My proof for God. Critiques please

[JohnDamian]

It’s a negative. It doesn’t need to be supported. The burden of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim, not the person who is skeptical of it.

I contend that there is no evidence of an ultimate purpose to human life. I challenge anyone who disagrees to tell me why?

I know it is a negative… But to claim that a negative is true is a fallacy, a negative cannot be presented as a positive statement of truth; see the following claim I can “wildly” make;

No atheists exist, there are just pretenders.

The burden of proof, in your eyes would reside on you to prove me otherwise, which is impossible.

Therein, It is clear that even for a negative claim; a logical or evidential support is required. In the absence of which the only sensible claim is “I do not know if any ultimate purposes exist” or “I have not heard any convincing ultimate purposes yet” etc… To say there are “No ultimate purposes” is a positive claim, and requires proof.

 

[Moonstruck888]

OK. But it sounds like you leave open the door to the possibility even if it’s barely a crack?

Only in the spirit of intellectual honesty. I can’t actually prove there is no supernatural invigilator running the Universe.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I know it is a negative… But to claim that a negative is true is a fallacy, a negative cannot be presented as a positive statement of truth; see the following claim I can “wildly” make;

No atheists exist, there are just pretenders.

The burden of proof, in your eyes would reside on you to prove me otherwise, which is impossible.

Therein, It is clear that even for a negative claim; a logical or evidential support is required. In the absence of which the only sensible claim is “I do not know if any ultimate purposes exist” or “I have not heard any convincing ultimate purposes yet” etc… To say there are “No ultimate purposes” is a positive claim, and requires proof.

Let me rephrase then. I see no reason to believe that there is an ultimate purpose to human life. As there is no obvious reason, and you are not about to offer one, I intend to live my life in accordance with my own moral values and purposes.

 

[JohnDamian]

Let me rephrase then. I see no reason to believe that there is an ultimate purpose to human life. As there is no obvious reason, and you are not about to offer one, I intend to live my life in accordance with my own moral values and purposes.

Much better!

 

[momor]

Only in the spirit of intellectual honesty. I can’t actually prove there is no supernatural invigilator running the Universe.

And I can’t offer you any proof that there is a God that you will accept. And that’s why I tend to find the argument of whether God exists or not pretty pointless although it certainly takes up a lot of pages on CAF!

By the same token I don’t understand atheism since there is no evidenciary basis for it. Agnosticism I can understand, but not atheism. Particularly not the hostile, sarcastic atheism sometimes encountered here since it’s proponents have no more basis for their claims than believers.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And I can’t offer you any proof that there is a God that you will accept. And that’s why I tend to find the argument of whether God exists or not pretty pointless although it certainly takes up a lot of pages on CAF!

By the same token I don’t understand atheism since there is no evidenciary basis for it. Agnosticism I can understand, but not atheism. Particularly not the hostile, sarcastic atheism sometimes encountered here since it’s proponents have no more basis for their claims than believers.

I simply don’t see how one can explain the complexity of the Universe by passing the buck to supernatural beings. I reject that line of reasoning not just on the grounds of improbability, but on the grounds that:

a) It doesn’t actually explain anything.

b) All the arguments I’ve so far heard for God’s existence are easily debunked.

 

[momor]

I simply don’t see how one can explain the complexity of the Universe by passing the buck to supernatural beings. I reject that line of reasoning not just on the grounds of improbability, but on the grounds that:

a) It doesn’t actually explain anything.

b) All the arguments I’ve so far heard for God’s existence are easily debunked.

I don’t understand how anyone can look at creation and not believe in an intelligent Creator. Or how anyone can look at the complexity of the Universe and dismiss an intelligent Creator simply because THEY don’t see the evidence for it. That is just sheer arrogance in my mind and only proves they (or humanity as a whole if you wish) isn’t smart enough to understand the evidence right under their nose. If I could go back in time 500 years and take all the advances in scientific evidence with me I could convert any atheist on the face of the earth. The ‘logic’ for atheism just doesn’t hold up for me.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I don’t understand how anyone can look at creation and not believe in an intelligent Creator. Or how anyone can look at the complexity of the Universe and dismiss an intelligent Creator simply because THEY don’t see the evidence for it. That is just sheer arrogance in my mind and only proves they (or humanity as a whole if you wish) isn’t smart enough to understand the evidence right under their nose. If I could go back in time 500 years and take all the advances in scientific evidence with me I could convert any atheist on the face of the earth. The ‘logic’ for atheism just doesn’t hold up for me.

The argument from complexity. The Universe is too complex to understand. Therefore it is too complex for the idea of it’s being emergent to sit right with me, therefore a creator must have designed it, ergo God exists.

As this creator is intelligent, and therefore at least as complex as a human, presumably more so, you are now left in the position of trying to explain from whence came the creator.

 

[momor]

The argument from complexity. The Universe is too complex to understand. Therefore it is too complex for the idea of it’s being emergent to sit right with me, therefore a creator must have designed it, ergo God exists.

As this creator is intelligent, and therefore at least as complex as a human, presumably more so, you are now left in the position of trying to explain from whence came the creator.

I already said the ‘does God exist’ argument is pointless. The atheist argument however is valid IMO. It is not inlellectually honest as you yourself stated several posts back. Atheists who expect believers to provide evidence of God don’t hold themselves to the same standard of proof for their own belief system. Lack of evidence proves nothing.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Lack of evidence proves nothing.

If there is an orgy of evidence to support an idea, then it is probable that idea is correct. If there is a paucity of evidence then it is improbable that the idea is correct.

If there something leaves no quanitifable physical evidence of it’s existence at all, then while that something cannot necessarily be proven not to exist, it’s existence becomes too improbable to be worth considering.

You yourself, I’d imagine, are atheist about Wotan, Thor, Zeus et cetera, are you not?

 

[momor]

If there is an orgy of evidence to support an idea, then it is probable that idea is correct. If there is a paucity of evidence then it is improbable that the idea is correct.

If there something leaves no quanitifable physical evidence of it’s existence at all, then while that something cannot necessarily be proven not to exist, it’s existence becomes too improbable to be worth considering.

You yourself, I’d imagine, are atheist about Wotan, Thor, Zeus et cetera, are you not?

Lack of evidence means nothing more than:
a) no one has bothered to measure something yet
b) no one knows how to measure something yet
c) no one knows enough to even ask the question

Presumably you accept that there is an abundance of evidence that DNA exists. 100 years ago no one was even asking the question. Was DNA any less real then?

 

[wheels10]

I’d rather just get on with the matter of living life than trying to explain the inexplicable.

The following link explains the purpose of a Christian Human Life :
newadvent.org/cathen/04329a.htm

I’d like to highlight the following points:

…To seek to know and love God more and more is a duty incumbent on every Christian and should be his chief pursuit, and in this wide sense the Christian and the contemplative lives are synonymous…Love for God necessarily breeds love for our fellow-men, all children of the same Father; and the two loves keep pace with each other in their growth. Hence it follows that contemplative life is eminently conducive to increase of charity for others. **The heart is enlarged, affection is deepened, sympathy becomes more keen, because the mind is enlightened as to the worth of an immortal soul in God’s eyes. **And although of the two great commandments given by Christ (Matthew 22:37 sqq.) — love of God and love for our neighbor — the first is exemplified more markedly in contemplative orders, and the second in active orders, contemplatives must and do have in their hearts a strong and true love for others, but they realize that love in their deeds.

Since you stated that you do not have an explanation for Human Life, maybe you could adopt this explanation and purpose?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Lack of evidence means nothing more than:
a) no one has bothered to measure something yet
b) no one knows how to measure something yet
c) no one knows enough to even ask the question

Presumably you accept that there is an abundance of evidence that DNA exists. 100 years ago no one was even asking the question. Was DNA any less real then?

Yes. Back then, one had to suspend judgement on how genetic information was passed on. We knew it was passed on because people had observable characteristics of members of their immediate family, but we did not know how.

Mankind has measured all four of the fundamental force fields that make up this Universe to precision. Their behaviour is understood and there is no evidence of any intelligence behind them.

Do you feel it your duty to be agnostic about Thor and Zeus? If someone felt it was correct to be agnostic about the supernatural in general, that I could understand, but to be atheist to all gods, spooks and hobgoblins but make an exception for one, that I don’t get.

 

[coolduude]

Bonzerdad:

(note: I don’t have your post in front of me, so the following is from memory)
Now, if I read your post correctly, I still think you’re wrong. You say that a continuum cannot be divided into parts. But we’re not talking about division here- we’re talking addition of parts, not dividing them. Also, I think you’re forgetting what we already know about the past/present/future relationship- that the past was once in the future, then in the present, and is now in the past. In other words, the past has in fact been created by successive addition of events. So either I’m wrong in my assertion that the past has been created by successive addition, or the concept of spacetime is wrong by calling it a continuum. One more note- none of the definitions of ‘continuum’ I’ve seen really correspond to what you define a continuum as. Could you provide a link where I can get your definition?

I’ll address the Aquinas thing later, but it’s late and I’m tired. I’ll get to it tomorrow

 

[momor]

Yes. Back then, one had to suspend judgement on how genetic information was passed on. We knew it was passed on because people had observable characteristics of members of their immediate family, but we did not know how.

Mankind has measured all four of the fundamental force fields that make up this Universe to precision. Their behaviour is understood and there is no evidence of any intelligence behind them.

Do you feel it your duty to be agnostic about Thor and Zeus? If someone felt it was correct to be agnostic about the supernatural in general, that I could understand, but to be atheist to all gods, spooks and hobgoblins but make an exception for one, that I don’t get.

You still haven’t provided an explanation for why you hold a believer to a higher standard of proof of God than you require for your own atheist belief. Lack of evidence of God (your standard) proves nothing. Intellectual honesty would require you to prove, by measurable evidence, that God does not exist. But you have already stated you cannot do that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes. There is no ultimate purpose, apart from that which people believe, rightly or wrongly, has been vouchsafed them by the supernatural.

I don’t see how you can validly infer the absence of purpose by recognizing that science is in principle ignorant of an ultimate purpose. That the empirical method ignores the question of purpose, is not a justification to ignore the fact that there is non-empirical evidence of purpose. The scientific method is merely a principle designed to achieve a particular result, a particular kind of knowledge. It is not however the only route to true knowledge, or the principle by which we ought to think in general about reality. The scientific method cannot possibly determine ultimate truth. Science is agnostic in terms of purpose. But scientific agnosticism is not the same thing as philosophical agnosticism, and neither does science point to atheism. You interpret “philosophically” that science points to atheism. That science points to atheism is to me obviously false.

To develop a logical or rational perception of the universe, in order to better understand how one is to approach the human condition, is a valid process so long as it conforms to scientific discovery. There are obviously systems that are more rational than others, and one is not obliged to change ones philosophical view unless science dictates that one must, or a more rational system of thinking comes along. Reason and faith only becomes invalid modes of thinking when it tries to challenge science. This is why i reject the intelligent design hypothesis because it tries to disprove a scientific theory with philosophy. I see no valid reason to be an agnostic or an atheist since the principles of intelligibility and rational thought points to a theistic understanding of the universe. It seems more rational to accept that which is most rational to believe, to have rational theory of how one is to approach existence, rather than to face reality with the ignorance of agnosticism.

In any case the philosophical agnostic has more intellectual credibility than an atheist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You still haven’t provided an explanation for why you hold a believer to a higher standard of proof of God than you require for your own atheist belief. Lack of evidence of God (your standard) proves nothing. Intellectual honesty would require you to prove, by measurable evidence, that God does not exist. But you have already stated you cannot do that.

No, it would not. The person who makes a claim must prove that claim to be correct. The person who is skeptical of an unproven claim requires no defence. I am not saying that I positively know there is no God, I am saying that the arguments I have heard in favour of God, so far, have been too preposterous to take seriously.

The argument from complexity. We can’t explain the Universe, ergo God exists.

The argument from sheer will. I believe in God and I don’t care about evidence, ergo God exists.

The argument from incomplete devastation. A head on car crash kills seven people, but one child escapes with first degree burns and a broken femur, ergo God exists.

The argument from logic. The Universe has to have a first cause, ergo God exists.

The argument from beauty and harmony. This univerese is so finely tuned to life that in amongst all the empty space, imploding stars and thermodynamic heat death, life is relegated to one spec of rock that can support life on some of it’s surface, some of the time. Ergo God exists.

It is not intellectually dishonest to point out that the arguments in favour of an idea don’t hold water and that there is no evidence to support the idea.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I don’t see how you can validly infer the absence of purpose by recognizing that science is in principle ignorant of an ultimate purpose.

Beacuse not only do I not know of any ultimate purpose, but in 35 years, half an average lifetime, no one has been able to give me anything even approaching a sensible explanation of what the ultimate purpose might be.

 

[momor]

No, it would not. The person who makes a claim must prove that claim to be correct.

As a self-proclaimed atheist, by definition, you claim God does not exist. Where is your proof?

The person who is skeptical of an unproven claim requires no defence. I am not saying that I positively know there is no God, I am saying that the arguments I have heard in favour of God, so far, have been too preposterous to take seriously.

Seems to me you are describing agnosticism, not atheism. Which are you?

The argument from sheer will. I believe in God and I don’t care about evidence, ergo God exists.

This is also the atheist argument. I believe there is no God, I don’t care if I can’t prove it, ergo there is no God.

So why do you expect a believer to prove their position with evidence?

It is not intellectually dishonest to point out that the arguments in favour of an idea don’t hold water and that there is no evidence to support the idea.

That’s true. It only becomes intellectually dishonest when you fail to hold your belief system to the same standard of evidence. And you have already acknowledged you have no proof.

So, why are you atheist?

 

[JohnDamian]

The argument from logic. The Universe has to have a first cause, ergo God exists.

It is not intellectually dishonest to point out that the arguments in favour of an idea don’t hold water and that there is no evidence to support the idea.

Am I reading this correctly?

The argument from logic.

no evidence to support the idea

Your post is logically inconsistent; it says there is both evidence, and there is not evidence. This defies the law of non contradiction. Something cannot be both a and not a.