A proof or disproof for existence of God does not exist

[tonyrey]

If there is no explanation there is no rational basis for explanations! Everything is unreasonable.

You are missing the point. You are using your power of reason to reach the conclusion that explanations exist could arise without explanation - like using a ladder to prove there is no ladder! If there is no explanation of the power of reason there is no rational basis **at all **for any explanation.

If you reject the principle of sufficient reason there is no reason

to believe anything whatsoever. Scepticism is self-destructive… and self-contradictory…

This is false. The negation of the PSR is not “nothing has an explanation” it is “some things don’t have explanations.” There does not seem to me to be any immediate contradiction in thinking that a framework in which explanations exist could arise without explanation. You’ll need to offer more than a simple assertion, especially if your goal is a formal proof.

Your dogmatism is unjustified. How do you **know for certain **“some things don’t have explanations” ? It is an assumption without a rational foundation which is unscientific given that science is based on the search for explanations. According to you we should give up the search for explanations because they may not exist! You are the one who needs to offer more than a simple assertion. Do you base all your conclusions on the **possibility **that everything is absurd?

 

[tonyrey]

If you reject the principle of sufficient reason there is no reason

How do you **know **some things don’t have reasonable causes and explanations? Do you have any evidence for that assumption? Do you include reasonable persons among the possible things which don’t have reasonable causes and explanations?

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that theism it is fertile, since it has explained so many things, such as how Poseidon causes earthquakes, how Chamiabac and Chamiaholom cause human bodies to decompose, and how the earth is 6000 years old. The issue is that theism is not well defined enough to constitute an adequate explanation, and we have no rigorous proof that an explanation must exist in the first place. Sure, you can quote old philosophers who assert the principle of sufficient reason, but simply appealing to their authority is not proof.

Science is based on the assumption that the universe is intelligible and can be understood by intelligent beings. Theism is the only adequate explanation of these facts.

 

[STT]

Science is based on the assumption that the universe is reasonable and can be understood by intelligent beings.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You are missing the point. You are using your power of reason to reach the conclusion that explanations exist could arise without explanation - like using a ladder to prove there is no ladder! If there is no explanation of the power of reason there is no rational basis **at all **for any explanation.

I mean, Godel proved that any sufficiently complex mathematical system is unable to prove its own consistency. Demanding a rational basis for rational thought seems like demanding a mathematical system prove its own consistency. It may simply not be possible, and the impossibility in no way invalidates usefulness or validity.

Your dogmatism is unjustified. How do you **know for certain **“some things don’t have explanations” ? It is an assumption without a rational foundation which is unscientific given that science is based on the search for explanations. According to you we should give up the search for explanations because they may not exist! You are the one who needs to offer more than a simple assertion. Do you base all your conclusions on the **possibility **that everything is absurd?

You’re the one declaring certainty by using the PSR as a starting point for a proof. If we don’t know the PSR is valid, then we can’t use it as a foundation for further proof. Therefore, the only one answering “how do you know” kinds of questions is you; I am arguing that we don’t know the PSR is valid, not that the PSR is actually invalid.

 

[tonyrey]

You are missing the point. You are using your power of reason

There is no evidence that mathematical systems reflect the whole of reality. In fact our ability to understand the physical universe implies that we transcend it in some way. It seems unlikely that a cog in a machine can ever comprehend the machine! That is where materialism is defective…

Your dogmatism is unjustified. How do you **know for certain **

“some things don’t have explanations” ? It is an assumption without a rational foundation which is unscientific given that science is based on the search for explanations. According to you we should give up the search for explanations because they may not exist! You are the one who needs to offer more than a simple assertion. Do you base all your conclusions on the **possibility **that everything is absurd?You’re the one declaring certainty by using the PSR as a starting point for a proof. If we don’t know the PSR is valid, then we can’t use it as a foundation for further proof. Therefore, the only one answering “how do you know” kinds of questions is you; I am arguing that we don’t know the PSR is valid, not that the PSR is actually invalid.

I am not “declaring certainty” but basing my conclusion on probability. Both science and philosophy are based on the principle of adequate explanation - which amounts to belief in the PSR. You need to explain why it may not be valid rather than just casting doubt on its validity. The only exception I can think of is the Ultimate Cause which is more satisfactory than an infinite regress of causes.

 

[tonyrey]

STT

Originally Posted by tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Science is based on the assumption that the universe is reasonable and can be understood by intelligent beings.

Misquotation:

Science is based on the assumption that the universe is** intelligible **and can be understood by intelligent beings.

I could also have described the universe as “rational” in the sense that it is orderly and not chaotic.

 

[SecretCatholic]

STT, you are setting up an impossible standard, not only for proving God’s existence, but for proving the existence of anything. Questioning is healthy, and I hope that you continue questioning, as I did before becoming Catholic and as I continue to do now as a practicing Catholic.

But watch your will and consistency. What you may shroud in the clothing of intellectual pursuit may prove to be at some point just a willing denial of God and your moral duties.

You cannot claim to be truly seeking understanding without engaging not merely with us amateur posters, but with the serious works of philosophers, scientists and apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig, Trent Horn, Fr. Robert Spitzer, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and so forth. You can watch watch debates with atheists with the first two and read their works clearly explaining arguments (or “proofs”) for God.

I believe that you are correct that you would need to be omniscient to actually “prove” God to the impossible level that you have set. But then, you would also need to be omniscient to prove anything for sure. As such maybe that standard does not suite you, a limited, finite human being. Maybe you need to make do with the imperfect, but improving methodologies we have for attaining and verifying knowledge.

Written in your heart is a longing for God. Don’t let your want of lesser things, such as sexual license or selfishness or pride trick you into denying the most reasonable conclusion of God’s existence and your moral duties.

I would love to continue this conversation, but it is impossible for it to go anywhere given the impossible standard you have elected to choose. Therefore, I will politely bow out now and wish you the best!