quote:"We would like to challenge them to a public debate. ... Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't."
Wow. I think this fellow may be somewhat misguided as to what the word "proof" means. Also, I doubt he can prove that I don't exist.
I'm not a big fan of the "evangelical atheism" espoused by the Rational Response Squad, either, though the idea of public blasphemy is kind of amusing in a "put your money where your mouth is" sense. Having said that, though, their response is certainly, uh, rational:
quote:"We are dedicated to responding to irrational claims -- such as the ones being put forth by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that they can prove the existence of God scientifically. We are here to prove that not only can they not do that, but that it cannot be done using the scientific method and the knowledge available to us today."
Hm. I think they're misusing the word "proof" as well. Change it to "show" and that paragraph would actually be pretty good.
Anyway, from what I've read, the "debate" was basically just a rehash of the old Prime Mover and Clockmaker arguments. Nothing new to see here, move along.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like they were both hurting their arguments by letting the debate turn into a heated argument. I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of it.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've gone off on Kirk Cameron somewhere else here before. I was up late one night and watched that whole entire tv special of his and I wanted to shoot myself. I couldn't turn it off though. I was just so astounded at what I was hearing come out of his mouth. I won't even bother wathing the debate, I'm sure I'll get too worked up.
posted
Ah, well. I think it is the lack of reflection on why -- if it is this simple -- so many other people still disagree that is so tiring.
Yes, many people have not thought in depth about these matters, and for whatever reason, they don't need to. But many others have, and yet they still disagree with you. You know, they also might have read some of the classic works on proof in this matter.
It's just as tiresome as the notion that anyone with religious belief can't have really thought about the issues, or they wouldn't believe.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Oy. I'm not a believer in a way that anyone would actually recognize what I believe as a part of their religion, but I KNOW that there are believers with more sense than to do stuff like this. It's so unbelievably annoying. At least as annoying as the people who attack scientists-- real, honest-to-goodness scientists, with degrees and everything--- who also happen to believe in God.
I don't think it has to be all about the either/or and the Us vs Them. That's what TV shows want for their ratings, when the reality is much more nuanced. Most people are more willing to find common ground and coexist without hissy fits. At least in my experience of the world.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We would like to challenge them to a public debate. ... Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't."
Wow. I think this fellow may be somewhat misguided as to what the word "proof" means. Also, I doubt he can prove that I don't exist.
I doubt he'll try. I suspect he'll try and prove that you can't really be an atheist. Moreover, I suspect (though I can't prove it) that you either knew that or could have figured it out fairly easy, but went for the cute misread instead.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: "...Ah said Man, proof denies faith, and without faith you are nothing.
"Oh." said God and vanished in a puff of logic.
Man then went on to prove that black was white and was killed on a zebra crossing..."
(Probably misquoted but you get the drift)
For the benefit of the cheap seats...
quote: Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and white is black and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. While most leading theologians believe this argument to be a load of dingo's kidneys, that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
posted
While I might share some of the beliefs of these guys, I can't believe they claimed to have scientific proof.
I also wonder, do some atheists have to always hold christians with such scorn? Not all of us claim to be able to prove something improvable. I certainly can't prove that God exists to anybody else, nor would I try, though I believe he does.
Christians can't prove the existence of God to anybody but themselves, but by the same token, atheists can't prove the non-existence of God. When are people going to accept that fact?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't PROVE the existence of God even to yourself, actually.
You can BELIEVE that God exists, with all your heart, but there is no proof, even to individuals.
Unless it's the same kind of mental "proof" that UFO lovers use. And as a Christian, I have no interest in using that level of false proof.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can be as convinced of the existence of God as you are of any rational and plausable proposition, without it being based in your heart or your kishkes. That's not proof, in the mathematical sense, but then again, who in the real world really requires that sort of rigorous proof for day-to-day living?
You can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, using mathematical theorems. But is someone who thinks that this fact is self-evident engaging in "belief"? Is it the emotional sort of non-thinking that atheists are so fond of accusing theists of?
Sure, there are people who live by "Credo quia absurdum", but it's kind of silly to paint everyone who thinks God exists as being in that group.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh faulty memory! Thanks Nighthawk for the full and unexpurgated. How could I forget Dingo's kidneys???
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: You can't PROVE the existence of God even to yourself, actually.
You can BELIEVE that God exists, with all your heart, but there is no proof, even to individuals.
Prove it.
Well, technically, that's impossible. It's just not testable one way or the other. But there is a difference between proof and strong evidence which theists (and atheists to be fair) often don't seem to understand. Justified belief doesn't necessarily require proof, just evidence.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Christians can't prove the existence of God to anybody but themselves, but by the same token, atheists can't prove the non-existence of God. When are people going to accept that fact?
I'm not sure that I'd agree.
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, but it is possible to prove the existence of some things -- unless one is using a standard of proof for which there is no instance, which would be silly.
Proving existence and proving non-existence aren't really equivalent challenges. [That is, I wouldn't agree it is "by the same token."]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel like they were both hurting their arguments by letting the debate turn into a heated argument.
quote:I was just so astounded at what I was hearing come out of his mouth. I won't even bother wathing the debate, I'm sure I'll get too worked up.
In my opinion, that's part of the problem/strategy that the stupidity pushing Christian activists rely on. It doesn't really hurt their cause to get angry or shout or whatever. It does, however, damage the other side to get drawn into this.
On a more personal note, why would this bother you? You really don't have to let it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole thng makes me rather uncomfortable. I mean what if these chaps really do prove, uncontravertably that God exists?
Which God will it be? Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu? Odin?
I hope it isnt Odin, I'm not to good at quaffing and am behind in my war-axe practice.
On the other hand (and sem i-seriously) it could be a very tricky situation if thy definitively proved that there was no God, of any colour. Imagine the chaos. I think there's a good story in there if anyone cares to try.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have this whole jumble of thoughts in my head, and I'm struggling to organize them in a meaningful way. Anti_maven touched on part of it though. Assuming that you prove god exists, what then? Which god is it? Whose god is it? Does proving the existence of god validate the seemingly arbitrary customs practiced by organized religions? Again, which practices get validated? Who gets to decide?
It almost seems to me that proving god exists would require you to examine your religion and beliefs about god in a much more critical way than we currently do...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything
That's my main point. So while we might not see eye-to-eye on the logic used to arrive at the conclusion above , we both still arrive there.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything
That's not actually true, you know. I can postulate that there is a force that is always acting that keeps people from falling off the Empire State Building. Through one simple test, I can prove that this force does not exist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or that hidden element between hydrogen and helium.
The argument usually goes, if something can be imagined then it is at least metaphysically possible, even if you have to imagine another universe to get there.
quote:It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything
That's not actually true, you know. I can postulate that there is a force that is always acting that keeps people from falling off the Empire State Building. Through one simple test, I can prove that this force does not exist.
I'm trying to think about why this is a puzzle for me, but I'm too dang tired. Just wanted to let you know that I mentally red-flagged it for pondering. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We would like to challenge them to a public debate. ... Let's hear their best evidence as to why teakettles in orbit around Pluto don't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that these teakettles exist, but we can prove that the akettlist doesn't."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything
That's not actually true, you know. I can postulate that there is a force that is always acting that keeps people from falling off the Empire State Building. Through one simple test, I can prove that this force does not exist.
I don't know if you can prove that it doesn't exist, but you could probably demonstrate that it is much weaker than gravity.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even believe that Kirk Cameron really exists. Therefore, he can't prove the existence of anything, except maybe the hologram generator that projects him from the aether.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, It's all about observable effects. If a thing is defined as having an observable effect and that effect is not observed, then you can say that the thing doesn't exist (with the obvious caveat as to errors in observation).
For example, we can say with pretty near certainty that an all-powerful deity who invariably in this world rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked doesn't exist.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, but it is possible to prove the existence of some things -- unless one is using a standard of proof for which there is no instance, which would be silly.
Proving existence and proving non-existence aren't really equivalent challenges. [That is, I wouldn't agree it is "by the same token."]
It is possible to prove the nonexistence of some things, both in the physical universe and in the abstract.
For many things and concepts, nonexistence proofs are impossible.
Even when such proofs are possible, proving nonexistence is often much more difficult than proving existence. So I guess I would agree they aren't equivalent challenges.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, It's all about observable effects. If a thing is defined as having an observable effect and that effect is not observed, then you can say that the thing doesn't exist (with the obvious caveat as to errors in observation).
For example, we can say with pretty near certainty that an all-powerful deity who invariably in this world rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked doesn't exist.
The point about observable characteristics is well-taken. If it cannot be observed, it cannot be disproven.
I think our particular disagreement stemmed from a different point. I was speaking of "existence" in general, as a non-indexed concept, e.g., "You cannot prove there are no purple kingfishers."
I believe you were taking "existence" to be heavily indexed, e.g., "I can indeed prove there are no purple kingfishers existing right here where my foot is, right now." The constraint placed by the indexicals grants the additional power.
They are different interpretations of the word, however, and I should have been more clear. I happily admit that you are correct, but I'd still maintain that a general (non-indexed) existence cannot be disproven.
---
Edited to add: This is because matters of existence are in the venue of inductive, not deductive, logic. Induction always admits of new facts, so its conclusions are both provisional and measured. Deduction is the only logic which results in a non-measured [incontovertible] proof. (And as Lisa noted above, it isn't the sort of logical proof we actually use most in real life, even if many may use the word "proof" in the more rigorous deductive sense -- perhaps for rhetorical emphasis?)
We [the general "we," that is, by which I mean not necessarily "you and I, here and now," but rather "people in general"] colloquially seem to slide between the two definitions, and so I suppose being clear on what we mean by "proof" would aid the discussions, too.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
