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]

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.