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

[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.