Possible to prove?

[Origen]

john doran:

bingo.

if the evidence for theism is at least as strong as the evidence on the basis of which one accepts other beliefs one has, then why not also accept theism?

Bingo to your bingo!

When you get to be an old man like I am, you’ve seen just about everything. This “debate” is nothing new. It’s predictable and pointless.

I just wish innocent people reading this thread would notice that our atheist friend is not opposed to the existence of God; he won’t admit the existence of anything.

Desperate flailing such as his actually strengthens my faith because if the denial of reality the best they can come up with to deny God, then my beliefs are indeed pretty plausible by any reasonable standard.

 

[wolpertinger]

Origen’s post would give me a convenient opportunity to beg off and I admit to being sorely tempted to reply in kind. Other than the immaturity of such an act, there is the problem that the forum rules I agreed to require me to treat you respectfully, while you are under no reciprocal obligation. Well, such is life.

I now face a simple conundrum. It is obvious that this debate, discussion, exchange of opinion, or whatever you want to call it has pretty much exhausted its possibilities. Then again, you have said a lot that I do not wish to let stand.

What to do, what to do…

 

[FelixBlue]

wolpertinger:

What to do, what to do…

What to do? Convey your view and give the evidence that leads you to relative certainty. View on what? Whatever you care to shed light upon (I hesitate to say any specifics as you might say its not worth your time).

OK, a starting point might be 1+1 is 2. Above you said that you have no doubt as to this reality/truth/(I’m not sure what you would term it).

If this is so, then what does it imply?

1. There is such a thing as unity.
2. There is such a thing as disunity (as we are adding two separate unities).
3. Thus, there is a gulf between one reality (a unity) and another reality (a unity).
4. Perceived reality is therefore not a unity.
5. My mind, as a unity (if we accept such a claim) cannot be truly one with reality, as we have posited that there are at least two separate unities. If all is one with my mind, then one plus one does not equal two, but only appears to equal two.
6. There is true being as the equals sign stands in for the reality of objective being in that 1 + 1 truly is 2.

I’m sure we could go from there…

But the point I make is that the very use of language, any language, demands being, an objective world, etc. One cannot escape this while using human language in its ordinarily understood meaning.

I hope we don’t end the conversation.

 

[wolpertinger]

FelixBlue:

I hope we don’t end the conversation.

Tell you what. I’ll take a timeout to formulate my opinions in the simplest possible terms and sound out the result elsewhere in front of an audience that isn’t prejudiced by the ongoing conversation.

I will not, however, brook more outbursts like Origen’s. If you prefer to talk amongst yourselves, that’s fine. I am more than charitable towards your outlook to life; if you don’t afford me the same courtesy, then I will not overstay my welcome.

 

[FelixBlue]

wolpertinger:

Tell you what. I’ll take a timeout to formulate my opinions in the simplest possible terms and sound out the result elsewhere in front of an audience that isn’t prejudiced by the ongoing conversation.

I will not, however, brook more outbursts like Origen’s. If you prefer to talk amongst yourselves, that’s fine. I am more than charitable towards your outlook to life; if you don’t afford me the same courtesy, then I will not overstay my welcome.

Sounds like a plan. I look forward to it…

 

[wolpertinger]

After rereading the thread, I suppose we can wrap up fairly quickly.

I do indeed equivocate in my use of the word ‘knowledge’. Is one ever sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge of it? I qualify as an external world sceptic and my answer pertaining to statements about the external world is that no, one isn’t. If god is external to me, then I cannot possibly have knowledge of god’s existence.

There are objections and counters to this philosophical position, but others have already phrased them better than I can.

In written and verbal communication, I do indeed use a lot of qualifications. Since the tedium of this is overwhelming, I also use the word ‘knowledge’ in a pragmatic, probabilistic, subjective, relative sense. Whether philosophical scepticism is justified or not, for all practical purposes I am indifferent to the answer.

So, when using ‘knowledge’ in the sense of my philosophical position, I must be a strong agnostic (as in: the existence of god is inherently unknowable). When using ‘knowledge’ in the pragmatic sense, I can’t be more certain of god’s existence than of that of the external world; it is then possible to be sufficiently sure of god’s existence and claim relative knowledge. Further, using that definition I am reduced to a weak agnostic, I do not know, even in a merely relative sense, that god exists.

However, even if I abandon my position of external world scepticism and accept the external world without qualification, theological and philosophical arguments do not convince me. I do insist on some tangible evidence, which leads me to a weaker form of scepticism - conceivably, a sufficiently advanced being could convincingly fake such evidence. And round and round we go again…

The bottom line is that as an atheist, I do not affirm that god exists (please note that is semantically different from “I deny that god exists”). If I were a theist, I could similarly not decisively confirm that god exists.

Nothing in my life experience suggests or supports god’s existence, yet nothing counter-indicates it. I hold to the principle of parsimony and therefore do not affirm that god exists. This lack of belief is why I call myself a weak atheist. Your linguistic argument does not convince me; in essence you appear to say:

You exist.
Use of language to express thoughts implies existence
You cannot exist without a cause
You cannot cause yourself to exist
I define that what makes everything exist to be ‘god’
Therefore, ‘god’ exists

I do not mean to imply any ad hominem, but to me this is a word game.

Finally, I don’t know who to attribute it to, but somebody said that the purpose of philosophy is to ask questions, not to provide answers. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

 

[jmm08]

To prove something logically, we try to develop an argument of some thesis that would be fully acceptable to a most logical mind. The very idea of a proof presupposes some model of a perfect intellect who would be compelled to agree to the thesis by reason of the flawless logic in the argument.

If there was no God or if there was no superior intellect to man, then all struggle to develop a logical proof is in vain. Because there is no such thing as a most logical mind. Where is the perfect intellect that you would want to tell “there is no God” ?

We affirm that God exists and this rings true in the center of our being, if we seek to develop a logical proof to prove anything. Otherwise, why are we already presupposing a model of a perfect intellect to whom present our arguments to prove some thesis?

Not everyone thinks logically. Someone may say they have had an experience that makes them think a certain way. Maybe there is already a pattern of thought resulting from habit. It seems to me that our very thoughts are tied to the mother-tongue language that we know. We use language to express our thoughts to ourselves and to others.

 

[martino]

How can you prove something that isnt so? Of course it would be impossible to prove atheism!

Whether or not the theist can prove theism, atheism cannot be proven. Some may think that ones inability to prove theism is a proof of atheism in itself, this just isnt so. In order to prove atheism one would have to possess knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it, and then once this perfect knowledge is obtained declare that there is in fact no God. Even if God didnt exist the atheist would never be able to prove it because no atheist or anybody else for that matter will ever possess perfect knowledge of the universe.

 

[wolpertinger]

jmm08:

The very idea of a proof presupposes some model of a perfect intellect who would be compelled to agree to the thesis by reason of the flawless logic in the argument.

Are you saying that ‘god’ is defined as the foundation of logic, or that we as imperfect intellects should abandon logic?

To put it bluntly, I do not believe that either proof or disproof of god is amenable to proof positive. Please note that I’m telling you why I don’t feel justified to hold such a belief, but have not asked any of you to justify your own beliefs.

 

[ahimsaman72]

clmowry:

I don’t know, I think your poster could be right.

How do your prove anything “doesn’t” exist?

Doesn’t seem possible.

I’m no philosophy major, but proving the existence of God and the non-existence of God is equally possible. You can go to any atheist website and get their arguments.

 

[wolpertinger]

martino:

How can you prove something that isnt so? Of course it would be impossible to prove atheism!

Round and round.

The subset of atheists that claim that there is no god face the burden of proving a negative. Good luck to them. The larger subset of atheists that simply do not affirm that god exists (again, carefully consider the semantics of this statement) do not assume any burden of proof. “As opposed to you, I admit that I could be wrong. Show me.”

Please note: If a theist admits the possibility of error, it’s just opinion against opinion, something that isn’t a conversational option for a Catholic (at least in my very limited awareness of Catholic dogma and doctrine).

Even if God didnt exist the atheist would never be able to prove it because no atheist or anybody else for that matter will ever possess perfect knowledge of the universe.

Please note that most atheist have no intention to engage in an exercise in futility and are content to await further information.

 

[wolpertinger]

ahimsaman72:

I’m no philosophy major, but proving the existence of God and the non-existence of God is equally possible. You can go to any atheist website and get their arguments.

You cannot prove a negative…

It is possible, however, to raise strong objections to a specific definition of ‘god’.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

Your linguistic argument does not convince me; in essence you appear to say:

You exist.
Use of language to express thoughts implies existence
You cannot exist without a cause
You cannot cause yourself to exist
I define that what makes everything exist to be ‘god’
Therefore, ‘god’ exists

I do not mean to imply any ad hominem, but to me this is a word game.

i’m not sure if you’re addressing this to me and the argument i presented, but if so, then that’s not my argument. this is:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. the universe began to exist;
3. therefore the universe has a cause.

i am quite frankly at a loss to understand how that is in any way a “word game”. how is it any different than, for instance, the following “scientific” reasoning:

1. this particle collision caused these tracks in the cloud chamber;
2. only positrons make these particular tracks;
3. therefore positrons were produced by the collision of these particles.

i mean, i certainly define the cause of the universe as “god”, but it’s not like i’m making it up,or anything. i define it that way only because, as i stated earlier, it turns out that it’s possible to conclude that the first cause has most of the principal characteristics of the christian god: infinitude, eternality, unity, simplicity, personality.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

You cannot prove a negative…

once again, prove it.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

Please note: If a theist admits the possibility of error, it’s just opinion against opinion, something that isn’t a conversational option for a Catholic (at least in my very limited awareness of Catholic dogma and doctrine).

well, i certainly admit that i might be wrong about the existence of god. in the same way that i admit the possibility that i might be wrong about the existence of the real world.

 

[wolpertinger]

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. the universe began to exist;
3. therefore the universe has a cause.

The following three questions come to mind:

a) Prove 1, i.e. prove a negative. (on edit: actually, show this to be true for every thing that exists)

b) Prove 2. As the creationists like to say, have you been there?

c) If I grant you 1 and 2, there are two problems. First, the cause of the universe may have begun to exist, leading to infinite regress. Second, if the cause of the universe has not begun to exist, it either never existed or it has “always existed”. The former seems to suggest that perhaps god does not exist, but nevertheless caused the universe. The latter you have to prove.

But I won’t ask.
john doran:

once again, prove it.

Unless your understanding of proving a negative differs substantially from mine, this is a frivolous request.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

The following three questions come to mind:

a) Prove 1, i.e. prove a negative. (on edit: actually, show this to be true for every thing that exists)

b) Prove 2. As the creationists like to say, have you been there?

c) If I grant you 1 and 2, there are two problems. First, the cause of the universe may have begun to exist, leading to infinite regress. Second, if the cause of the universe has not begun to exist, it either never existed or it has “always existed”. The former seems to suggest that perhaps god does not exist, but nevertheless caused the universe. The latter you have to prove.

But I won’t ask.

1a) “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is not negative.

1b) the causal assumption is at logical rock-bottom when it comes to “proof”. just like the principle of non-contradiction. just like the existence of the real world. just like the existence of the past. you can be as sure of it as you are of these other things.

if you reject this assumption, then we’ve gone as far as we can go.

1. well, current cosmology itself posits an initial singularity, so “the universe began to exist” is in keeping with modern science.

but that is as may be. an infinite regress in causes and things caused is impossible because (A) an actual infinite cannot exist, and (B) even if it ***could ***, it couldn’t be completed by sucessive addition (i.e. by the addition of one thing after another, in series).

Unless your understanding of proving a negative differs substantially from mine, this is a frivolous request.

it may very well differ - what exactly is your understanding of “proving a negative”?

as far as i can tell, you have to hold either:

1. “you cannot prove a negative” is not a negative; or
2. no proof of the principle is required.

 

[wolpertinger]

1a) “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is not negative.

Yes, see my edit. Prove that “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Or prove that nothing that began to exist is not uncaused.

1b) the causal assumption is at logical rock-bottom when it comes to “proof”. just like the principle of non-contradiction. just like the existence of the real world. just like the existence of the past. you can be as sure of it as you are of these other things.

Empirically, it is a justifiable assumption, because it seems to hold with the possible exceptions of what quantum physics seems to say and the universe as such. To you, a foundational belief.

if you reject this assumption, then we’ve gone as far as we can go.

Indeed.

1. well, current cosmology itself posits an initial singularity, so “the universe began to exist” is in keeping with modern science.

Science does not presume to speak absolute truth, only to model with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Theories are subject to change. Again, you consider 2 a foundational belief. In this case, the posited singularity only means that our current models break down at the initial point in time. Since time as we understand it loses meaning beyond the spatial and temporal boundaries of the observable universe, any statements about “events” “preceeding” “the beginning” of the universe seem like nothing but vague speculation. Yes, the universe could have been “created”, but whatever “happened” “then” is not something that brooks human argument.

but that is as may be. an infinite regress in causes and things caused is impossible because (A) an actual infinite cannot exist, and (B) even if it ***could ***, it couldn’t be completed by sucessive addition (i.e. by the addition of one thing after another, in series).

Isn’t the Christian god considered to be some kind of actual infinite? One that has unbounded attributes? Frankly, I have no idea what you mean with an “actual infinite”. An object of infinite size, something existing for an infinite amount of time, an unbounded set in mathematics? On what authority do you make assumptions on something that preceeds the beginning of the universe (if there is a beginning)?

it may very well differ - what exactly is your understanding of “proving a negative”?

as far as i can tell, you have to hold either:

1. “you cannot prove a negative” is not a negative; or
2. no proof of the principle is required.

Our understanding is significantly different and I’m actually relieved to find that you were not intentionally obtuse. I understand proving a negative in the mathematical sense:

Demonstrate that no member M of an unbounded set S has property P.

You can readily satisfy yourself that given a particular definition of S, M, and P, you will have one of the following cases:

1. the problem can be solved analytically:

1a) There is direct (mathematical) proof that no such M can exist. If S is the set of even numbers and P(M) is the property of M being an odd number, we’re done.

1b) There is a constructive or non-constructive (mathematical) proof that an M exists and the demonstration failed.

1. If no formal analysis is possible, we have no choice but to test exhaustively.

2a) If the set S is not recursively enumerable, we have a problem. How do you exhaustively test a property for e.g. all real numbers?

2b) If S is recursively enumerable, we may find an M that satisfies P - a counterexample, and the demonstration failed.

2c) Otherwise, if indeed no M exists that does not exhibit property P, we will continue to test indefinitely.

Actually, even this leaves plenty of unstated assumptions. If you don’t consider it frivolous to ask to prove a negative in this sense, tthen we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

Yes, see my edit. Prove that “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Or prove that nothing that began to exist is not uncaused.

it’s not susceptible to demonstration.

Empirically, it is a justifiable assumption, because it seems to hold with the possible exceptions of what quantum physics seems to say and the universe as such. To you, a foundational belief.

the causal principle is at the foundation of the scientific inquiry. as such, it makes no sense to understand experimental data as offering a counterexample to it.

in short, if a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics conflicted with the causal principle, then so much the worse for that interpretation.

and, incidentally, there is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not involve acausal reactions.

Science does not presume to speak absolute truth, only to model with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Theories are subject to change. Again, you consider 2 a foundational belief. In this case, the posited singularity only means that our current models break down at the initial point in time. Since time as we understand it loses meaning beyond the spatial and temporal boundaries of the observable universe, any statements about “events” “preceeding” “the beginning” of the universe seem like nothing but vague speculation. Yes, the universe could have been “created”, but whatever “happened” “then” is not something that brooks human argument.

either something caused the universe, or it didn’t. doesn’t seem all that vague to me.

Isn’t the Christian god considered to be some kind of actual infinite? One that has unbounded attributes? Frankly, I have no idea what you mean with an “actual infinite”. An object of infinite size, something existing for an infinite amount of time, an unbounded set in mathematics?

i mean a denumerably infinite collection of things in the real world. like times. and events. and objects. i.e. not set-theoretical entities, which do not really exist, plato to the contrary notwithstanding.

On what authority do you make assumptions on something that preceeds the beginning of the universe (if there is a beginning)?

reason. the universe was either caused to exist or it just popped into existence ex nihilo.

this is the same authority that allows me to have conviction in things like math and the principle of non-contradiction, and the reliability of my senses. it is the authority on the basis of which scientists conduct their investigations of the causal structure of the universe.

Demonstrate that no member M of an unbounded set S has property P.

You can readily satisfy yourself that given a particular definition of S, M, and P, you will have one of the following cases:

1. the problem can be solved analytically:

1a) There is direct (mathematical) proof that no such M can exist. If S is the set of even numbers and P(M) is the property of M being an odd number, we’re done.

1b) There is a constructive or non-constructive (mathematical) proof that an M exists and the demonstration failed.

1. If no formal analysis is possible, we have no choice but to test exhaustively.

2a) If the set S is not recursively enumerable, we have a problem. How do you exhaustively test a property for e.g. all real numbers?

2b) If S is recursively enumerable, we may find an M that satisfies P - a counterexample, and the demonstration failed.

2c) Otherwise, if indeed no M exists that does not exhibit property P, we will continue to test indefinitely.

right. so you think it is possible to prove some negatives. just not negatives concerning the non-essential properties of members of denumerably infinite sets.

that’s a whole lot of provable negatives.

 

[gsaccone]

More importantly what cannot be proven is that God does NOT exist. Some day It MAY be able to be shown that it is POSSIBLE that all of creation appeared without God (but as of yet this has not been proven). Despite what athiests would like to believe, it cannot prove God doesn’t exist because any proof of such would have to allow that God was invisibly behind the ‘atheistic’ process and couldn’t be detected.

Therefore the very best atheism can hope for is that there are two possibilities, God exists and God doesn’t exist. As of yet there is still only enough evidence for one - God exists.