Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[pnewton]

but can literally be proven through scientific experimentation with a control and treatment group.

Once again, this show why the reasoning of atheists is to be doubted. This casual, unscientific, and inaccurate use of the word “proven” is an indicate that the logic of such an argument is not to be trusted.

 

[Curious11]

Why, exactly? This isn’t an atheist point of view. I hope I don’t have to remind you, a Catholic, that the Catholic Church, as a historic patron and advancer of science, engaged in exactly kind the scientific experiments I described. This isn’t an atheist invention

 

[pnewton]

Unless one knows basics of logic, reasoning is simply going to end up flawed, or at minimum, untrustworthy. Knowing the difference between proof and evidence I would deem as essential, as would an understanding of how theories work.

 

[anon10271182]

Lack of knowledge of the basics of logic…lack of knowledge of Scripture…of theology (particularly Catholic / Thomistic theology)…of cosmology…of historicity…etc.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

all of His “inner circle” died for Him. And none gave Him up as a “fake” in order to save himself from torture and death.

Actually, historians dispute this.

Citation, please?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Exactly - things of our everyday experience have causes. The physical realities we experience are quite obviously contingent. That is, they didn’t have to exist.

But it is absolutely nonsensical and impossible for every single reality in ALL of existence to be like this. If every single reality were contingent – and therefore dependent on something outside of itself – then nothing could exist.

Why? Because this is equivalent to saying NO reality has existence by its own nature, but instead that everything merely receives existence. But this is absurd. Something that receives existence must receive existence from something outside of itself. So there must be a point where there is a reality that does not receive existence but merely IS. It has existence by its very nature: It is existence.

You seem to grant this when you say “maybe the law of gravity has existed forever.”

In other words, you seem to say that some realities are not contingent. That’s a good start.

But it can’t be a “law,” for reasons people have already stated. A law is abstract and descriptive. It doesn’t exist in itself.

 

[Curious11]

I honestly don’t know. No one does. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I just want you to see the incoherence in saying that “everything has a cause.”

Not all atheists even believe that. They would instead posit some physical reality as the ultimate cause (e.g., “matter,” or “a subatomic particle,” etc.).

I started this whole convo on the contingency argument because you said there is no proof for God. And there is indeed no empirical proof, because God is not an object of time and space to be empirically observed.

But if we grant that not everything has a cause, we can start with a metaphysical proof: What is the nature of a reality that is non-contingent, that is, it exists of its own nature? Can there be more than one? Can it be physical and have any sort of parts or restrictions?

This is the dialogue I hope we can come to. I am a newbie with this kind of philosophical language, and others on CAF know it better. But there are solid metaphysical proofs – proofs grounded in logic, experience, and reason – that neatly lead to the existence of One Source of all things, who is purely simple and not a part of physical reality. That is the very basis of what Catholics and others call “God.”

 

[Curious11]

We’re going into uncharted territory with no map and no GPS

 

[catholic1seeks]

I highly recommend you look over this. Start from here, and let me know what you think:

Loading…

strangenotions.com

I also recommend Ed Feser’s book “Five Proofs for the Existence of God.”

If you are actually interested in exploring God’s existence, and if you want to know the best metaphysical arguments out there, I highly recommend it.

And I recommend Fr. Robert Spitzer’s work.

 

[catholic1seeks]

From the above link:

The problem is that such “god of the gaps” arguments are not representative of traditional or classical theism as embodied in the Catholic Tradition. Many classical philosophers would agree with atheists in rejecting such “god of the gaps” arguments and view them as unworthy of being classified as an argument for God’s existence.

The arguments used by classical theists arrive at what is traditionally defined as “God” by logical necessity, not probability. God is seen as that which is metaphysically necessary to coherently and intelligibly account for the very existence of things within the universe and the universe as a whole.

 

[Sophia]

First of all, you still try to change the subject. It deals with the “soul”, not God. But what the heck.

If you can come up with a method to predict where and when God will manifest empirically measurable phenomena, then you have a case. If you cannot come up with such a method, then a lack of measurements does not prove the null hypothesis.

That is YOUR problem, not mine. Why should I help you to solve your problem? The skeptic only HAS to be willing to examine YOUR suggested epistemology, but NOT helping to develop it. Just like I am not interested in helping out the astrologers or the proponents of the paranormal. The ball is firmly in your court. Denying it will not help you, it will only affirm your intellectual dishonesty.

But what the heck. I am in a good mood, so I will help you. There is the practice of humans to open the interface to God, by issuing some intercessory or supplicatory prayer (but not a meditative one). This interface is opened by the believers millions of times every day. God participates in the interface by granting or refusing the request. If the request is granted, then we have a positive result. If the request is “denied”, we have a negative result. It works exactly like the method used by the pharmaceutical companies to find out if the new medication is effective or not.

If there is a statistically significant positive result, (measurable by some chi-square (χ2) analysis), then you will have a tentative positive result. Unfortunately for you, the tests always show that there is no significant positive outcome, so you are “out of luck”. Of course it is possible that God volitionally and purposfully distorts the result, so he can stay hidden. That is the method what con-artists like to use, “cheat until you die”.

It’s the same epistemology that science uses – I engage the evidence at hand and make a reasoned decision as to whether I accept it as truth.

Ah, so you wish to use the scientific method to substantiate God? Up until now you were adamantly against using the scientific method in examining the “non-physical” realm. That is a surprise! What made you to have a 180 turn around?

But I am cool with it. Hopefully you are familiar with the scientific method, because it is a tad more complicated than you said. Namely, setting up the null-hypothesis, testing, measuring, comparing the result with the prediction. Is that what you have in mind?

You talk about “evidence”. Is that evidence repeatable, objective and reliable? Or is it subjective and hearsay? The only repeatable and objective way to “measure” God is the examination of prayers and their efficacy. I suggested it above.

I did? I think I’d say that it is the intellect, specifically.

Fine by me. What is that intellect? Is it the working of the mind? Or the soul?

 

[anon10271182]

Yes, these are all excellent “charts!” As is Sacred Scripture itself, the Summa Theologica, the Summa Contra Gentiles, the current Catechism, the Catechism of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of St. Pius X…
I’ll also add “Reasonable Faith” by the Evangelical Dr. William Lane Craig, for which a background in physics and cosmology is helpful but not required.

Yes, there are many such “charts,” Deo gratias!

 

[Wesrock]

Well, skeptics do have a responsibility to avoid begging the question. That is, assuming something contrary to the argument to be true and using that as evidence without actually providing justification for their assumption or demonstrating the argument false.

 

[Gorgias]

That is YOUR problem, not mine. Why should I help you to solve your problem?

It’s not my problem. You’re the one who wants to claim that we can only prove God’s existence by measuring His interactions with the universe.

The skeptic only HAS to be willing to examine YOUR suggested epistemology, but NOT helping to develop it.

Actually, you examined it and tried to respond that a lack of empirical observation tanks the epistemology. So much for “just examine”, eh?

 

[Gorgias]

There is the practice of humans to open the interface to God, by issuing some intercessory or supplicatory prayer (but not a meditative one). This interface is opened by the believers millions of times every day. God participates in the interface by granting or refusing the request. If the request is granted, then we have a positive result. If the request is “denied”, we have a negative result. It works exactly like the method used by the pharmaceutical companies to find out if the new medication is effective or not.

Nope. You mischaracterize prayer. Worse yet, you exclude meditative prayer a priori (I suspect, since that would show the error in your thought experiment about prayer).

Prayer isn’t about how many ‘miracles’ result. Prayer is about drawing closer to God.

Ah, so you wish to use the scientific method to substantiate God? Up until now you were adamantly against using the scientific method in examining the “non-physical” realm. That is a surprise! What made you to have a 180 turn around?

I didn’t. We’re talking epistemological method, not scientific method. The two are distinct – although they both rely on reason.

Is that what you have in mind?

Nope. Not the ‘scientific method’. That’s what you wish for believers to adopt as the standard, and we’re not biting.

 

[anon10271182]

You’re asking for skeptics to give up a favorite tactic though–along with their straw man arguments, circular “reasoning,” avoidance of logic, snarky and infantile comparisons of Christian faith with belief in the Easter Bunny, etc.

One nice thing though–despite their diabolical efforts through the years here on CAF, the utter lack of substance of their arguments and the transparency of their agenda only serve to strengthen the faith of true believers. God does bring good out of evil. Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

 

[Sophia]

It’s not my problem. You’re the one who wants to claim that we can only prove God’s existence by measuring His interactions with the universe.

Yep, that is the “interface problem”. You asserted that it is irrational to expect empirical evidence for a non-physical being. So I showed that it is perfectly rational IF the non-physical being interacts with our physical reality. I even gave you an example of the “interface”, which can be measured. You are welcome to present your version.

Actually, you examined it and tried to respond that a lack of empirical observation tanks the epistemology.

There was nothing to examine, since I am still waiting for your epistemology.

Nope. You mischaracterize prayer. Worse yet, you exclude meditative prayer a priori (I suspect, since that would show the error in your thought experiment about prayer).

Prayer isn’t about how many ‘miracles’ result. Prayer is about drawing closer to God.

Meditative prayer is not measurable. Intercessory or supplicatory prayers ARE measurable, and they do not support your assertion - that is why you wish to exclude them. Of course any prayer can be both. I have no problem with meditative prayers, those are simply useless for establishing God’s existence.

I didn’t. We’re talking epistemological method, not scientific method. The two are distinct – although they both rely on reason.

Backpedaling again, eh? I keep asking what is your suggested epistemological method. Your own words were “It’s the same epistemology that science uses – I engage the evidence at hand and make a reasoned decision as to whether I accept it as truth.” Yes, sure. It is an excellent example of equivocation or circumlocution. The detailed epistemology of chemistry is not the same as the detailed epistemology of biology. What is your detailed epistemology for finding out God’s existence? The epistemology for theology, or angelology or demonology? As they say: “God is in the details” (or “the devil is in the details”) Isn’t it strange that God and the devil are interchangeable in this context?

I hate the fact that I must repeat this every time, but you cannot be trusted to recall (or not distort) it: “Any and all methods are accepted, as long as they are objective, measurable, repeatable and one is not required to accept your conclusions a priori.” The methods are not restricted to litmus paper and its equivalents. So, let’s hear your epistemological method to establish God’s existence. And after that is done, you can try to establish the existence of a “soul”.

 

[Gorgias]

I even gave you an example of the “interface”, which can be measured.

And I’m cool with that notion. However, unless you can demonstrate a method for observing the interface, then this notion is unable to reach a null hypothesis.

There was nothing to examine, since I am still waiting for your epistemology.

I described it qualitatively: it’s the same epistemology that science uses. (And no, I’m not talking about the “scientific method” – I’m talking about the approach that says “investigate, think, reason, conclude.” We know truth in similar ways – even if we use different tools in various disciplines.)

Intercessory or supplicatory prayers ARE measurable, and they do not support your assertion - that is why you wish to exclude them

Oh, you can use them… but not in the way you wish to use them. Prayer isn’t a slot machine. You’re treating it as if it were. That’s why your approach doesn’t work.

The detailed epistemology of chemistry is not the same as the detailed epistemology of biology.

You’re using the term ‘epistemology’ to mean something completely different, I’m afraid. You’re talking about methods to arrive at conclusions, not how we know that something is true.

 

[Sophia]

And I’m cool with that notion. However, unless you can demonstrate a method for observing the interface, then this notion is unable to reach a null hypothesis.

That is where your job starts. I gave you a possible solution, which you don’t like, because it contradicts your null-hypothesis. So present your method. I am willing to listen.

I described it qualitatively: it’s the same epistemology that science uses. (And no, I’m not talking about the “scientific method” – I’m talking about the approach that says “investigate, think, reason, conclude.” We know truth in similar ways – even if we use different tools in various disciplines.)

Qualitative does not help. And what you described IS the scientific method. How would you investigate without observation, experimentation (measurement), reason and conclusion? How does it work in different disciplines is what “fills up” the empty, abstract principle with “meat”. And that is what I have been asking many times. How does the theology, angelology, demonology perform the “investigation”? The devil is STILL in the details.

Oh, you can use them… but not in the way you wish to use them. Prayer isn’t a slot machine. You’re treating it as if it were. That’s why your approach doesn’t work.

Intercessory and supplicatory prayers are “slot machines”. And it is not I who uses them as such, it is all the millions of believers who do it. And they are the ones who proclaim: “I lost my car keys, I prayed to find them, and lo-and-behold I found them in my pocket. Praise the Lord!”. If you don’t like the car keys, substitute them with having a miraculous recovery.

But I am not dogmatic, you are welcome to present your favorite “specific” method of “investigate”. Because that is the important part.

You’re using the term ‘epistemology’ to mean something completely different, I’m afraid. You’re talking about methods to arrive at conclusions, not how we know that something is true.

I mean both of them, of course. The method you used: “investigate, think, reason, conclude” is the scientific method - in the ABSTRACT. You used the word: “investigate”. How do you investigate in the specific case?