Existance of unprovables.
Jul. 9th, 2009 10:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueSometimes 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 11:04 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 11:16 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 11:32 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 11:34 am (UTC)I win at speeling and are grammar good.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 12:12 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 12:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 01:28 pm (UTC)