assertion, and say 'because God Said So', but why would you believe me, any more than ... well, the Pope say? Barring the education that the Pope has had, perhaps? I'd assume he's better read in scriptures than I am. But I bet I've read more Sci-Fi than he has.

Whatever. I'm not quite sure where this train of thought was going any more. Perhaps I'll complete it once I finish my musings.

Comments

[thepsion5.livejournal.com]

I don't see how it follows that that's any more the will of God than the idea I had the other day, of 'going down the Pub' - because without the possibility of proof, we lack the ability to differentiate the ideas that someone had - I can make an assertion, and say 'because God Said So', but why would you believe me, any more than ... well, the Pope say?

I think that this is where faith comes in - you believe something to be true in the complete absence of evidence. It's kind of funny that so many people who believe in a higher power - by nature supernatural - argue over evidence of that same higher power.

Isn't it a greater act of faith to believe in a higher power in the absence of evidence than to believe in concrete evidence that supports its existence? And isn't faith what religion and spirituality are all about?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Yse. But where does it follow that because someone believes in God, that all these other facts must therefore be true?
That's kind of what I'm getting at - it's ok for God to be unprovable if the point of that is because it does define faith.

But how does the Pope get to know the will of God better than anyone else? Or do you need to have faith in the Pope, too? Despite being able to prove his existence.

The thing I'm sort of getting at is that 'does God exist' is implicitly a mystery, that you get to choose whether to believe or not. Whether $insert_spiritual_leader is full of crap or not, is ... not.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

"does it follow that because someone believes in God, that all these other facts must therefore be true? "

We can see this behaviour in those aspects of love which incorporates a trust between two persons. It is common for a Mother to believe in her children and what they tell her, to believe what they say even in the most difficult of circumstances. It is also a standard dramatic theme for two lovers to hold onto the ideal of each other through the years and decades even if separated, i.e. Homer's Odyssey.

Therefore it may follow in their subjective form of reality but not necessarily in an objective form of reality. That God exists subjectively is down to each person and cannot be definitively proven one way or the other. You can though argue over philosophies such as Free Will, Predestination, Works vs Deeds as to how and when Faith is received.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

What does "exists subjectively" mean? How can something "exist subjectively" and not merely be imaginary?

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I meant it to mean opinion, it is one person's subjective opinion versus another person's opinion. Does that make more sense?

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

My problem is not proving Unicorns do or do not exist.. but figuring out the definition of what a unicorn actually is...

I mean some say its an equine type creature with a horn in the centre of its fore head and feet cloven like a goat.. ... whcih may aor may not be able to purify water and be tamed by virginal people.

So given the diversity of life on the planet, and the way some people look at things it could be possible that this animal is maybe a mutant goat (some goats do occasionally have horns grow out from their foreheads due to a genetic quirk) or a mutant equine or something separate which has a passing resemblance to the the descriptor... which may or may not have died out due to lack of suitable gene pool to make the species viable.. Or it could just be a confuised description of a warhorse in armour, or even just made up by sailors and story tellers keen to improve their story tellings. we don't know..

When it comes down to the whole GOD thing then these days it is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. There is enough evidenc eeither way to both prove and disprove "God's" existance (if you ascribe the many miracles that occure directly to "his" door).

I believe all people should sit and consider from the evidence at hand what they believe, recognises that that is what they themselves and be happy with that... I don't however believe it is something that should shatter society destroy nations and pitch people into bloody conflict. There are truely far more important things in the world to worry about.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

if you ascribe the many miracles that occure directly to "his" door.

Which miracles? Could you point me in the direction of these many miracles? I'll settle for just one. You'd think that religions would parade miracles as proof, but as yet I've not seen the pope on his balcony telling people about a genuine miracle that can only be explained by there being a god and can not be attributed to natural phenomena and a human desire to beleive in some sky-father.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

In the Middle East (I'd have to ask my mum exactly where) is a slab of marble where an Imam is said to have been beheaded. That stone bleeds a trickle of fresh blood and has done for at least a century. The stone is now protected by glass to stop the stone corroding. As far as I know, no one has done a DNA test on it, but they did prove it was actually blood.

One of my dad's friends in Uganda is Hindu, and keeps a shrine in his garden. One night, when praying, the string of beeds in the hand of the statue started trailing sandalwood sawdust. It made a small heap about the same volume as the beeds he was holding. The only part of that statue that was sandalwood was the string of beeds, and they were completely undamaged when it stopped 3 days later. The sawdust was distributed to the (approx) 300 people who came to witness the miracle.

In 1990 the was a massive news story all around the UK, and in other countries around the world. All the statues of the Hindu god, Swaminarayan, started drinking milk from spoons. A guy came on the news saying it was because when they normally offered milk they didn't touch it to the stone, so having done so the large porous stone was sucking up the milk. Then the news presenter wordlessly picked up and showed a hollow metal statuette about 3 inches high. He put it down and offered it a teaspoon of milk, which it drank.

In India my mum went with her friend to the Hindu temple on a special occassion. The godess statue was roped off about 2 meters away. One of the girls in the crowd suddenly put her head back, stood up and started dancing. On the clear floor in front of them footprints of bright red dust appeared in the same pattern of footprints as the girl who was dancing. The dust turned out to be kunchoo (not sure about spelling) which is the red powder hindus use to make the red dot on their foreheads.

I can go on if you like. There's plenty more.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

On the Hindu Milk Miracle, a quick experiment with dyed milk showed it was running down the front of the statue.

As for the rest, I have little doubt they all explicable through entirely mundane means. Has a single one of the miracles you claim been properly verified in a scientific manner? I rather think not. In fact, they remind me strongly of the numerous claims of psychic activity, many of which appear convincing on the surface but rapidly turn out to be simply wrong, outright fraud or have simple mundane explanations when properly investigated.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

I wasn't claiming they were inexplicable. Have a look at my comment further down. I don't actually believe that any 'miracle' is inexplicable. But if you're looking for the kinds of miracles that people believe in and associate with religion, these are the sorts of things that I think crashbarrier meant by "if you ascribe the many miracles that occure directly to "his" door"

Has a single one of the miracles you claim been properly verified in a scientific manner?

The blood from the stone has been studied, but not very recently because of political issues. Others have been too, and yes, they've found scientific explanations for them. That doesn't stop people believing in them and claiming that they were an act of god.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

I don't actually believe that any 'miracle' is inexplicable.

Miracle. Noun. An event contrary to the laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause, an inexplicable event.

That doesn't stop people believing in them and claiming that they were an act of god.

I can beleive in the statue of liberty giving dreams to those who touch it and claim they are it is act of the invisible unicorns. I have no doubt that some people do touch the statue and after dream about it, but that is neither inexlpicable nor requires invisible unicorns. Beleif does not define truth, and what is religion if not the search for spritual knowledge? If religion is not based upon seeking truth then it i just superstition.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

'inexlpicable' ? 'are it is' ?
I win at speeling and are grammar good.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

Miracle. Noun. An event contrary to the laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause, an inexplicable event.

Actually it has several meanings.

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

Ruling out meanings 3 and 4 which are clearly not pertinent we are left with the first two meanings (which is actually just one meaning stated twice) which is the one that I used.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I suppose they are a single meaning, but I would still distinguish two separate ones. 1 is an inexplicable phenomenon and 2 is an act of god. I'm not doing that just to argue semantics, but because those are the 2 definitions I've heard used most often. Some people talk about 'everyday miracles' and what they mean is perfectly common things that can be easily explained but are enough of a coincidence or answer a prayer in an unexpected way, and they call it an act of god. Other things are potentially miracles in the first sense without the latter.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

You can prove the existance of invisible unicorns by seeing their actions upon the world - ie - if you can see their hoofprints as they make them, in such a way as you are sure that the hoofprints are being made then-and-there by an invisible hoofed quadraped rather than created by some horse in the past.

I will gladly convert on the spot if a religion can show me objective proof of god's existance such as an actual can-not-be-explained-without-god prophecy or an actual genuine can-not-be-explained-without-god miracle, or us meeting extra-terrestials and each alien race having the exact same religion* without there being prior contact between the races.

I will not accept the following as proof: placebo-effect faith healing, kind-of-vague prophecies, one prophecy 'hit' amongst a plethora unfufilled 'miss' prophecies, self-fufilling prophecy, subjective experience ("I know god is real because I feel him in my heart"), circular logic, historical 'miricles' or 'prophecies' that may have been 'missreported'.

To date I have yet to see the metaphysical hoofprints of god. Everything that we can observe about the universe can be explained without a god. Wielding good old Occam's Razor we show that god dosn't exist, or if he does he is supremly uninterested in communicating this fact to us.


* Does Jesus have to go to each planet to die for their sins? Can aliens sin differently, or is morallity universal. Interesting if we ever meet them.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

You can prove the existance of invisible unicorns by seeing their actions upon the world

If an invisible unicorn wandered around and people inferred that the cause was an invisible unicorn, other people would always argue it, say it was something else. Some people don't like to believe in things they can't see themselves.

I will gladly convert on the spot if a religion can show me objective proof of god's existance

If god created the world then our existence and the workings of the world is the demonstration of god's actions in our world. Because of the scale, and because of the way we think, despite potential evidence all around us, we will never see it. We don't know what we're looking for or how to tell when we've found it. All we can do is debate and reason out what kinds of signs are good enough evdence. For some people, they see plenty of proof all around them. Others don't see any, and probably never will.

such as an actual can-not-be-explained-without-god prophecy or an actual genuine can-not-be-explained-without-god miracle

Miracles occur within god's world, and therefore do not break the rules, but work within them. There may be things we currently can't explain how it happened, and call it magic or an act of god, but that may only be because we don't understand our world well enough to be able to explain it. Miracles, by my own thinking, are unusual or coincidental things that happen at a time and place where they will achieve something. We know the science behind the parting of the Red Sea. It could be the cleverness of Moses that he was there at the right time, or it could be god's will in action. Likewise the ten plagues, and many other mircales.

So there will never be that proof. Whether you accept the scant proof toted by others is up to you. But belief isn't a matter of evidence. It's quite separate. I believe in god despite rejecting any evidence that people try to present me with in favour of god's existence.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

If god created the world then our existence and the workings of the world is the demonstration of god's actions in our world.
Equally if there is no god then our existence and the workings of the world is the demonstration of god's lack of existance. Your logic is circular and flawed.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

Your logic is circular and flawed

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Take the invisible unicorn. We can reason out that if an invisible unicorn moves through the branches, we will see them move. It may leave hoof prints. We might be able to stick a needle in it and take an invisible blood sample, but despite being invisible, the chemicals should respond in predictable ways. We can use all of this as evidence, because if there was no invisible unicorn we would get different observable results.

However, when trying to gather evidence for the existence of god, there is no known evidence that would satisfy scientific enquiry. We could never agree on what that proof should be. To someone who believes god is a creator god, the world and its workings are self-consistent. To you, who doesn't believe in a creator god but rather one based on scientific principles, you also believe that the world is self-cosistent. There's no difference on which to base a testable hypothesis.

You can only have evidence that favours of one or other theory once you have find a point of dissention to contest. Finding an inexplicable miracle or prophesy or a race of aliens that believes in a the same religion doesn't prove or disprove my faith as valid and true, and finding the opposite of these things doesn't do that either. Likewise, the fact that we exist and the way our world works supports both points of view alike, as you said.

The logic is flawed and what people call proof is not proof at all. If you want proof you have to find a difference and then a way to test it. This is basic empirical methodology. I don't think any such discrepancy exists between my world view and yours that we could actually test, so you will never find that "objective proof of god's existence".

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

Finding an inexplicable miracle or prophesy or a race of aliens that believes in a the same religion doesn't prove my faith as valid

Proof noun. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

In the case of evidence being so compelling as to compels the mind to accept the existance of god (ie - an actual miracle), that would be 'proof'.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't for me. If you could find a actual miracle, that's fine, but all you've done is prove that miracles can happen. That's not enough to prove that god exists. There's a huge leap between the two. A miracle could happen for other reasons than god making it happen. It could be the magical powers of a race or mutant breed we haven't yet encountered. It could be sufficiently advanced science that we can't explain it. There are many possiblities. For a miracle to prove god you'd have to show me how it related to god in an equally compelling manner, so that god is the only plausible explanation.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

I agree that if a preacher stands up and faith-heals missing limbs back into existance that just proves that an inexplicable event has occoured. However, we must again wield Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) and say that if a faith-healer invokes a god or gods and then an inexplicable event occours that while it could be alien space bees we should look for the most likely explaination. Ruling out fraud or special effects we should consider the strong possibility of existance of the divine.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

Yes, but that is a connection you personally feel is plausible to make, and a good candidate to consider. It isn't proof

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

But belief isn't a matter of evidence.
What do you base your belief upon?
What would you accept as proof of the divine?
What would yuo accept as proof of non-existance of the divine?

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

I personally base my faith upon a personal conviction of the divine, experienced as a sentiment of rightness within myself.

I don't believe there is any proof of the divine other than that inner conviction, which is personal to me. I've always had it. If it totally disappeared it's possible it would shake my faith, just as I'm pretty sure that if you experienced it yourself it would make you believe in something, though it may vary considerably as to what. The fact that it is shared by others is a comfort. The only proof or disproof I would accept is based in what happens to the soul after death. But there's no way to test that.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

So something is true because you beleive it to be true and you beleive it to be true because it is true because you beleive it to be so. You feel that it is true and therefore it must be. Your beleif is based upon conviction without proof. If person is sure that he is Napoleon without proof we would not beleive him, as there is no evidence to support his conviction and his beleif is clearly in error.

The human brain is capable of a wide range of states which can change our perception of the world, none of which reflect the objective truth of reality. For example, I feel pride when I see the flag of my nation and am convinced that my nation is the greatest. Now in actually my nation is a tiny island of only historical significance and is far from the greatest nation by any objective standard... but I feel that it is the greatest. One should not base a relationship of the divine upon a neurological state, a hunch, or a feeling.

Superstition noun. An irrational belief (a beleif not based on logical reasoning and proof) -- i.e., one held in spite of evidence to the contrary or without proof -- usually involving supernatural forces andassociated with rituals.

Just to be clear - I am not having a dig at you, I am interested in your beleifs and find the search for spiritual truth a laudable activity. However, I want to dig past the "god is real I feeel him in my heeeart" and find out a bit more.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm sorry, but I've got nothing for you there. When you believe something is true, unless proof or evidence can convince you otherwise, it is held to be true. But I would point out that your perspective is pretty similar. You don't believe in god, despite having no proof of non-existence, and you won't change your mind until significant proof or evidence convinces you otherwise. I could ask you the same questions: what do you base your lack of belief on? What would you accept as proof for the lack of the divine? (I guess we've already pretty much covered the third one.)

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

what do you base your lack of belief on?
I'm confused by your use of the English language there. One can not base a lack of belief on anything. Do you mean "what evidence do I find for the lack of existence of a god"?
If so:
Suffering.
Death.
Reality TV.
Lack of any proof beyond the subjective feelings of others.
My own subjective 'feeling' that god dosn't exist in my heart.

I don't believe in god or gods the same way I don't believe in invisible unicorns, pink dragons, or honest politicians. I admit that they may exist, but am not in the habit of picking random things to believe. As I have no proof that these things exist, and no proof of their non-existence, and therefore choose the most logical belief.

What would you accept as proof of god's non-existence or existence?

[jorune.livejournal.com]

Not wishing to interrupt this fine thread between yourself and purp1e_magic but the whole 'The fact that suffering and death exist proves that there is no God' argument amuses me slightly. A world without suffering and death would be very strange and would probably upset quite a few physicists and you don't want that on your conscience. Just how much suffering is too much, where do we draw the line? Being forced to play the piano may be the most pain a 10 year old might ever have experienced up that point in his life but how does that compare to the bowel crunching fear of Billy Ray Cyrus and his 'Achy Breaky Heart'.

I can imagine a scene in an universal control room many dimensions above us with a couple of beings from tech support looking at an error report.

'I'm picking up an error in one of the dimensional clusters, looks like we've lost the stubbed toe application in the third dimension hypermega-array.'
'Righto, we best get started with the paperwork for the change request. If we start early we might get to finish in a year or so.
Are you seeking to make Pan-Dimensional changes? No
Are you planning to change any cosmological constants? No
Are you now, have you ever or will you be planning to bring back Glam Rock? No'

I have known people who have welcomed Jesus into their life and have found an improved quality of life they had not known before. I hope that one day that can happen for you.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

I have known people who have welcomed Jesus into their life and have found an improved quality of life they had not known before. I hope that one day that can happen for you.

Heh. :) It did. I welcomed Jesus into my life, was baptised & 'born-again' and even trained as a lay-preacher. I was happy (and still am). However, eventually I realised that my 'faith' was built upon a set of teachings just as valid and internally self-consistent as any other (Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Jedi), and just as at odds with the observeable world. The improvements I saw in my life was down to having a church as a social support group and much the same life-attitude-improvement stuff you find in self-help books. Once I took 'god' out of the equation and found a different social support group I had the same 'improvements'. Good friends + Self-help + God = 'Improvement' , Good friends + Self-help = 'Improvement'. Simply put I found X+Y+Z=A and upon removing Z found that X+Y=A, obviously then Z=0.

Perhaps this would help to further explain some of my position with regard to proof as it sums up my thoughts in a more succinct way than I ever could
http://ash1977law.livejournal.com/544616.html#cutid1

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I think the Alien religion is an interesting notion. Presumably any nth dimensional could co-locate and multiply exist as the relevance of time and space in terms of effort spent might not be so much of a problem. I am though reminded of Douglas Adams and his creation of 'teasers'

Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy. Arthur and Ford are speaking,

"But how did you get there in the first place then?"

"Easy, I got a lift with a teaser."

"A teaser?"

"Yeah."

"Er, what is ..."

"A teaser? Teasers are usually rich kids with nothing to do. They cruise around looking for planets which haven't made interstellar contact yet and buzz them."

"Buzz them?" Arthur began to feel that Ford was enjoying making life difficult for him.

"Yeah", said Ford, "they buzz them. They find some isolated spot with very few people around, then land right by some poor soul whom no one's ever going to believe and then strut up and down in front of him wearing silly antennae on their heads and making beep beep noises. "

The thought of a group of Atheists being buzzed and watching everyone's reactions would be amusing.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't think that Z=0 but I think I can see what you are trying to express. I believe that the Z component gave you a measure of moral instruction, a set of teachings that appears to have aided you in life. Therefore Z was clearly something and not 0.

You note that any other body of moral instruction could have given you that, I'll guess that is open to debate on the properties of the instruction. Perhaps one day we may see a religion based on 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' but I'm not sure it'll be any time soon.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

This is similar to something I have pondered upon. If someone asserts that they speak messages from God, how do we know it's true? Why should we believe them?

In Islaam we have the prophet Mohammed, an illiterate man who was asked to read a passage by an angel, and found he could do so. Over the years the angel came to him and told him things at different times. So now we have a record of everything the angel said. But it doesn't automatically come with the context in which he was told it. So even if you could accept that those words are truely those god gave him, it is massively open to interpretation.

In Christianity it's the exact opposite. The disciples and other scholars wrote down the teachings and doings of a man they believed to be the son of god. So now all we have are interpretations, however well-meaning and potentially accurate.

People believe that miracles come from god, so if a miracle is involved in the learning and telling then the information is treated as verified 'word or god'. Then, following that, anyone who has studied and pondered those accepted words can be said to be speaking the will of god.

Personally I take a very different approach, that comes from a Quaker mindset. God is inside each and every one of us, and god's spirit, the divine within, speaks to us if we listen. Therefore any words spoken or written in a spirit of goodness and/or prayer should not be dissmissed. In Quakerism we are all exactly equal, we can all be god's prophets, we all have something to say or contribute that is of benefit to ourselves and to others. That gives us a huge wealth of writings and experiences. What matters is not whether each one is truely the word of god, because they all are. Instead we consider how those words relate to ourselves, our experiences and our thoughts, and try to take something from each one. But what matters even more than that is prayerful listening to what guides us inside ourselves, our morality and humanity and so on.

So in other words, if you tell me something based in sci-fi that really speaks to you and that is a deep truth spoken honestly, then there's no reason I shouldn't listen to that as well as I listen to the Pope's dictates. Except that because of the role of the Pope, I trust him more to speak to me from that deeper truth than I trust you to, because I know you like to play devil's advocate and explore concepts by saying things that you don't whole-heartedly believe. But in either case I would consider what each of you says with equal merit.

I know most people don't treat religious leaders and their teachings the way I do, but I think my way may give you another way of thinking things out.

[queex.livejournal.com]

The problems surrounding certainty and faith go away if you apply a Bayesian approach. Rather than dwelling on proof, you allow yourself uncertainty and adapt in the face of evidence. You may well find your beliefs converging on God or God', but as a result of evidence.

Of course, what you believe on that front will affect how you interpret evidence, providing a positive feedback loop, but that's an innate problem of subjective reasoning. Besides, like it or not, human minds seem to work in a Bayesian manner.

People whose faith is strong typically don't allow any uncertainty (and similarly for the Dawkins of the world)- which is just another way of saying 'I am an idiot. If I am wrong about this, I will never even know it because I set my priors exceptionally foolishly'.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

No, lack of proof is not proof of lack - as should be trivially obvious from a history of science. However, the things that people want to assert are usually not lacking proof; they're swimming in abundant evidence - it's just pointing the other way. People have been searching for evidence for the supernatural for years, and years, and found none. What's more in every case where something that has once had a supernatural explanation has been later understood, there has turned out to be a natural explanation.

More basically, the problem with believing in the evidence-free does not come from the belief but the desire to treat that belief as knowledge. It's not. It's an unsupported assertion. You can't reason from an unsupported assertion and expect to get anywhere meaningful.

And here we hit a small hitch: reality itself is an unsupportable assertion. We can't prove it; we can't demonstrate that the world need correspond to our senses; we can't show that the means of acquiring knowledge have any validity. Does this mean that anything we deduce from the world cannot be regarded as certain? Yes, I guess it does, but without the assumption of reality we can't go anywhere at all so what other option is there?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I think that's kind of the point I was getting at - you cannot prove or disprove God, any more than you can prove or disprove reality, because order to do sou you would have had to transcend it.

The definition of a miracle is something unexplainable - and therefore if you can, it isn't any mnore.

None the less, you get "does God exist" in the same bin as "is reality real" fundamentally impossible to ever conclude and so something that you have to treat as one of the underlying assumptions in your worldview.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

No, I don't agree. "Reality is real" is a prerequisite for saying anything about, well, anything. If reality is not real I am not talking to you, I'm not typing at my computer nor am I listening to the cricket. "God exists" doesn't have any of that kind of prerequisite nature; "God exists" deserves to be treated with the same kind of approach as "Did we evolve?", "What is the Moon made of?" and other questions about reality.

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Once we accept that reality is real then any other question we ask is a question about what is real and it's nature if it is real. If we state that we can not be sure that reality is real then any other question we ask about anything else becomes meaningless. In order to ask questions we must accept that reality is real. We do not need to accept the existance of 'god' in order to as questions about other things.

[queex.livejournal.com]

Isn't that kind of a restatement of the anthropic principle?

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

Yes, but I am doing it, thus it is sexier. Rawr!

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

But they're questions you'll be able to debate and reach conclusion. "Is there a God" is a question you can't, because of the definition of what makes a God. You will never reach a point of 'reasonable doubt' when you have a point where it's entirely possible that something more powerful than you is changing the premises of your experiment behind your back.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

If you define something in such a way that there is never any reason not to believe in it, then there is never any reason to believe in it.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

A perspective on whether God exists from Woody Allen's film Love and Death. Who can disagree with the wonderful Diane Keaton?

[Error: unknown template video]


A perspective on life without God from Joss Whedon. He gave a speech after receiving an award from a student society at Havard. I think it is worth listening to because it is a positive speech about Humanism and what it should be trying to achieve. This makes a refreshing change from the majority of non/anti-religious commentary on the web which seems to engage in either shouting "You're wrong, we're right" ad nauseum, endless pedantic arguments or the obligatory "Why Atheism is not a Religion" comment which is written with missionary zeal and fervour. They can say that they're not part of a religion but they sure behave as if they were.

[Error: unknown template video]

[csi-ellie.livejournal.com]

If I tell my son that I love him more than anything in the world, how does he know if I'm telling the truth? For me, I believe that God is like a benevolent father (not like Ming) and that he wants the best for me. All I need to do is ask, and if it's in my best interests, God will provide for me. To not believe that would be devestating.

[malal.livejournal.com]

This is your most successful Troll post for a while I note... ;-)