Proof: impossible I think...maybe

[Plato34]

Is it possible for a single “Truth,” whether Catholic tradition, atheism, or another religion be actually proven. I just want to hear examples. Also, if you can prove that proof is possible that would be equally appreciated and probably more respected.

(I am going to try to disprove all of these proofs, not because I think they are wrong, but because I think it helps me understand the issue better, and I think it is good sport, brain teasers you know).

 

[Eucharisted]

There is no proof for supernatural stuff. Which is why neither believers nor atheists can prove the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being, i.e., God.

Evidence, on the other hand, can be used to support one’s claims. Which means agnostism is null.

 

[wasmit]

That depends on the level of proof you require.

in relation to atheism, that is the stance of “belief in no gods”. Can this statement be proven? Would that require that every god that was ever conceived be thoroughly debunked? Or is it like a political stance - that there is no way to “prove” or “disprove” a liberal or conservative worldview.

I don’t think that anything can ever be absolutely 100% proven (outside mathematics), due to the possibility of a Matrix-like scenario. The best we can get is 99.999999999999% sure. e.g. we are 99.999999999999999999% sure that the earth revolves areound the sun. Does that qualify as “proof” for you?

As for some christian examples, some places in the bible contain narrative, saying this happened, then this happened, then this happened, etc… These are all truth claims, which can be supported or debunked by avialable evidence. Some claims have been supported (Jesus existed, pilate existed, some places that are mentioned exist(ed) etc…), some have been debunked (adam and eve, global flood, YEC).

Other biblical examples can be shown to be false by internal inconsistency. e.g. the story of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas. In John, Jesus comes forward and identifies himself, but the other three gospels say that Judas identified Jesus with a kiss. One or both of these stories are wrong.

 

[wasmit]

Evidence, on the other hand, can be used to support one’s claims. Which means agnostism is null.

can you please explain this further? I’m not sure what you mean here.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There is no proof for supernatural stuff. Which is why neither believers nor atheists can prove the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being, i.e., God.

I agree that you cannot prove whether or not a god exists with 100% certainty. If belief in God is someone’s core belief, then it is impossible to disprove. If evidence contradicted your belief, you would always say that the evidence must be wrong, regardless of how reliable it was. If you start from the position that God definitely exists, then no disproof will persuade you. For example, Young Earth Creationists disregard plenty of solid evidence that evolution took place in some fashion (although not exactly as Darwin thought it did) because they have greater trust in their beliefs about God then in information they gather from their own senses.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I agree that you cannot prove whether or not a god exists with 100% certainty. If belief in God is someone’s core belief, then it is impossible to disprove. If evidence contradicted your belief, you would always say that the evidence must be wrong, regardless of how reliable it was. If you start from the position that God definitely exists, then no disproof will persuade you. For example, Young Earth Creationists disregard plenty of solid evidence that evolution took place in some fashion (although not exactly as Darwin thought it did) because they have greater trust in their beliefs about God then in information they gather from their own senses.

One of the fallacies afoot in contemporary moral society is that anything can be “proven.” Read Hume. He’s right. Very, very, very little about anything can ever be proven. It’s all “inductive,” not “deductive.”

There is a pretty good inductive argument for God and for Christianity, but I have met very, very few with the patience to examine the argument. Few want to unearth the pearl from the field.

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is no such concept as proof. There is an element of faith in every single argument or so called proof even in science. One is swayed by the pedigree of ther person’s reputation or intellect to agree with his proof or one is not.

It takes a lot of faith or arrogance to be an atheist.

There were 70,000 eye witnesses to the miracle of the “dancing sun” at Fatima by believers and non believers. Yet many non-believers who saw it insist it was mass hysteria and refused to believe their own eyes.

James

 

[anEvilAtheist]

One of the fallacies afoot in contemporary moral society is that anything can be “proven.” Read Hume. He’s right. Very, very, very little about anything can ever be proven. It’s all “inductive,” not “deductive.”

There is a pretty good inductive argument for God and for Christianity, but I have met very, very few with the patience to examine the argument. Few want to unearth the pearl from the field.

I don’t know what particular argument or arguments you are referring to, but I have been examining arguments for the existence of God from top Christian and Catholic apologists and theologians. I have looked at the ones that they find most convincing, and do not think any of them show that Christianity is probably true. But you could similarly argue that few Christians want to carefully examine the atheist arguments, both those that refute Christian arguments, and those that give evidence that the Christian god’s existence is improbably.

It is not that few atheists want to unearth the pearl, it is that we believe that there is no “pearl”. A lot of people do not want to waste their time searching for something they are confident does not exist unless they enjoy theological debate and digging deep into philosophical issues as I do.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There is no such concept as proof. There is an element of faith in every single argument or so called proof even in science. One is swayed by the pedigree of ther person’s reputation or intellect to agree with his proof or one is not.

It takes a lot of faith or arrogance to be an atheist.

First of all I disagree that it takes faith to be an atheist. But second of all, you speak of faith as if it were a bad thing. As a Catholic, I assume that you think that faith is a positive trait, you just think atheists have faith in the wrong thing. But I think it is inappropriate to say atheists are arrogant to say that there is no god. I could similarly say that you are arrogant for claiming to know that God exists and for thinking you can know all these very specific traits of something that is unknowable. I don’t say things like that because I think it is needlessly rude. We all have to interpret the evidence we’ve seen, and just because atheists interpret that evidence in a way that leads us to a different conclusion than you does not make us arrogant.

I think part of the reason why you think atheists have faith is you misunderstand what atheism is. I can’t blame you, because not even us atheists can agree on what the definition should be. Since theists are those who believe in a god, I use the term atheist as those who lack a belief in a god. There are some atheists who use the term to mean an active denial of the existence of God, and also those who claim to know that God does not exist. Since “God” could mean almost anything (for example some people say the universe is God), it is impossible to disprove that any god exists. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that you know the Christian god does not exist if you think the evidence points very heavily in that direction, just as some people say they know that the sky is blue (despite the ability to prove with 100% certainty that it is blue).

There were 70,000 eye witnesses to the miracle of the “dancing sun” at Fatima by believers and non believers. Yet many non-believers who saw it insist it was mass hysteria and refused to believe their own eyes.

James

I don’t think that “mass hysteria” is the best natural explanation for Fatima, but I do think that there is a plausible explanation. I do not want to highjack this thread by getting too deep into Fatima, but I will try to start a thread on it at some point so I can explain some possible natural explanations. But even if we could not figure out any natural way of explaining it does not mean that it is a miracle. I have read about too many mysteries that were seemingly inexplicable for a long time before a likely explanation arose (for example: the Dyatlov Pass Incident or the Bermuda Triangle). Considering how long humans have been around and our limited knowledge, it would actually be really weird if there were never any events that we had trouble explaining (regardless of whether there was a god).

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I don’t know what particular argument or arguments you are referring to, but I have been examining arguments for the existence of God from top Christian and Catholic apologists and theologians. I have looked at the ones that they find most convincing, and do not think any of them show that Christianity is probably true. But you could similarly argue that few Christians want to carefully examine the atheist arguments, both those that refute Christian arguments, and those that give evidence that the Christian god’s existence is improbably.

It is not that few atheists want to unearth the pearl, it is that we believe that there is no “pearl”. A lot of people do not want to waste their time searching for something they are confident does not exist unless they enjoy theological debate and digging deep into philosophical issues as I do.

I did not want to display the argument unless you were still around and expressed an interest.

Here is the first one:

Hundreds of years befire the crucifixion of Christ by the Romans, Genesis 3 foreshadows the crucifixion…

God says to the Satan serpent, “15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head [when the cross pierces the dust at ‘Skull Place,’ get it?], while you strike at his heel [when the nails pierce his feet, get it?].” Genesis 3:15.

It seems highly unlikely that this could have occurred in the Jewish books of the Bible unless there is a God.

 

[CentralFLJames]

First of all I disagree that it takes faith to be an atheist. But second of all, you speak of faith as if it were a bad thing. As a Catholic, I assume that you think that faith is a positive trait, you just think atheists have faith in the wrong thing. But I think it is inappropriate to say atheists are arrogant to say that there is no god. I could similarly say that you are arrogant for claiming to know that God exists and for thinking you can know all these very specific traits of something that is unknowable. I don’t say things like that because I think it is needlessly rude. We all have to interpret the evidence we’ve seen, and just because atheists interpret that evidence in a way that leads us to a different conclusion than you does not make us arrogant.

Who calibrated your atheistic moral compass to be able to label anything as “bad” or “good”? What is good and what is bad if there is no God and no evil and no concept of objective truth?

What makes you think an atheist is even capable of conversing in the same semantic with Christians when the only absolute you will acknowledge is the unipolar condition of no God and perhaps the certainty of taxes and death? I am clueless how you came up with the idea that I think faith is “bad”? What I intended to demonstrate is that we all have faith in others or else ourselves to some “epsilon” of reasonableness. Reject the possibility for the benefit of the doubt and one makes themselves God.

If you don’t like my choice of words in calling atheists “arrogant” for their implicit assumption of infallability in forensically declaring God non-existent please do get over it. You can try to say that I am the same thing for belief in God but the reason why the charge won’t stick coming my way is unlike you and atheists in general I do so from a certainty of my own fallibility not from an assumption of infallability. And besides, just what the hell difference does it make if the word has positive or negative connotation to me or you if there is no eternal consequence to it and there is no concept of objective truth? Who gets to decide who’s judgement is proper in these choice of words? – it can’t be God since you insist He is not really here. Does a majority rule define “truth” or should it be you or me? Without God it comes down to rhetoric or brute force or peer pressure - sounds like mob rule to me and that is probably “bad” for an atheist…

I think part of the reason why you think atheists have faith is you misunderstand what atheism is. I can’t blame you, because not even us atheists can agree on what the definition should be. Since theists are those who believe in a god, I use the term atheist as those who lack a belief in a god. There are some atheists who use the term to mean an active denial of the existence of God, and also those who claim to know that God does not exist. Since “God” could mean almost anything (for example some people say the universe is God), it is impossible to disprove that any god exists. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that you know the Christian god does not exist if you think the evidence points very heavily in that direction, just as some people say they know that the sky is blue (despite the ability to prove with 100% certainty that it is blue).

We agree atheists do not know what an “atheist” is and therefor do not know what they are talking about. If we could get them to take that admission of fallibility to heart we could move them up the food chain to be just agnostics. But do expand on how we can have evidence for the lack of a thing that either does not exist in actuality or exists but is not discernable directly through normal sensory means? How odd that know one has yet to figure out how to create something out of nothing like God has though – not even forensic evidence that proves God does not exist.

If the sky is blue to you - define blue to a blind man and prove it to him…

I don’t think that “mass hysteria” is the best natural explanation for Fatima, but I do think that there is a plausible explanation. I do not want to highjack this thread by getting too deep into Fatima, but I will try to start a thread on it at some point so I can explain some possible natural explanations. But even if we could not figure out any natural way of explaining it does not mean that it is a miracle. I have read about too many mysteries that were seemingly inexplicable for a long time before a likely explanation arose (for example: the Dyatlov Pass Incident or the Bermuda Triangle). Considering how long humans have been around and our limited knowledge, it would actually be really weird if there were never any events that we had trouble explaining (regardless of whether there was a god).

Hmmm, the why not consider that perhaps our limited knowledge will someday be capable of proving God exists. Now wouldn’t that be a miracle too?

James

 

[Plato34]

I did not want to display the argument unless you were still around and expressed an interest.

Here is the first one:

Hundreds of years befire the crucifixion of Christ by the Romans, Genesis 3 foreshadows the crucifixion…

God says to the Satan serpent, “15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head [when the cross pierces the dust at ‘Skull Place,’ get it?], while you strike at his heel [when the nails pierce his feet, get it?].” Genesis 3:15.

It seems highly unlikely that this could have occurred in the Jewish books of the Bible unless there is a God.

I don’t think that is even close to an argument. There are way too many uncertainties in that. It’s like when literary critics apply meaning to a meaningless aspect of a novel. It is not directly implied. Authors sometimes even public say they didn’t mean that. Even if it is interesting. Also crucifixion was a common means of execution in Roman times, countless others were crucified how do you know none of them was Christ just no one wrote about it. And the world had thousands of years to produce a crucifixion like the one the old testament “predicted.” If anything it is probable that that would happen.

 

[Plato34]

Also when I started the thread i feel like i sounded pompous. I’m not pompous, just so you know.

 

[Ocarm]

If belief in God is someone’s core belief, then it is impossible to disprove. If evidence contradicted your belief, you would always say that the evidence must be wrong, regardless of how reliable it was. If you start from the position that God definitely exists, then no disproof will persuade you.

Does that make believers any different to atheists, friend? And yes, I’m aware that you didn’t say they were. Just checking.

I think, very obviously, that we have an epistemological problem here, and without getting all philosophical and pedantic (I’m certainly not a philosopher, although sadly, I may be a pedant) we’d need to establish what ‘proof’ is (or God is, for that matter) before we can go any further. And we not only need to define our terms, but also need to make a statement as to our own epistemological position before a valid discussion can take place. Arguing with a positivist is quite different to arguing with a moderate realist, for instance.

That may sound like a load of verbiage (probably because that’s precisely what it is) but my point is that whether the argument takes place here on CAF, or elsewhere in the blogosphere, or on TV, or on the bestsellers list, it won’t get anywhere if those involved don’t have a common starting place. Trying to 'prove; something to someone who doesn’t believe that anything can be known with absolute certainty, for instance, would be a majorly fruitless task.

With all that said, I think it’s something of a false premise to pursue proving God’s existence. What I think is more useful as an initial debate, is to question whether the existence of God is a reasonable belief - reasonable, not definite, not well-defined, not viewed through the lens of a particular religion, not even accepted as a given. If agreement can be reached that it is not unreasonable to believe that a God might exist, even if one doesn’t subscribe to the belief oneself, then you can start to pursue more detailed arguments. But if you can’t even establish that most basic possibility, then any further discussion is futile.

I think this kind of blind alley debate happens a lot - fundamentalist theists look to revelation as proof, and fundamentalist atheists look to science as disproof. Neither stance addresses the actual possibility/probability of God’s existence, merely the empirical data that fits their concept of what God would be like. Saying that I believe that scripture is inspired is one thing. Screaming hysterically at someone and telling them that they must be stupid because they don’t agree is another thing altogether, and is neither Christian nor intellectually honest.

This may sound odd coming from a Catholic, but my point here isn’t about establishing whether God exists or not, because of course I’m clear about that. I’m saying that even if only as an academic exercise, it’s useful to examine the nature of our beliefs, because this informs our faith. And acknowledging the limits of what we know, and as theists coming to understand better the mystery of why God chooses to reveal Himself to us, may help to make us humble rather than arrogant. Faith is a gift, not a reward for good behaviour; and thinking that we can arrive at a relationship with God by intellectual debate borders on Pelagianism. We don’t become good Christians by being cleverer than those pesky atheists.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Who calibrated your atheistic moral compass to be able to label anything as “bad” or “good”? What is good and what is bad if there is no God and no evil and no concept of objective truth?

Well I guess that depends on how you define good and bad. If you define good and bad only as that which pleases or displeases God, then I agree that without God there would be no good and bad. However, I think that when most people use the terms they mean that which makes things better or worse off, things that help and things that harm. I use reason in order to determine which actions are good and which are bad. You have to understand that atheism itself does not provide any moral guidance whatsoever (it consists only of a lack of belief in God). So atheists still have to try to determine which moral system is correct. Personally, I think that the correct moral system is some form of utilitarianism. I am currently exploring a couple different types of utilitarianism to see which are most rational.

And yes, if evil only means that which displeases God, I think there is no such thing as evil. But there is certainly plenty of pain and suffering in the world, and in that sense there is plenty of evil. I also think it is very problematic to define good as that which is pleasing to God. Some people have been certain that God told them to kill their kids and felt certain that their actions were good. Some may say that they must have had mental problems and that God would never command something like that. However, there is some evidence in the Old Testament (Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15) that God has in the past commanded people to commit mass murder. My point here is not to say that God is evil. My point is to say that if you believe that morality derives solely from God then you have no way to condemn someone’s actions as evil if they think they were commanded to do them by God because there is a chance that God could have commanded them to do the things they did and in that case their actions were good. Now as a Catholic, you do not have to adopt the problematic position that morality is whatever God says it is and can instead take the position that good and evil exist independently of God, but God approves of that which is good and disapproves of that which is evil. However, in this case, you are accepting that good and evil could exist independently of God. I do not claim to have infallible knowledge of what is good and what is evil, however I use my reason to determine what helps people and what causes them pain. Although my reason is fallible, it has so far proven to be accurate more often than not, and it is all I have.

And yes, there is objective truth. For example, the law of non-contradiction is objectively true.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What makes you think an atheist is even capable of conversing in the same semantic with Christians when the only absolute you will acknowledge is the unipolar condition of no God and perhaps the certainty of taxes and death?

What makes you think I am not?

I am clueless how you came up with the idea that I think faith is “bad”? What I intended to demonstrate is that we all have faith in others or else ourselves to some “epsilon” of reasonableness.

You entirely missed my point. I know you don’t see faith as a bad thing. However, I find it hard to interpret your comment “It takes a lot of faith or arrogance to be an atheist,” as complementing atheists for potentially possessing a positive character trait: faith. Instead it seems as if you are trying to attack atheists by criticizing them for having something which you believe is good. Also, I explained why atheism does not require faith. Since you did not refute my explanation, I assume that you now agree that atheism does not require faith and will no longer say it does. However, if you still think it requires faith, I would love to know why you think it does.

Reject the possibility for the benefit of the doubt and one makes themselves God.

Please explain how believing God does not exist makes one their own God. This just seems blatantly false. However, if rejecting God makes one God, I would like to know. There are a lot of godlike powers that I think it would be really cool to have.

If you don’t like my choice of words in calling atheists “arrogant” for their implicit assumption of infallibility in forensically declaring God non-existent please do get over it.

Don’t worry; I am not one who is easily offended.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You can try to say that I am the same thing for belief in God but the reason why the charge won’t stick coming my way is unlike you and atheists in general I do so from a certainty of my own fallibility not from an assumption of infallability.

I most definitely do not assume that I am infallible. In fact, my own fallibility is one of the things I am most certain of.

And besides, just what the hell difference does it make if the word has positive or negative connotation to me or you if there is no eternal consequence to it and there is no concept of objective truth?

Difference to whom? Certainly if we’re having a conversation, the words that we use make a difference to us. But your implicit assumption is all that matters or could possibly matter is that God gets what he wants. I, however, think that what happens to me matters a lot not because of a god, but because this is the only life I have and I want to be able to get the most out of it.

Who gets to decide who’s judgement is proper in these choice of words? – it can’t be God since you insist He is not really here. Does a majority rule define “truth” or should it be you or me? Without God it comes down to rhetoric or brute force or peer pressure - sounds like mob rule to me and that is probably “bad” for an atheist…

Truth is not defined by majority rule. A rock is a rock even if we all think it is a dragon. However, our knowledge of truth is imperfect. We all consider the evidence and make the best guess we can about what is true. Some of us will reach different conclusions than others.

We agree atheists do not know what an “atheist” is and therefor do not know what they are talking about.

I also think we would both agree that not all Christians agree about who is and is not a true Christian. Certain Christians often accuse other Christians of not being Christian. So by your logic, Christians do not know what they are talking about. So I guess I should never trust what Christians say since they have no idea what they’re talking about.

If we could get them to take that admission of fallibility to heart we could move them up the food chain to be just agnostics.

First of all, I consider myself an atheist agnostic, as do a lot of atheists I know. I recommend you take a look at this post to see what I mean: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5195006&highlight=agnostic#post5195006. Second of all, you also admit to being fallible, so by your definition, you must be an agnostic. If you actually mean what you say, I expect you to now refer to yourself as either an agnostic or an agnostic Catholic.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But do expand on how we can have evidence for the lack of a thing that either does not exist in actuality or exists but is not discernable directly through normal sensory means?

I think the best evidence is that there is not a single valid argument that God probably exists. However, there is other evidence, such as the amount of suffering, certain types of suffering, and that there are lots of people, like myself, who would believe if they only had some reason too, such as a clear sign from God that he exists. He could easily tell all atheists that he exists and avoid torturing us eternally without interfering with free will (since we both know that there are a small number of people who believe in God but reject him because they don’t want to live under his rules). All of these are problems for a religion that views God as omnibenevolent. I would love to get into these in more detail, but my response has gone on far too long anyway. Once I have the time, I will try to start threads to explore some of these reasons for disbelief in more depth.

How odd that know one has yet to figure out how to create something out of nothing like God has though – not even forensic evidence that proves God does not exist.

I’m guessing that you’re trying to make the argument that God must exist because otherwise nothing must have caused something. There are several problems with this, one of which is that matter may very well have always existed.

If the sky is blue to you - define blue to a blind man and prove it to him…

Why would an omnibenevolent God make any of us blind to his existence and therefore condemn us to an eternity in hell?

Hmmm, the why not consider that perhaps our limited knowledge will someday be capable of proving God exists. Now wouldn’t that be a miracle too?

Well I don’t think you can prove anything with certainty. But it’s definitely possible that there will one day be evidence that shows God almost definitely exists. I would love to see it.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I don’t think that is even close to an argument. There are way too many uncertainties in that. It’s like when literary critics apply meaning to a meaningless aspect of a novel. It is not directly implied. Authors sometimes even public say they didn’t mean that. Even if it is interesting. Also crucifixion was a common means of execution in Roman times, countless others were crucified how do you know none of them was Christ just no one wrote about it. And the world had thousands of years to produce a crucifixion like the one the old testament “predicted.” If anything it is probable that that would happen.

Okay, here’s another one…

1 Some time after these events, God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, “Abraham!” “Ready!” he replied.
2 Then God said: "Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you."

“Moriah” is one of the hills of Jerusalem, where Christ was crucified.

** 3 Early the next morning Abraham saddled his donkey, took with him his son Isaac, and two of his servants as well, and with the wood that he had cut for the holocaust, set out for the place of which God had told him.
4 On the third day Abraham got sight of the place from afar.
5 Then he said to his servants: “Both of you stay here with the donkey, while the boy and I go on over yonder. We will worship and then come back to you.” **

Christ rode on a donkey/mule/a** to Jerusalem at the time of His messianic entry, just before His crucifixion.

** 6 Thereupon Abraham took the wood for the holocaust and laid it on his son Isaac’s shoulders, while he himself carried the fire and the knife.
7 As the two walked on together, Isaac spoke to his father Abraham. “Father!” he said. “Yes, son,” he replied. Isaac continued, “Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the holocaust?” **

Christ carried the wood of His Own sacrifice in Jerusalem, at the time of His crucifixion.

** 8 “Son,” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the sheep for the holocaust.” Then the two continued going forward. **

God Himself provided the victim on the cross – His Own Son.

** 9 When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar.
10 Then he reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.
11 But the LORD’S messenger called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered.
12 “Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the messenger. “Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.” **

Christ laid on the wood of His Own cross, to be nailed to it.

** 13 As Abraham looked about, he spied a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. So he went and took the ram and offered it up as a holocaust in place of his son.
14 Abraham named the site Yahweh-yireh; hence people now say, “On the mountain the LORD will see.” Genesis 22:1-14. **

The ram substituting-in for Isaac has its head in a thicket. So, just as Christ had a crown of thorns, the ram also has a “crown of bush.”

This is another picture of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Skeptics frequently complain, “But it’s VAGUE!!! Why isn’t it EXACT???!!!” Maybe because then the people NOT wanting Christ to appear to be the Messiah make sure that His death doesn’t fit the prophecy?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Does that make believers any different to atheists, friend? And yes, I’m aware that you didn’t say they were. Just checking.

Well equal in the sense that neither of us can prove that our position is true. One possible difference is that I adhere to a Spartan Meritocracy worldview (start with very few assumptions and revise them whenever evidence contradicts them). I’m not sure which worldview you adhere to, but I think most believers do not have a Spartan Meritocracy worldview. For various reasons, I think this is the better worldview, but for those who have a Baroque Monarchy or Spartan Monarchy worldview any reasons I could give would be disregarded. Sorry for being so technical, but you’re the one who got into epistemology.

I think, very obviously, that we have an epistemological problem here, and without getting all philosophical and pedantic (I’m certainly not a philosopher, although sadly, I may be a pedant) we’d need to establish what ‘proof’ is (or God is, for that matter) before we can go any further. And we not only need to define our terms, but also need to make a statement as to our own epistemological position before a valid discussion can take place. Arguing with a positivist is quite different to arguing with a moderate realist, for instance.

I don’t know all of the possible epistemological positions, so I don’t know how best to label myself. My position is that beyond things like the fact that I exist in some form, I do not think that any absolute proof is possible. However, in everyday life when I say proof I usually mean that the evidence is so strong that it is almost certain.

That may sound like a load of verbiage (probably because that’s precisely what it is) but my point is that whether the argument takes place here on CAF, or elsewhere in the blogosphere, or on TV, or on the bestsellers list, it won’t get anywhere if those involved don’t have a common starting place. Trying to 'prove; something to someone who doesn’t believe that anything can be known with absolute certainty, for instance, would be a majorly fruitless task.

Of course, and that’s why I think it’s unreasonable for atheists to ask for proof of the existence of God.

With all that said, I think it’s something of a false premise to pursue proving God’s existence. What I think is more useful as an initial debate, is to question whether the existence of God is a reasonable belief - reasonable, not definite, not well-defined, not viewed through the lens of a particular religion, not even accepted as a given. If agreement can be reached that it is not unreasonable to believe that a God might exist, even if one doesn’t subscribe to the belief oneself, then you can start to pursue more detailed arguments. But if you can’t even establish that most basic possibility, then any further discussion is futile.

That seems like a great starting place, but you still have to define God somewhat to even begin. If the universe or laws of nature could fall under your definition of “God”, then I believe in God and there’s no need for debate. I guess you really should define reasonable too. It’s pretty easy to get off track if people are using even slightly different definitions.

I think this kind of blind alley debate happens a lot - fundamentalist theists look to revelation as proof, and fundamentalist atheists look to science as disproof. Neither stance addresses the actual possibility/probability of God’s existence, merely the empirical data that fits their concept of what God would be like. Saying that I believe that scripture is inspired is one thing. Screaming hysterically at someone and telling them that they must be stupid because they don’t agree is another thing altogether, and is neither Christian nor intellectually honest.

I completely agree.