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 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 08:33 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-10 10:20 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-11 02:58 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2009-07-11 06:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-11 09:15 pm (UTC)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.