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

[abucs]

Hello Gorgias,

I would say that two ways that we are in contact with God is through the laws of creation and through prayer.

For the skeptic, they think of the laws of creation as something separate from God and therefore not a miracle. For a miracle they want something in addition to the laws of creation.

As the agnostic Jew Albert Einstein said, “there are two ways to live. As if everything is a miracle or if nothing is a miracle”.

For the Christian and the rise of science in our civilisation we think of the laws of creation as the laws of God. So Sir Isaac Newton, the English founder of Physics argued that it made more sense for God to set mathematical laws in nature for the Sun to obey rather than constantly will or directly move it across the sky. The idea that because we can map mathematically the Sun ‘move’ across the sky doesn’t negate it as a miracle. I think the skeptic tends to think incorrectly that it does.

That being said when we actually look closely at the laws of Creation we find that amazingly consciousness plays a part. So Eugene Wigner the 1963 winner for the Nobel prize for Physics said that he could not formulate his law (of quantum physics) without taking consciousness into account.

So if the laws of physics themselves have reference to consciousness a skeptic does not invalidate something being a miracle if they can show it follows scientific law.

What the skeptic in fact wants is a miracle outside of the regular physics law, which we consider itself to be a miracle.

But of course God set up this world as Sir Isaac Newton theorised through scientific law for a reason
one that it be rational
two that we will have to learn through experiencing cause and effect. and
three that we will be responsible for evolution as a community, deciding or not to follow God.

This comes back to Einstein’s quote about two ways to see the world. This ambiguity leaves it open for us to reject God if we should wish.

It is only in these last few decades we can see the special place consciousness plays in the laws of Creation which points strongly to a Creator, that is, God.

Because prayer is consciousness and the mundane laws of physics themselves take account of consciousness then it is quite reasonable to expect that prayer has an effect in our created world through the mundane laws of physics themselves and also from a transcendent Being we call God, who created these laws.

 

[Sophia]

I’ve never made the claim that Scripture alone is the only means that God has communicated with us.

Are there any more documents describing the communications from God? Which are allegedly inspired by God? (Whatever the word “inspired” happens to mean in this context.)

Unreasonable demand. For comparison: what “direct, physical evidence” do you have that Shakespeare wrote the literature attributed to him?

Whether it is true or not, it is totally irrelevant. No one bases his life on the assertion that Shakespeare is the actual author of the works attributed to him. (And there is the Marlovian theory of the ownership!) But, of course, IF you consider the existence of Shakespeare equally important to the existence of God… As I said before, the past does NOT COUNT. God is supposed to exist TODAY, so any evidence MUST be coming from the “here and now”. No avoidance is allowed. (Principle #2 is in effect.)

Nah… I’m just keeping us on-point and letting you get away with changing the subject when you’ve lost part of an argument.

What a weak excuse! (What argument did I lose???) Anything and everything the church teaches is “fair game” to be questioned. And since the demons and their alleged activities are an important part of that teaching, my demand to show them is rational, logical and reasonable. When we are done with it, the question of guardian angels will be presented. Your usual attempt to avoid the answer only shows your …

The result is always negative? How do you substantiate that claim?

The same way as I assert that there are no seven-headed fire-breathing dragons. If you disagree, just show me one, and I will concede. (Principle #1 is in effect.) You could present some well-devised, double-blind test to show that prayers “work” (in the sense that “you ask and you will be given” ) but that is problematic for you, since you would be “testing God” (which is a major no-no) and you would be using God as a vending machine (which is another no-no).

Since your memory is so short, I will bring this to your attention again:

Whether you stay or decide to move on, here are a few principles that you should keep in mind.

1. Absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence (though it is NOT a “proof”).
2. Hearsay is not evidence, even if it resides in a “holy book”.
3. The duck principle.

Ceterum censeo Gorgiam esse delendam!

 

[A_Really_Big_Cat]

Well, considering that due to the mechanics of logic, one cannot prove a negative, that would be impossible. This rule is in fact commonly used by radical atheists to say that believers have the burden of proof (the premise being that the initial state of humanity is non-belief), and if no proof can be found, then there is no reason to believe. But that ignores the virtue of faith, which is independent of empirical evidence. That’s not to say that there is no proof of God’s existence, however. That is of course what miracles are for.

 

[Gorgias]

Are there any more documents describing the communications from God? Which are allegedly inspired by God?

The Bible itself is a collection of documents, not a single book.

Whether it is true or not, it is totally irrelevant. No one bases his life on the assertion that Shakespeare is the actual author of the works attributed to him.

Doesn’t matter – the principle holds. If you’re unwilling to attribute authorship to anyone who isn’t alive (or anyone who hasn’t been alive recently), then it’s you who is stacking the deck and being unreasonable.

What a weak excuse! (What argument did I lose???) Anything and everything the church teaches is “fair game” to be questioned.

Nah… it’s pretty par for the course – you keep going off on tangents, either after you’ve played out your assertions or see that they’re playing out. I’m under no compulsion to ride that train…

Gorgias:

The same way as I assert that there are no seven-headed fire-breathing dragons.

By deflecting and not providing substance to your claims? Oh… got it.

Since your memory is so short, I will bring this to your attention again:

Whether you stay or decide to move on, here are a few principles that you should keep in mind.

1. Absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence (though it is NOT a “proof”).
2. Hearsay is not evidence, even if it resides in a “holy book”.
3. The duck principle.

1. You’ve mis-quoted. The quote is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
2. “Hearsay” is often admissible; you’ve been watching too many TV courtroom dramas.
3. The ‘duck principle’ is unscientific – at best, it says “I have no idea what I’m looking at, but I’m gonna call it a ‘duck’ because I have no conclusion to hold up.”

Ceterum censeo Gorgiam esse delendam!

LOL!
You realize that you’ve just said “yes, my goal is always, and irrelevantly, to say that Gorgias is wrong”, don’t you?

 

[Sophia]

The Bible itself is a collection of documents, not a single book.

What a surprise! The word “books” in Greek is “βιβλία” (every educated person should know that.) Is there any other “script” not contained in the “books” (Bible) that is inspired by God? Maybe the Apocrypha? Do you know how the “authentic” books were selected, and the others discarded? The process was a majority vote… Does not look like an inspiration.

Doesn’t matter – the principle holds. If you’re unwilling to attribute authorship to anyone who isn’t alive (or anyone who hasn’t been alive recently), then it’s you who is stacking the deck and being unreasonable.

The principle is that the more important the question is, the more stringent the requirement for substantiation we demand. Whether Caesar actually said “Alea iacta est”, is irrelevant. Whether Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon is also irrelevant. It does not matter if Napoleon actually proclaimed: “From the heights of these pyramids, forty centuries look down on us”. And it is not the “temporal nearness” that counts in examining the “hearsay”. Is that also “new” to you?

Nah… it’s pretty par for the course – you keep going off on tangents, either after you’ve played out your assertions or see that they’re playing out. I’m under no compulsion to ride that train…

It is the topic that you wish to avoid, because it proves you wrong. What about them demons? Their importance is that they refuted your basic stance - namely that the non-physical cannot be refuted by physical means. That is not a tangent. That is the central question.

1. You’ve mis-quoted. The quote is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
2. “Hearsay” is often admissible; you’ve been watching too many TV courtroom dramas.
3. The ‘duck principle’ is unscientific – at best, it says “I have no idea what I’m looking at, but I’m gonna call it a ‘duck’ because I have no conclusion to hold up.”

1. The quotation is correct. You might have been thinking about: “Absence of proof is not a proof of absence” - which would be correct. But evidence and proof are two separate entities. Are you aware of the difference?
2. Hearsay is never admitted in serious cases, only in minor, insignificant ones (usually in small claims court). And since the question of God’s existence is the most important one of all, it is most reasonable to demand real evidence (preferably overwhelming physical evidence), instead of hearsay. Of course “hearsay” should not even be introduced, since God is supposed to exist today.
3. You really don’t know what you speak of. The duck principle is the starting point or hypothesis of any and all investigations. If there is an actual argument which proves that the “seemingly” duck is really a crocodile, then in that case the hypothesis needs to be discarded. That is why the hypothesis can only be refuted. but never proven - in an inductive system (if you know what this means…).

Continued below…

 

[Sophia]

Continued from above…

You realize that you’ve just said “yes, my goal is always, and irrelevantly, to say that Gorgias is wrong”, don’t you?

Not really. It is again a misunderstanding on your part. It means that I am bored with your constant evading tactics, and I hope that you will have a change of heart, OR disappear. (Preferably the first, but I could live with the second, too.) The reason is that you do not admit when you are wrong. I would be delighted to have an honest conversation. But to get there you must come clean and realize that it is perfectly possible to substantiate or refute the claims about the non-physical by using physical means - due to the interface between the two realms. That would open the road to an honest conversation.

From this moment onward I will only point out which basic principle you violated. Of course the principles are inclusive, not exclusive. If (not when!) you will introduce new errors, those will be added to list. Simply because I am not interested in repeating all the arguments every time. Such a waste of time.

 

[Gorgias]

Is there any other “script” not contained in the “books” (Bible) that is inspired by God?

The Catholic Church holds that only the books in the canon of Scripture are inspired.

Maybe the Apocrypha?

‘Apocrypha’ is the term that non-Catholic Christians use to describe the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. Yes, the Catholic Church considers them to be both part of the canon of Scripture and inspired.

Do you know how the “authentic” books were selected, and the others discarded?

Actually, you’re omitting the most important part: the criteria by which books were raised for consideration as part of the canon. I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

The process was a majority vote… Does not look like an inspiration.

Actually, you’re conflating two distinct ideas: the canon of Scripture and the process of deciding which books are part of the canon. Christians – pretty unanimously! – would assert that the former is inspired and the latter is not. Catholics would put it a different way: Scripture is inspired (and inerrant), while the selection of the canon is authoritative (and infallibly defined).

And it is not the “temporal nearness ” that counts in examining the “hearsay”. Is that also “new” to you?

Nope. But, the suggestion that all second-person speech is ‘hearsay’ is new to me, since it’s not true.

But evidence and proof are two separate entities. Are you aware of the difference?

Oh, the irony is so rich I can’t stand it!

(You realize that you’re the one who keeps demanding empirical evidence as the sole standard of proof – as if there’s no difference – don’t you?!?)

Hearsay is never admitted in serious cases, only in minor, insignificant ones (usually in small claims court).

Actually, you’re mistaken. Google is your friend; try “hearsay evidence in criminal court.”

It is again a misunderstanding on your part. It means that I am bored with your constant evading tactics, and I hope that you will have a change of heart, OR disappear.

Oh. I get it. You don’t understand the historical context of your quote.

From this moment onward I will only point out which basic principle you violated.

I can supply that one for you easily enough: presumption of good-faith on the part of my interlocutor.

 

[Sophia]

Actually, you’re conflating two distinct ideas: the canon of Scripture and the process of deciding which books are part of the canon. Christians – pretty unanimously! – would assert that the former is inspired and the latter is not. Catholics would put it a different way: Scripture is inspired (and inerrant), while the selection of the canon is authoritative (and infallibly defined).

I especially like the phrase “pretty unanimously”. Is that supposed to be a “convincing argument”? I wonder what the words “inspired”, “inerrant” and “infallible” mean in this context? And what kind of evidence is provided for these assertions?

you’re the one who keeps demanding empirical evidence as the sole standard of proof – as if there’s no difference – don’t you?!?)

Why are you surprised? How do you gain information about the external, objective reality if not through your senses? Either directly or indirectly through the extension of the senses (microscope?). Before you bring up the testimony from others, just think for a second… where did those people get the information? Did they experience it themselves? Or did they get it from someone else? At the end of each chain of testimonies you will find either an empirical observation of the objective reality, or a work of fiction. For empirically obtained information you must provide empirically verifiable method to find out if the proposition is correct or not. By the way, even “revelation” follows this rule. The revelation happened in human language, using human sensory organs. Of course, if the end of this chain is sheer fiction, all bets are off.

Before someone jumps in, this principle is only applicable to the external, objective inductively discovered reality, not to the axiomatic, deductive systems.

You can read up here about the hearsay evidence:

Hearsay in United States law - Wikipedia

The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are often unreliable; such statements are often insincere, subject to flaws in memory and perception, or infected with errors in narration at the time they are given. Furthermore, someone testifying in court regarding another’s out-of-court statement may have misheard or misremembered that statement, in addition to possibly having misinterpreted the speaker’s sincerity, etc. The law therefore finds it necessary to subject this form of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value”.[2]

Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:

1. Assertions must be taken under oath
2. Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury)
3. Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.

And this excludes all the “testimonies” in the Bible. Strictly speaking the Bible does not qualify even as “hearsay” evidence, because it does not fulfill the requirements of such.

 

[steve-b]

How would Catholics react, and how would the Church react?

I can tell you if the reverse happened, I’d become a believer.

If the topic of the thread could happen, it would have already happened.

 

[Gorgias]

You can read up here about the hearsay evidence

And if this were a court of law, we could entertain your claim. It’s not. And so, the laws of evidence in American courts don’t apply. But hey… as a straw to grasp at, it was a good attempt.

 

[Sophia]

And if this were a court of law, we could entertain your claim. It’s not. And so, the laws of evidence in American courts don’t apply. But hey… as a straw to grasp at, it was a good attempt.

Why should we consider a less stringent form of evidence for the most important claim of all times? Anyhow, your attempt to bring in the American court system is not even a “good try” to derail the topic. It is just another “Gorgian” attempt to bring up an inapplicable objection. And you missed the last line of my post: “Strictly speaking, the evidence you try to use does not even qualify as hearsay…”.

God is supposed to exist today, here and now. God is supposed to interact with the physical realm - here and now - remember the “sustaining cause” argument. The catholic church maintains exorcists to discover and “fight” demons, so demanding fully empirical methods to substantiate God’s existence and his auxiliary attributes is well justified according to the church. Sorry, cannot reciprocate your “compliment”… it was not a good attempt. But this seems to be a good time to formulate another principle (which is so obvious that I did not even include it in the list)

1. The more important the claim is, the more stringent the evidence must be.

 

[Gorgias]

Why should we consider a less stringent form of evidence for the most important claim of all times ?

Because it’s not a court of law, and the types of evidence we have are, to a large extent, quite different than those one would expect to find in a courtroom. In other words, it’s an irrelevant standard.

Adopt an appropriate one – and make it stringent – but don’t say “'cause they use it in the courtroom, it’s applicable here”…!

 

[Sophia]

Because it’s not a court of law, and the types of evidence we have are, to a large extent, quite different than those one would expect to find in a courtroom. In other words, it’s an irrelevant standard.

As a matter of fact Elie Wiesel and his fellow prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp held an informal trial, where God was accused of violating his covenant with the Jews. The result was a conviction. So it is perfectly sensible to use the most stringent criteria even if the court proceedings are informal.

Adopt an appropriate one – and make it stringent – but don’t say “'cause they use it in the courtroom, it’s applicable here”…!

It is the job of the apologist to present the epistemological method they wish to use. Whether it is acceptable or not, can only be discussed when the method is presented. Since God and the angels and the demons all assumed to interact with the physical reality, the suggested method must take this assumption into consideration. The “interface” question is your most insurmountable problem.

You keep on sidestepping the issue that the evidence which is needed must be commensurate to the seriousness of the claim. And since there is nothing as reliable as the objective, physical evidence, don’t be surprised that this is what is demanded. (I am afraid that I must repeat: “this is not applicable in the axiomatic, deductive systems”.)

 

[Gorgias]

As a matter of fact Elie Wiesel and his fellow prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp held an informal trial, where God was accused of violating his covenant with the Jews. The result was a conviction. So it is perfectly sensible to use the most stringent criteria even if the court proceedings are informal.

sigh. If I didn’t know any better, I’d suspect you were trying to be obtuse on purpose, just to aggravate me.

In your example, they were explicitly attempting to put on a trial. That’s why they used courtroom standards and procedures.

Our discussion is not a trial. Therefore, courtroom procedures are inappropriate.

 

[ConstantLearner]

How would Catholics react, and how would the Church react?

I’ll ask you a question before I proceed: If you wanted a neighbor’s expensive jacket, would you consider it okay to murder him one night and take it, or do you think that murder would be wrong?

 

[ConstantLearner]

The Bible itself is a collection of documents, not a single book.

Quite true. It is a collection of books that tell the story of God’s interaction with the Jewish people. I think it’s important for atheists to explain how a “book,” written over a period of 1400-1500 years, by various authors, in various places, some who could not possibly have read what was written before, managed to write books that “hang together,” that form one coherent whole.

No atheist I’ve ever known has been able to explain that coherence.

 

[Sophia]

In your example, they were explicitly attempting to put on a trial. That’s why they used courtroom standards and procedures.

Our discussion is not a trial. Therefore, courtroom procedures are inappropriate.

You mean it is the formal declaration of the trial (even if the trial was informal!) which makes the procedure inappropriate? It does not matter if one wishes to substantiate a very important claim (the most important claim of all times), using the most reliable method? Outside a formal courtroom you can bring up anything you desire and declare it sufficient to substantiate your claim?

 

[ConstantLearner]

• Hearsay is never admitted in serious cases, only in minor, insignificant ones (usually in small claims court).

Oh, good grief!

You are saying a first-degree murder case is “small and insignificant?” Are you implying that Stacy Petersen’s life was so “inconsequential” Drew Petersen should have been tried in small claims court? After that faux pas, I’m afraid I can’t take anything you write seriously. I respect you as a person, yes, just not your arguments. The OJ Simpson case was decided largely on circumstantial evidence. Hardly a matter for “small claims.”

Loading…

content.time.com

And even if you were right, which you are not, this is a discussion, not a trial of any kind.

 

[Sophia]

Oh, good grief!

You totally misunderstood my point.

 

[Gorgias]

You mean it is the formal declaration of the trial (even if the trial was informal!) which makes the procedure inappropriate?

In a trial, you use courtroom procedure.

In an operating room, you use surgical procedures.

In other contexts, you use the appropriate relevant procedures.

It would be silly to suggest that you use courtroom procedure in an operating room, wouldn’t it? And yet, you want us to to take you seriously when you suggest that courtroom procedure is the appropriate procedure in a discussion of written data from antiquity. Uh… yeah.

You totally misunderstood my point.

No… @ConstantLearner completely understood it, just as I do.