Possible to prove?

[jmm08]

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.

wopertinger: First some short answers to your two questions.

No. God isn’t defined by men. If God didn’t exist, that also would not be caused by man.

No. We cannot abandon thinking. At least I don’t think so.
= = = = =
I don’t think anyone abandons logic. They may not share the same logic that you have. Logic is an explanation of how we think and thereby make the decisions that we think about. We all make such decisions every day, so we do use our own thinking. If you don’t think we think about our decisions, then I guess you don’t think at all. Somewhere, Seinfeld might say “Not that there is anything wrong with that [not thinking].”

I suppose we do make some decisions without much thought. Such as applying the brake pedal when we see a traffic light turn red. Not a whole lot of logic involved. Instead it is a habit and the result of much training and previous experience.

---

To prove some thesis (examples “God exists” or “God does not exist” or “one plus one equals two”), we try to construct an argument that results in affirming the thesis.

How does anyone construct a thought-based argument? In such a manner that a clear-thinking person (an imaginary person we build in our own minds) would not be able to find fault in our argument. Our own notion of such clear-thinking is a presupposition. When people who believe in a supreme being or believe in some God, their construction of an imaginary clear-thinking person may be shaped by how they think such a God thinks. Perhaps their arguments are shaped by habit, or their religious training.

---

Now, how does an atheist construct a thought-based argument? Does an atheist construct an imaginary clear-thinking person in their own mind? Do they try to find logic to convince that clear-thinking person? Since the atheist already says to himself “there is no God”, where does a model of better thinking come from? Who is to say one form of thinking is better than another? How does the atheist decide that any one thing is better than another? If the atheist decides by himself and is happy with his own thinking, then why does an atheist ever bother to wonder what another person thinks? There is no reason to think that another person’s thoughts are any better or worse because there is no model of perfect thinking, or is there?

---

By the way, my opinions are:

God exists.

1+1=2 is only useful in many circumstances, but math is an abstraction

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

it’s not susceptible to demonstration.

So your argument is based on a foundationalist 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.

I won’t ask you to justify the principles on which science is built on, but I’d like to point out that you seem unwilling to attempt to prove a negative.

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

You don’t really answer my point, but okay. Well, you seem accept that the universe exists and that it had a beginning. Therefore, it seems like you cannot admit that the universe may be uncaused.

With the possible exception of quantum effects, by the way…

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.

Then what is your point? Infinite regress of causes preceeding the creation (if any) of the universe cannot exist because denumerably infinite collection of things in the universe do not (or may not) exist? Why would the rules, principles, laws, abstracts, known in the universe have any meaning before the universe existed? Are you saying the matter contained in universe came from somewhere? Where would that be? Is this something open to scientific inquiry?

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

By merit of your own conclusion, you cannot admit that the universe just popped into existence - this implies a beginning, therefore it is caused by something. On what authority do you make any statements about finite limitations of something that is beyond the limits of your understanding?

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.

I could misremember, but you or somebody else objected when I stated something similar.

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.

I elaborated a principle. It follows from the definition that my kind of negative (MKON) cannot be proven in general, but is amenable to proof in specific instances.

Having said all that, I apologize. I got a bit upset about the perceived lack of charity.

 

[wolpertinger]

(edit: deleted double post)

 

[martino]

wolpertinger:

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.

What would be the difference between the “larger subset of atheists” and an agnostic? Based on your statement it would seem that they are one and the same.

Sorry if I am taking the conversation backwards there were too many posts for me to read through them all.

 

[wolpertinger]

martino:

What would be the difference between the “larger subset of atheists” and an agnostic? Based on your statement it would seem that they are one and the same.

You can find some webpages that explain the nuances of atheism and agnosticism in great detail. I have to apologize for not providing a link. The way all the atheists and agnostics I converse with understand the terms, there is no contradiction between being an atheist and agnostic at the same time. Indeed, as we see it there can even be an agnostic theist - somebody that lacks knowledge about god’s existence, but believes it nevertheless.

Sorry if I am taking the conversation backwards there were too many posts for me to read through them all.

Actually, this is dragging on for far too long and I am not entirely innocent of it.

 

[wolpertinger]

jmm08:

I don’t think anyone abandons logic. They may not share the same logic that you have.

I don’t think so either, not literally anyway. Technically, there are many different systems of formal logic and internal consistency is not required by definition. I would rather say that all of us use the same rules of logic (otherwise any dialog is doomed to failure), but different axiomatic beliefs.

To prove some thesis (examples “God exists” or “God does not exist” or “one plus one equals two”), we try to construct an argument that results in affirming the thesis.

Yes. The problem outside of mathematics and formal logic is that an argument doesn’t necessarily convince, because definitions, premises, and even conclusions may be contested.

How does anyone construct a thought-based argument? In such a manner that a clear-thinking person (an imaginary person we build in our own minds) would not be able to find fault in our argument.

Okay.

Our own notion of such clear-thinking is a presupposition. When people who believe in a supreme being or believe in some God, their construction of an imaginary clear-thinking person may be shaped by how they think such a God thinks. Perhaps their arguments are shaped by habit, or their religious training.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for this. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, just that it happens. It is actually a lot of fun to poke holes into your own position, question your stated and unstated assumptions, while trying to avoid taking scepticism to extremes.

Now, how does an atheist construct a thought-based argument? Does an atheist construct an imaginary clear-thinking person in their own mind? Do they try to find logic to convince that clear-thinking person? Since the atheist already says to himself “there is no God”, where does a model of better thinking come from?

Here is where I disagree with you. Most atheists don’t say “there is no god”, they say “I can’t affirm that there is a god”. Perhaps a subtle, but very important difference in meaning. What’s the point of trying to disprove something that you don’t categorically deny? As opposed to that, atheists are forced to formulate their objections to theist arguments. For reasons I’m not going into, I have little interest in counter-apologetics, for the want of a better word. Or to be more precise, I am content if theists believe what they will if it weren’t for an obnoxious subset of them that tries to push their beliefs on an unwilling audience. I have left a few atheist forum for reciprocal reasons when there is a prevailing “de-conversion” attitude.

Who is to say one form of thinking is better than another? How does the atheist decide that any one thing is better than another? If the atheist decides by himself and is happy with his own thinking, then why does an atheist ever bother to wonder what another person thinks? There is no reason to think that another person’s thoughts are any better or worse because there is no model of perfect thinking, or is there?

I don’t really follow your line of reasoning. Talking to other people is sometimes frustrating, sometimes rewarding, and quite frankly it’s boring to hang out in an echo chamber.

1+1=2 is only useful in many circumstances, but math is an abstraction

Well, have to used a computer lately?

 

[jmm08]

wolpertinger:

jmm08:

Now, how does an atheist construct a thought-based argument? Does an atheist construct an imaginary clear-thinking person in their own mind? Do they try to find logic to convince that clear-thinking person? Since the atheist already says to himself “there is no God”, where does a model of better thinking come from?

Here is where I disagree with you. Most atheists don’t say “there is no god”, they say “I can’t affirm that there is a god”. Perhaps a subtle, but very important difference in meaning. What’s the point of trying to disprove something that you don’t categorically deny? As opposed to that, atheists are forced to formulate their objections to theist arguments. For reasons I’m not going into, I have little interest in counter-apologetics, for the want of a better word. Or to be more precise, I am content if theists believe what they will if it weren’t for an obnoxious subset of them that tries to push their beliefs on an unwilling audience. I have left a few atheist forum for reciprocal reasons when there is a prevailing “de-conversion” attitude.

jmm08:

Who is to say one form of thinking is better than another? How does the atheist decide that any one thing is better than another? If the atheist decides by himself and is happy with his own thinking, then why does an atheist ever bother to wonder what another person thinks? There is no reason to think that another person’s thoughts are any better or worse because there is no model of perfect thinking, or is there?

I don’t really follow your line of reasoning. Talking to other people is sometimes frustrating, sometimes rewarding, and quite frankly it’s boring to hang out in an echo chamber.

I am surprised that you say you disagree with me at a point where I was only asking questions (and in those questions I have no answers). I am unfamiliar with how an atheist thinks.

However, as I understand the meaning of words:
an atheist says there is no God.
an agnostic just doesn’t know if there is or isn’t a God.
Some agnostics say it is impossible to know the answer.
Some agnostics just don’t know if it is or is not possible.

Similarly where you don’t follow my line of reasoning.
I am not reasoning in that section. I am only asking questions.

wolpertinger: I am hoping that you might be able to help answer some of the questions that I asked. I appreciate how you understood what I wrote. I’m almost 50 and I have experience talking about God or faith with people of a variety of religious faiths and perspectives. And I am way too new in the Catholic faith to say that I speak for any Catholics.

This is what I think:
That for many questions such as:
“Is there a God?”
“Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?”
“Why did Jesus die?”
It is quite a waste of time to argue with somebody.

From a Christian perspective I think that Christians must pray for others who don’t share their basic views. I suppose from a Catholic perspective that Catholics must pray for others who don’t share their basic views – including other non-Catholic Christians.

From my perspective it looks like:
God must do His work in people’s lives.
We can do the work God wants us to do.
We must have wisdom to know the difference between God’s work and our work.

Caution: in some cases, a person may prefer to turn off what they already know to be true and be an atheist or agnostic. Because they prefer to live according to their own desires instead of thinking about how God wants them to do their work in this world. To really know if God exists, you must be open-minded enough to be not purposefully close your eyes and ears to Him.

Regarding 1+1=2
Arithmetic is a tool. To use the tool on real-world problems, we simplify and make the real-world problem more abstract. I think the flaw is this: that there are no two things exactly alike to such a degree that they are fully equivalent and exactly the same.

CONTINUED

 

[jmm08]

CONTINUED

**wolpertinger: **Maybe this is an answer on how it is “possible to prove”.

A test. Go to a Catholic Church sometime when they have a worship service. On weekdays they don’t even ask for any money. Go just a little early so you can get a seat and not be noticed too much. Find a “finger bowl” of water (probably near the front door) that has holy water in it. Touch some of the water with some fingers and bless yourself with the few drops of water (touch your head and your heart with the wet fingers) and say “I bless myself in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. If God doesn’t exist, then it really doesn’t matter that you do this. Then go inside and sit in the very back row during the worship service. Just sit there the whole time, look and listen. Afterwards, just get up and leave quietly.

If God does not exist, then it will not matter.

If God exists, you have invited Him to start to work in your life.
Logically, I think this test is a win-win situation. If God does not exist, you only wasted a little time. And if God does exist and if He wants to work in your life, then it is up to Him to start. At least you gave Him the invitation to do so. And if He doesn’t ever start to work, you could complain about it to Him if you ever see Him someday.

But be patient, the final result of such a test may take a few years. I know what I am talking about. Because you see, I was not a Catholic to start with.

Hope to hear back from you. Especially if you have answers to my questions or if you would dare to do the simple test.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

So your argument is based on a foundationalist belief?

no. not technically, anyway - my belief in the truth of the principle of causality is not “foundationalist” in the epistemological sense. although it is a belief i hold, and do not hold on the basis of other beliefs.

look, before we go any further, you’re going to have to explain to me:

1. what do you mean by “prove”; i.e. what counts as a proof for you?
2. which beliefs require “proof” of this kind?
3. why those beliefs and not others?

my whole point is that there are things that you believe, and for which beliefs you either have no “proof”, or for which your proof is marginal, at best.

but it is also possible to provide “proof” for god’s existence using premises which are no less certain than the premises usable in “proofs” for those other beliefs you hold, arguendo on the basis of those proofs.

but it is also true that you consider theistic belief to be (much) less certain than those other beliefs, irrespective of the fact that the “proofs” for theism rely on premises which are no less certain than the premises you accept in the demonstrations of those other beliefs.

in short, if you believe in, say, the existence of the real world, and the arguments for the existence of god are just as good (or bad) as those for your belief in the real world, why don’t you believe in god with at least as much conviction as you do the real world?

it comes down to this: for sure it’s possible simply to reject things like the principle of causality and the idea that spontaneous creation from nothing is impossible - i can’t articulate any knock-down, drag-out argument for their truth. but so what? the fact that every single one of yours and everyone else’s beliefs is capable of being consistently rejected in that way doesn’t stop you or anyone else actually from holding those beliefs. so why should it stop you from holding the belief that there’s a god?

in short, i find it curious (or at least i did the first 5 times it happened) that many atheists, when it comes right down to it, seem willing more or less selectively to reject belief in things like causality when it comes to theistic arguments, but not when it comes to every other aspect of their lives.

look, if you are honestly more certain in the existence of the real world and the past than you are that everything that begins to exits in that real world needs to have a cause, then so be it; if you are honestly less certain about the principle of causality than you are about the vagueries of a disputed aspect of an enormously sophisticated and difficult-to-understand scientific theory (about which arguably the smartest physicist of all-time said “no one understands it”), then cool. we will have gone as far as we can go.

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

in short, if you believe in, say, the existence of the real world, and the arguments for the existence of god are just as good (or bad) as those for your belief in the real world, why don’t you believe in god with at least as much conviction as you do the real world?

Here’s the crux. What is the god you are talking about? To review:

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.

You are admitting right then and there that you craft a definition to support a conclusion that you have already reached, i.e. the Christian god exists. The particular argument that you presented simply begs the question: If the universe was created, it had a creator. Your argument tells me nothing more than that if there was a creator, it was able to create the universe right then and there. Your argument remains silent on whether or not that creator, if there is one, does still exist. Your argument doesn’t even show that there is a first cause; why there must be exactly one first cause, instead of possibly infinitely many, and so on…

Your unspoken assumption is that the structure and conclusions of the arguments for god’s existence can be accepted into a larger worldview free of cost - that one can admit a few more rules and axiomatic beliefs without risk to consistency and/or coherence.

The short answer is that I reject all the arguments in favor of god’s existence that I’m aware of because they raise more questions than they answer.

in short, i find it curious (or at least i did the first 5 times it happened) that many atheists, when it comes right down to it, seem willing more or less selectively to reject belief in things like causality when it comes to theistic arguments, but not when it comes to every other aspect of their lives.

Are you under the misapprehension that I reject belief in causality on the basis of challenging your reliance on it?

look, if you are honestly more certain in the existence of the real world and the past than you are that everything that begins to exits in that real world needs to have a cause, then so be it; if you are honestly less certain about the principle of causality than you are about the vagueries of a disputed aspect of an enormously sophisticated and difficult-to-understand scientific theory (about which arguably the smartest physicist of all-time said “no one understands it”), then cool. we will have gone as far as we can go.

I believe we have gone farther than we should, if for other reasons than the ones you state.

 

[FelixBlue]

Wolpertinger:

A few quick points (sorry, I was away for Thanksgiving):

1. The linguistic arguments I have used have never been intended to be conclusive. They merely uncover clues about reality, which I believe, point to certain truths about reality with relative certainty. But again, I challenge you to look at what language, any language, any discourse, implies about the way things are…
2. You mention that theism leads to more and more questions. You are right. On the flipside, though, I believe your position leads to far more, especially once one comes to question the “reality” of each and every thing. I don’t think, though, that it is either position that really leads to the “further question” problem. The problem is our nature in that we are finite. The finite can always ask questions. Thus, Ockham’s razor is a sham…

Cheers

 

[wolpertinger]

1. The linguistic arguments I have used have never been intended to be conclusive. They merely uncover clues about reality, which I believe, point to certain truths about reality with relative certainty. But again, I challenge you to look at what language, any language, any discourse, implies about the way things are…

It’s not that I disagree with the sentiment that you express, I only question some of your conclusions.

1. You mention that theism leads to more and more questions. You are right. On the flipside, though, I believe your position leads to far more, especially once one comes to question the “reality” of each and every thing. I don’t think, though, that it is either position that really leads to the “further question” problem. The problem is our nature in that we are finite. The finite can always ask questions. Thus, Ockham’s razor is a sham…

Theisms leads me to more questions than I had before, I can’t speak to or argue what it does or does not lead you to. The difference is perhaps that I have no problem accepting ignorance; I don’t really need an answer to every question I have, particularly if I consider the answer as speculative. In short, I prefer wonder to guesswork.

And Ockham’s razor a sham, no, I don’t follow you there.