Burden of Proof: Proving God's Existence or Non-Existence?

[Holocene]

One may say: "prove that god exists".

This may be followed by: "well, prove that god doesn't exist".

The real question is, which of the above questions is more appropriate to ask?

Is there even an answer? Is one more appropriate than the other?

My opinion is, yes, one of the above questions is wrong to ask.

All religion and all faith aside, there has yet to be found any definitive evidence for a god. Nothing that can be observed, even with our best scientific instruments, has even suggested the existence of a god.

It is therefore a fact that a claim that god exists is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims dictate the need for proof or evidence.

If I said I had the ability to levitate objects with my mind, you might ask to me to prove it. This would of course be a legitimate request, simply because science has yet to find any evidence for telekinesis.

Now, imagine that I responded by saying "hey, prove that I can't"!

Most would agree that this response is ridiculous, and does nothing to support my extraordinary claim.

With that in mind, it is my opinion that anyone who asks you for proof that god doesn’t exist, is not to be taken seriously at all.

Again, a claim that a god exists is, at the moment, an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Only when there is a lack of evidence will people resort to ridiculous counter-questions such as "prove me wrong".

The burden of proof should always lie with the person making the extraordinary claim.

Any opinions on this are welcome.

 

[marcflores]

Hmm, I can't remember the exact policy on threads like these but I hope it turns out to be good and that it doesn't get locked.

Anyway, I think the burden of proof always rests on the shoulders of the one who makes the claim. Of course, some would say that claiming there is no god is an extraordinary claim itself, but I disagree. To say there is no evidence that suggests there is a god is perfectly reasonable because the claim is true: there is no tangible and universal evidence accepted by all.

The problem with the challenge of proving there isn't a god or deity of any kind is the same problem we face when proving Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or magical space pixies don't exist. It's impossible to disprove the existence of something we don't have any evidence for. The major fallacy drawn by theists is that because we cannot prove a god does not exist, there must be one in existence.

 

[Smurf]

First, what is this 'god' that you're asking "does it exist?" of?

 

[AsianSensationK]

This argument is not without extra assumptions it seems.

Why should anyone demand extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims? That was never specified. In legal matters, burden of proof and the level of certainty required in a case have very specific justifications.

Is it enough to meet a "balance of probabilities" (aka preponderance of evidence")? Or should we be looking for certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

More importantly, if you're going to argue that we must demand one level of certainty over the other, you better be able to give reason as to why you're justified in your views. You're not talking about depriving a man of his freedom or life, so I don't see how anyone could possibly make the highest demands of this kind of claim. It's just too trivial a matter to everyday living.

 

[marcflores]

This argument is not without extra assumptions it seems.

Why should anyone demand extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims? That was never specified. In legal matters, burden of proof and the level of certainty required in a case have very specific justifications.

Is it enough to meet a "balance of probabilities" (aka preponderance of evidence")? Or should we be looking for certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

More importantly, if you're going to argue that we must demand one level of certainty over the other, you better be able to give reason as to why you're justified in your views. You're not talking about depriving a man of his freedom or life, so I don't see how anyone could possibly make the highest demands of this kind of claim. It's just too trivial a matter to everyday living.

In defense of the original poster:

Although nothing was specified in terms of claims and evidence, it was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Anyway, the rest of the argument is bunk. We cannot even begin to say whether evidence is enough for a balance of probabilities or it is enough to make one believe beyond a reasonable doubt... there is NO EVIDENCE to begin with! Any and all propositions or support for a powerful deity outside of ancient books and writings has always led to dead-ends.

I highly disagree that the belief in a god is a trivial matter. For the big three monotheistic religions, it is huge. Each individual religion believes it is the ultimate truth and are justifying all of their actions because of it. They believe their books hold the ultimate truth by virtue of the books saying so themselves. Anything, whether good or horrific, written in those books can cause a lot of damage in people's lives. I know we're not talking specifically of religion here; we're talking about the belief in a god. People can believe in god/s without subscribing to any particular religion or teachings, but when these beliefs are causing racism, murder, and hatred, it's hardly a trivial matter. When the Bible or the Koran is telling voters who are in turn telling legislators to ban abortion and discontinue stem cell research, it's hardly a trivial matter. When gay marriage is considered illegal, essentially impeding on the lives and the pursuit of happiness for certain individuals, it's not really a trivial matter.

The bottom line is there is no question about whether there is evidence in support of a god or a deity or multiple gods and deities. None whatsoever. Most of the "evidence" proposed is either misleading, disingenuous, or a blatant lie. I've heard it all from scientists like Frank Tipler to random people on the street who say, "Every morning I see the beauty of the sky and of creation and this for me is evidence of a God." Hardly compelling.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Oh really. Religions cause racism, murder, and war, as compared to what? Desire for money, power, and control? There's a terribly flimsy link between religious belief and the intent to commit reprehensible acts and atrocities, yet somehow it still works it's way into a thread like this, one which places high demands on proof. Please, provide some evidence rather than vague speculation.

And I really didn't say anything about whether or not any evidence could be presented. I just asked what kind of ground rules are being put in place in a discussion like this. There's still plenty of subjectivity in a statement like extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think it places an artificially high standard on what beliefs are reasonable for people to hold.

Also, I would say we shouldn't confuse a lack of compelling evidence with no evidence. They're not the same thing. If you wanted to argue that the evidence presented by most theists doesn't really make their explanation of events likely, I'd agree with that.

When the Bible or the Koran is telling voters who are in turn telling legislators to ban abortion and discontinue stem cell research, it's hardly a trivial matter. When gay marriage is considered illegal, essentially impeding on the lives and the pursuit of happiness for certain individuals, it's not really a trivial matter.

These are really less severe than what you seemed to imply earlier.

Abortion (and stem-cell research) can be objected to on moral grounds independent of religion and go far beyond the scope of the thread. Gay marriage being banned in most American states probably is a result religious morality, but eh, I really don't see how one who believes in God necessarily finds homosexuality immoral. It's fine if you want to argue that it makes the God question relevant.

Still, it doesn't seem like this is enough to affect the basic question of what kinds of demands you're going to place on belief in God. All this might really prove is that we have reason for limiting the political power of religious bodies.

 

[marcflores]

Yes, really. Religions have caused racism, murders, and war for centuries. People, especially religious people, are always so quick to blame human nature. I'll agree to some extent that the desire for money, power, and control plays a significant role in human atrocities, but what was the best tool for men to gain such things? Religion. For hundreds of years, the Catholic church used their power and authority over people to decide who has power and how wealth is distributed. The inquisitions led to the deaths of many innocent people. Adolf Hitler himself, who many claim was an atheist, can be quoted several times in saying he was "doing the work of God."

The link between religion and atrocity is hardly a flimsy one. Take the current state of Islamic fundamentalism. If it weren't for the mandated death of infidels, we wouldn't have had the disaster of 9/11. If it weren't for the rights of women taken away by books like the Bible and the Koran, we wouldn't have pregnant mothers having their bellies sliced open and their unborn children skewered on the ends of swords (yes, this sort of thing is still going on in the Middle East.)

What about the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for writing a fictional book which was somehow "offensive" to Muslims? Publishers and translators were shot and hunted along with Rushdie himself.

Again, going back to the desire for power, money, and control can be argued as Nietzsche argued against religion: Religion is the engine for the power hungry and the greedy to take control of the people.

To say the link between religion and horror is flimsy is frankly a statement from ignorance. History tells us that millions of deaths and murders were in the name of some god or religion. Thousands to this day are oppressed in the name of some god or religion.

I was born and raised a Christian and have done my fair share of study on religious history. However, like any wise person I questioned my beliefs in order to justify and confirm them. Naturally, it led me to atheism. The problem is people never get to the stage of questioning their beliefs because most religions teach them not to. I am highly against that. I am against telling people they are being blasphemous for questioning their beliefs... often these beliefs constitute the foundations of their lives. I am against telling them it is a sin of any kind.

Again, you are asking us to, "Please, provide some evidence rather than vague speculation." Evidence for what? The burden of proof lies with the ones who claim there is a god. If you're asking for evidence of the link between religion and human atrocities, I can make full citations here by tomorrow.

Here's what this thread boils down to: Who has the burden of proof? One person says, "Prove that God exists." Another says, "Prove to me God doesn't exist." There are no ground rules on what is clearly an argumentative fallacy in the latter statement, "Prove to me God doesn't exist." The standard isn't artificially high because this is a matter that is black or white and has no gray area. Either it can be proved, or it can't.

We can't "prove" the Big Bang actually happened. No one was there to witness it. Even some of the more compelling and considerable evidence for it now is still being questioned. However, the evidence proposed for the Big Bang is more credible than evidence proposed for a god because it isn't guilty of begging the question. Physical observations led to the theory of the Big Bang, whereas the supposed a priori knowledge of a god has led people to search for evidence or twist it to suit their theory.

 

[wuliheron]

I don't find either question to be very meaningful. Considering the nature of a god I can not imagine how one would go about proving or disproving their existence. As far as the social merit of religion, it is not alone in its detrimental effects on humanity. If people didn't have religion they'd use philosophy and if people wish to be irrational no one can stop them.

 

[marcflores]

I don't find either question to be very meaningful. Considering the nature of a god I can not imagine how one would go about proving or disproving their existence. As far as the social merit of religion, it is not alone in its detrimental effects on humanity. If people didn't have religion they'd use philosophy and if people wish to be irrational no one can stop them.

One cannot consider the nature of a god without a source or preconceived notion of what a god is. Therefore, the questions are valid. Can an omnipotent being exist? Yes. Does one exist? So far the evidence points to none at all.

I don't people can use philosophy to be as irrational as religion. I can't see philosophy forbidding anyone to eat pork or meat on a certain day. I don't think philosophy alone is capable of killing or punishing women for not covering their faces. I don't think philosophy can tell someone that there is a paradise waiting for them, and if they kill people that deserve to die, they can take family and friends they choose to paradise with them, too. Philosophy doesn't create specific and arbitrary rules which turn out to be dogma.

 

[Moridin]

There is an infinite amount of things that science cannot disprove, such as pink invisible unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, goblins, trolls and so on, but that in turn does not mean that it is a valid reason to believe in it. The philosopher Bertrand Russell countered the 'Well, you cannot disprove it' argument about 100 years ago.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[marcflores]

Carl Sagan also has his own version of this teapot analogy with the "invisible floating dragon in the garage" story from his book, "Demon Haunted World."

 

[daveb]

One may say: "prove that god exists".

This may be followed by: "well, prove that god doesn't exist".

The real question is, which of the above questions is more appropriate to ask?

Is there even an answer? Is one more appropriate than the other?

My opinion is, yes, one of the above questions is wrong to ask.
All religion and all faith aside, there has yet to be found any definitive evidence for a god. Nothing that can be observed, even with our best scientific instruments, has even suggested the existence of a god.

It is therefore a fact that a claim that god exists is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims dictate the need for proof or evidence.

That all depends upon the context of which the question is being asked. For scientific claims, this is certainly true. However, the existence or nonexistence of a god is a matter of faith, not science. therefore, the axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is valid only for scientific claims. This is especially true because it is impossible for science to prove that something does not exist - only that it does exist. Or, more precisely in some instance, science can only prove that, given our current understanding of [the subject], it most likely exists. The nature of faith requires that an individual accept something extraordinary without proof 9otehrwise it's no longer faith).

With that in mind, it is my opinion that anyone who asks you for proof that god doesn’t exist, is not to be taken seriously at all.

Again, a claim that a god exists is, at the moment, an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Only when there is a lack of evidence will people resort to ridiculous counter-questions such as "prove me wrong".

The burden of proof should always lie with the person making the extraordinary claim.

Again, only if it is a scientific claim.

A few thoughts on this. First, there must be a distinction between the possible existence of a god and the associated religion. Unless there is proof of the existence of the deity in question, then the claims of the religion itself are subject to skepticism. A religion may state that their truth is absolute, but this doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore, I would think that a correct response to "Prove God does not exist" should be "That's impossible since it's a matter of faith, not science."

Second, as for the discussion about an omnipotent god, one could certainly exist. From a scientific standpoint, it is unlikely since their is no proof (and some would claim no preponderance of the evidence as well). However, froma faith based standpoint, one could certainly exist and nullify any attempt to prove its existence, being that it's omnipotent. In this case, not even logic could prove the non-existence of a go, since omnipotence implies it is not subject to the laws and axioms of logic.

Third, a rather interesting scientific position to take would be "If there is a god, then it is likely omnipotent and not subject to physical laws and constraints (including logic) since there is no corroberating evidence to support its existence. this does not mean there is a god, only that if there is one, it is probably omnipotent."

Remember, all science (and even logic) is predicated upon certain axioms (I'm not intimately familiar with Godel's proof, but I believe this is the paraphrased crux of his argument - that all systems require axioms that must be accepted as true, but these of themselves are not provable).

 

[Moridin]

Third, a rather interesting scientific position to take would be "If there is a god, then it is likely omnipotent and not subject to physical laws and constraints (including logic) since there is no corroberating evidence to support its existence. this does not mean there is a god, only that if there is one, it is probably omnipotent."

No, it is not a scientific position because it is not testable, repeatable or falsifiable. If you are going to argue that 'God' is above all laws, science and reason, you have the burden of evidence to show why that claim is relevant.

"Can 'God' create a stone heavier than he can lift it?" argument demolishes the concept of omnipotence.

Remember, all science (and even logic) is predicated upon certain axioms (I'm not intimately familiar with Godel's proof, but I believe this is the paraphrased crux of his argument - that all systems require axioms that must be accepted as true, but these of themselves are not provable).

Wrong.

Science is not a formal system, it has no formal and rigid axioms and no formal rigid means of inference. Science does not have any problems with contradicting earlier models. Therefore, the incompleteness theorem does not apply to science.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Yes, really. Religions have caused racism, murders, and war for centuries. People, especially religious people, are always so quick to blame human nature. I'll agree to some extent that the desire for money, power, and control plays a significant role in human atrocities, but what was the best tool for men to gain such things? Religion. For hundreds of years, the Catholic church used their power and authority over people to decide who has power and how wealth is distributed. The inquisitions led to the deaths of many innocent people. Adolf Hitler himself, who many claim was an atheist, can be quoted several times in saying he was "doing the work of God."

Kudos for bringing up Hitler and weakly trying to tie his anti-semitism to religion due to a couple of quotes no one cares to remember. This is in spite of the fact that his writings and speeches lead us to believe Hitler was deeply anti-capitalist, and that the Jews represented everything he despised about capitalism (they were the bankers and accountants after all). Hitler even hated the communists because he thought they were really Jewish capitalists in disguise. Wolves in sheeps clothing if you will. Tying Hitler's anti-semitism to religion...It's too wrong to even make any sense, and flies in the face of the history and rhetoric surrounding Hitler and his Socialist worker's party.

Anyway, we're getting too far away from what I was originally asking. Suppose I agreed that whether or not someone personally believed in the existence of God was "of the highest relevance to man", and a wrong verdict would be a "serious harm" to everyone. What then constitutes this extraordinary evidence that would be required to prove the existence of God? What would it have to look like to be satisfying?

 

[marcflores]

Kudos for bringing up Hitler and weakly trying to tie his anti-semitism to religion due to a couple of quotes no one cares to remember. This is in spite of the fact that his writings and speeches lead us to believe Hitler was deeply anti-capitalist, and that the Jews represented everything he despised about capitalism (they were the bankers and accountants after all). Hitler even hated the communists because he thought they were really Jewish capitalists in disguise. Wolves in sheeps clothing if you will. Tying Hitler to religion...It's too wrong to even make any sense, and flies in the face of the history and rhetoric surrounding Hitler and his Socialist worker's party.

Anyway, we're getting too far away from what I was originally asking. Suppose I agreed that whether or not someone personally believed in the existence of God was "of the highest relevance to man", and a wrong verdict would be a "serious harm" to everyone. What then constitutes this extraordinary evide"nce that would be required to prove the existence of God? What would it have to look like to be satisfying?

I'm sorry, but your retorts are almost laughable and you think that all of these ties are so weak.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

"In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people."

- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant

"What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing. ...May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people."

- Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, praising Adolf Hitler for the Concordat, July 24, 1933

HITLER WAS BELIEVED TO BE CHRIST!

"The word "German" is God's Word! Whosoever understands this is released from all theological conflicts. This is German: return home to Germany and leave behind egoism and your feelings of abandonment. ...Christ has come to us through the person of Adolf Hitler. ...Hitler has taken root in us; through his strength, through his honesty, his faith and his idealism we have found our way to paradise."

- Kirchenrat Leutheusser, addressing German Christians in Saalfeld, August 30, 1933









The list goes on and on, AsianSensationK. Maybe do a little research before showing careless denial.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Fine, fine. I'll admit it when I'm wrong. I never denied he was religious, but there may have been a strong religious influence pushing him into his anti-semitism. Those quotes don't actually prove that though, but reviewing volume one, chapter 2 there are a couple of passages in there were he sites a christian socialist movement which changed him, and his earlier slightly more tolerant views on the Jews.

Still, my real question goes unanswered. If extraordinary proof were presented in favor of the original proposition that God does exist, what must it look like if it is to be satisfying? What would constitute a proper "proof" of this proposition?

 

[marcflores]

That would be a question for the original poster. As far as I'm concerned, satisfying evidence or even extraordinary evidence would consist of observations or tangible items which can only be attributed to a powerful deity or an omnipotent God. I would have to say that the evidence would have to be exclusive to a god only so that it can't be correlated or confused with anything else. For example, creation cannot be sole evidence of a god because it could be the product of a big bang and cosmic and biological evolution. Therefore, any and all evidence presented would have to be closely limited to the notion of a god or an omnipotent being. Anything outside of that would be, in my opinion, erratic speculation.

 

[wuliheron]

One cannot consider the nature of a god without a source or preconceived notion of what a god is. Therefore, the questions are valid. Can an omnipotent being exist? Yes. Does one exist? So far the evidence points to none at all.

I don't people can use philosophy to be as irrational as religion. I can't see philosophy forbidding anyone to eat pork or meat on a certain day. I don't think philosophy alone is capable of killing or punishing women for not covering their faces. I don't think philosophy can tell someone that there is a paradise waiting for them, and if they kill people that deserve to die, they can take family and friends they choose to paradise with them, too. Philosophy doesn't create specific and arbitrary rules which turn out to be dogma.

What can I say, Stallan and Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions, suppressed sciences, and did any number of irrational things in the name of progress and moral superiority. Both were atheists. In the name of science and morality Skinner put his own infant daughter in a soundproof glass box under the stairs and would only play with her occasionally using the attached rubber gloves in the box. It even had brown paper on a roller so he didn't have to worry about changing dypers. She spent years in therapy as result. The wonderful state of Virginia I live in sterilized some twenty thousand young people in the name of science and progress.

I could go on and on with one crazy story after another of supposedly rational atheists committing patently bizarre, destructive, and insane acts. What both Atheists and the religious who commit such acts have in common, imho, is their emotional attachments to the philosophies that form the foundations of their beliefs.

 

[marcflores]

What can I say, Stallan and Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions, suppressed sciences, and did any number of irrational things in the name of progress and moral superiority. Both were atheists. In the name of science and morality Skinner put his own infant daughter in a soundproof glass box under the stairs and would only play with her occasionally using the attached rubber gloves in the box. It even had brown paper on a roller so he didn't have to worry about changing dypers. She spent years in therapy as result. The wonderful state of Virginia I live in sterilized some twenty thousand young people in the name of science and progress.

I could go on and on with one crazy story after another of supposedly rational atheists committing patently bizarre, destructive, and insane acts. What both Atheists and the religious who commit such acts have in common, imho, is their emotional attachments to the philosophies that form the foundations of their beliefs.

After several years of religious debate, I've heard this argument a million times before. "Supposedly good atheists and the reason in science is responsible for the lives of many..." Still, while both parties are guilty, the numbers of people killed, tortured, maimed, ruined, and emotionally devastated by religion are tens of times as much as these examples usually cited by theists. I'd have to say that these are all isolated cases in comparison with religion, where people will turn the other cheek no matter how weird their behavior is because it's all in the name of some god.

Still, I'm glad to know that Stalin and Mao were acting out of their intensity for Marxism and communism.

 

[wuliheron]

Of course the number of heinous acts committed by the religious outnumber those of believers, the overwhelming majority of humanity are believers!

Personally, I'm an agnostic amoral anarchist and don't get involved in either side of such arguments.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

"Can 'God' create a stone heavier than he can lift it?" argument demolishes the concept of omnipotence.

unfortunately, it doesnt. When one goes on to this argument, one would ask "what do you mean by heavy?" And the argument dissolves itself promptly into oblivion.

heavyness, as a perception, and as relative, doesn't hold up to being a "standard". Lifting, likewise, is a human interpretation of what he sees. "Does something ever lift another? If so prove!" kicks the question out. One ends up accepting that he is accepting what he sees as "lifting" owing to everyday vocabulary.

No one can prove that an object is "heavy", but only prove that the object seems to have a certain effect on other objects and our senses that we call "heavy". No one can prove that its a property of the object, but that its only an approximation of the perceived effect on our senses.

In that sense, there's no "lifting" nor "heavy". Its only a play of words and nothing more.

If I say that what exists is God, and that all that you see, taken together, including yourself is God, then how can "lifting" be an argument? Lifting from where to where? God is everywhere, even in the stone He creates, and even in the space and time that we percieve, then the question is "What should God lift and from Where to Where and from What time to What time?" The premise being that God is everything taken together, the above argument looses its meaning. Its just an impossiblity as pecieved by humans that percieve to exist. A jugglary of words, but nothing else.

God's omnipotence is not limited to our perception. His omnipotence seems to be limited to the rules of the world He created because we can only percieve the world that He created.

Its like this, not quite exactly same, but similar. A game of chess. Can the player make the rook move like the knight? Answer is yes and no. Yes, if he is not playing by the rules of the game, then there's no knight nor rook. only small plastic pieces. there's no definition of a knight move when not relative to the game. So, with in a game, he seems not to be able to move the rook like a knight. That doesn't mean he cant, but only that he wants to continue the game and within the rules that he created, he doesn't move the rook like a knight. Period.

God is omnipotent? Yes.
Can God do anything? No, our sense of things imposes impossiblity of perception, so, even if God can do anything, we might not be able to percieve it that way.

The problem with this argument is the lack of clarity of what "rock", "heaviness", "lifting" and "God" mean. One calls a collection of energy a "rock" based on his relationship with it, relationship between his senses and that collection of energy. There is no "ROCK" beyond that. What if that energy in the rock itself is God? What if the perciever, the consciousness of the perciever itself is God? Then is He omnipotent or not? He is omnipotent within the limits He created. He is omnipotent beyond the limits He created, but this can't be explained, because once the limits are taken off, perception itself breaks down and so does logic. Its more of a Singularity on our part not to be able to fully percieve His omnipotence and that doesn't mean that He is not omnipotent.


This whole discussion regarding whether God exists or not, needs clear definition of what one means by "God". Several definitions exist. I take it that the words of mystics are the most approximate we can get to, since all scriptures are but attempts to put that experience of mystics into words.

Curiously though, several mystics of several religions and times and places attributed similar qualities to what they call "GOD". And that God can be found through logic and reason and present scientific advancements support their claims of an all pervading, omnipotent creator.


Now the question really is to see which definition of God do we undertake to qualify. Each one must be taken and reasoned out, and one of those definitions certainly stands to reason. Then we can all accept that "God".

DJ

 

[Moridin]

unfortunately, it doesnt. When one goes on to this argument, one would ask "what do you mean by heavy?" And the argument dissolves itself promptly into oblivion.

heavyness, as a perception, and as relative, doesn't hold up to being a "standard". Lifting, likewise, is a human interpretation of what he sees. "Does something ever lift another? If so prove!" kicks the question out. One ends up accepting that he is accepting what he sees as "lifting" owing to everyday vocabulary.

No one can prove that an object is "heavy", but only prove that the object seems to have a certain effect on other objects and our senses that we call "heavy". No one can prove that its a property of the object, but that its only an approximation of the perceived effect on our senses.

In that sense, there's no "lifting" nor "heavy". Its only a play of words and nothing more.

Unfortunately, your argument is a logical fallacy called 'Asking Meaningless Questions'.

Mass is a well-defined and well-supported physical concept (I used the term weight as a conversational term) and has nothing to do with perception or relativism. Movement is also a well-defined and well-supported physical concept.

You cannot prove anything in science, and certainly not anything you have said, but I can and I have provided evidence for my claim.

If I say that what exists is God, and that all that you see, taken together, including yourself is God, then how can "lifting" be an argument? Lifting from where to where? God is everywhere, even in the stone He creates, and even in the space and time that we percieve, then the question is "What should God lift and from Where to Where and from What time to What time?" The premise being that God is everything taken together, the above argument looses its meaning. Its just an impossiblity as pecieved by humans that percieve to exist. A jugglary of words, but nothing else.

Now you are just making assertions. Your argument makes no sense, because it is a strawman. If you want to argue that 'God' is 'everywhere' you would need to provide evidence to show why your argument is relevant.

 

[marcflores]

unfortunately, it doesnt. When one goes on to this argument, one would ask "what do you mean by heavy?" And the argument dissolves itself promptly into oblivion.

Actually, no it doesn't. I'm a little disappointed that you actually countered the rock argument with this. Asking what we mean by heavy is far beyond the point. The argument isn't about rocks or weight, the argument is about God's power and its limitations. Another way to ask this question is, "Can God kill himself?" Your undoubted reaction would probably be to ask, "What do you mean by kill as it is limited to life, blah, blah, blah..."

Can God end his own essence and cease to exist within or without time forever and ever?

The answer, if he were omnipotent and nothing is beyond his power, is yes. But if the answer is yes, then he cannot be eternal and not omnipotent. If the answer is no, then his power is severely limited because he cannot do even what a motivated human being can: "Suicide."

 

[d_jnaneswar]

well,

scientific arguments, as i have been told on another thread here, need well defined words.
The word God is not such a well defined term in Science. Definitions of God are so many.

So, before we talk of omnipotence, we need to define God. Isnt it? I was not making assertions, but just clearing out that there is no clear definition of God. Many definitions of God apply to a flying spaghetti monster. But that's not all.

Also, science is based on perception and "relativism". Isnt it? Science has singularities. Mass is not a definite concept my friend. Mass is conventionally defined "within certain take parametres". When one talks of perception, Mass itself appears just that. Any object's mass, as measured by some one is just the measure of the effects that the object's reality has on his senses and nothing more. Like that, science itself is nothing more than a measure of "perceptions". Schroedinger wrote "Image of Matter". In its forward, these words are given :
"The concept of materiality no longer holds absolutes way." It is clear that Mass is just a representation of the energy that is perceived as within the confines of the object, the interations between its subatomic particles and the "outside world". Nothing more. Nothing less. Thats what we call Mass. Isnt it?

So is velocity. Velocity is nothing but a measure of our perception of a change in the objects position over a given time. The velocity of the same object appears to different people differently, based on whether one is drunk or not. That is, it is based on the workings of his brain, and ultimately, his perception of it.

Measure of God's omnipotence based on such "limited" and "percieved" notions is not enough, when it is a given that God is not a well defined term.

The concept of Mass can be as thoroughly argued to be just a delusion of the senses, if one but dares to step out of his "I am just a physicist and am not going to study perception or consciousness" shell. Reality is itself questioned. Experimental psychologists agree that it might be so that we never percieve reality. Only its effects.

I was only pointing out that the question is baseless, as God is not just "Physical" and "objective" part of things but a subjective part too. And also, I was pointing out that there is more to science than just "physics". Science is yet to dive deep into the effects of the brain and perceptions. It is still a debate as to the argument of brain vs mind. Materialism is loosing its ground (as if it hasnt already) rapidly. Material/Absolute reality is as big a myth as the spaghetti monster. Einstien showed relativity. Its time to extend similar concepts to perception.

Now, back to the question of how to counter that argument, its awfully difficult because the argument itself is meaningless. The only way I saw was to counter it with "what do you mean" questions. which works.

Can God end his own essence and cease to exist within or without time forever and ever?

This meets with the same fate. I would ask, what do you mean by "exist". I would say God is existence itself. Thats what Eastern philosophies, especially those based on Vedas say. God is what is. God is "being" or "existing". What do you mean by "existence" not "existing"?
You see? I would counter the argument with questions on what you actually mean. I would say, let's try and define God first, and then counter the definition. That would solve a lot of these arguments and provide definitive answers to what doesn't "exist".

As I mentioned, my version of God is "What exists taken together, including the observer". I would be lenient and say that what scientists say of "fundamental energy" and "unified field"(which is yet to be defined) is the approximation of physical existence of God. I would say, that is what God manifests as. The fundamental energy that displays itself as the many forms of radiation and as matter is what God is, atleast as perceived within "physics". The same God is the subjective "self", the inner consciousness, that perceives all, in terms of psychology. Then all the forces of nature, all the observed phenomenon become His actions and wills and traits.

The question that would remain, is whether such fundamental energy is actually conscious and aware to make changes with in itself, like answering prayers and so forth. I would say it can (im not very sure though, working out how to prove this).

Because, when one asks "why did energy manifest as so many objects", one has to answer that some change must have occurred in it. According to science, there's nothing "outside" this, so, this fundamental energy that is all pervading must have caused a change in itself. And it has been maintaining such a "goal oriented" and "consistent" change in itself that it must be "aware". For any thing to bring about a change in itself must first be "aware" of its situation. "Goal oriented" and "consistent" in terms of formation of systems with feed-back loops through out this universe, which often go against the second law of thermodynamics and become and remain orderly for extended periods of time. Human bodies are examples of this. According to science, even this human body is made of the same energy, isn't it?

Once consciousness can be proved (I can't prove it yet, I am working on it) to be a fundamental trait of this universe, then the God question is answered. isn't it?

I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks for taking time.

DJ

 

[Moridin]

scientific arguments, as i have been told on another thread here, need well defined words.
The word God is not such a well defined term in Science. Definitions of God are so many.

So, before we talk of omnipotence, we need to define God. Isnt it? I was not making assertions, but just clearing out that there is no clear definition of God. Many definitions of God apply to a flying spaghetti monster. But that's not all.

Actually, 'God' does not need to be more precisely defined. X is omnipotent. That is all you need to know. That is the only characteristic on trial.

Also, science is based on perception and "relativism". Isnt it? Science has singularities. Mass is not a definite concept my friend. Mass is conventionally defined "within certain take parametres". When one talks of perception, Mass itself appears just that. Any object's mass, as measured by some one is just the measure of the effects that the object's reality has on his senses and nothing more.

Science is neither based on perception or relativism. Yes, mass is a well-defined concept in science. No, it has very little to do with a specific person's perception, as the physical concept of mass is objective and does not depend on a persons own subjective feelings.

You are quote mining Schrödinger by the way. He discussed the matter-energy equivalence. Energy and mass are equivalent, but we do not need to extend beyond classical physics for this argument.

So is velocity. Velocity is nothing but a measure of our perception of a change in the objects position over a given time. The velocity of the same object appears to different people differently, based on whether one is drunk or not. That is, it is based on the workings of his brain, and ultimately, his perception of it.

That is the reason we have measuring tools that doesn't depend on the level of alcohol in one's body.

The concept of Mass can be as thoroughly argued to be just a delusion of the senses, if one but dares to step out of his "I am just a physicist and am not going to study perception or consciousness" shell. Reality is itself questioned. Experimental psychologists agree that it might be so that we never percieve reality. Only its effects.

More Red Herrings. Perception and consciousness is natural phenomena that can be studied and is being studied by science and has nothing to do with mysticism. Experimental psychologists agree on no such thing. It isn't even their fields to study metaphysics. Nice try.

According to science, there's nothing "outside" this, so, this fundamental energy that is all pervading must have caused a change in itself.

Wrong. Science is weak agnostic towards it.

For any thing to bring about a change in itself must first be "aware" of its situation.

Not really. For example, a tree has no consciousness.

Most of your post tried to divert the attention from the question. You do not have to define 'God' at all. Let us replace 'God' with X.

X is omnipotent. Can X create a more massive entity than X can displace it?

 

[d_jnaneswar]

X is omnipotent. X appears not omnipotent when seen from within the limits of human "perception".

Sun is huge. Sun is not very big when seen by the naked human eye from earth.

Its all as simple as that.

If Rock, and Heaviness are taken as "absolutes" then X doesn't seem to be omnipotent. But that can never deny the absolute omnipotence that might be possible outside of the limited perception of existence and causality that humans attribute to what they see.

So is velocity. Velocity is nothing but a measure of our perception of a change in the objects position over a given time. The velocity of the same object appears to different people differently, based on whether one is drunk or not. That is, it is based on the workings of his brain, and ultimately, his perception of it.

That is the reason we have measuring tools that doesn't depend on the level of alcohol in one's body.

Unfortunately, the measuring tools themselves are perceptions and are subject to the perceptional differences based on the alcohol levels in the measurers body.. :p

Sir James Jeans says "We can know nothing of the universe beyond the effects that its happenings produce on our senses, either directly or through the intervention of instruments - telescopes, spectroscopes, etc. All that science of any period can legitimately set out to do then, is to devise a scheme or model that shall account for, much of the effects as are known to the period in question".

More Red Herrings. Perception and consciousness is natural phenomena that can be studied and is being studied by science and has nothing to do with mysticism. Experimental psychologists agree on no such thing. It isn't even their fields to study metaphysics. Nice try.

I never said anything about perception being metaphysical. When I said "experimental psychologists" i meang guys like Peter Russel who said this :
"We never experience the physical world directly; all we ever know is the image of the world generated in our awareness. And that image is no more “out there” than are the images of our dreams." I remember Carl Jung saying something similar, but can't quote.

Not really. For example, a tree has no consciousness.

How do we know that? Doesnt it have a "self awareness"? Otherwise, how can it bring about a goal oriented change in itself? If its cannot bring about a change within itself, then its not self aware and conscious.
Here is a need to define consciousness. I was using the word "consciousness" as used by Peter Russel in his book "From Science to God". He started as a physicist and he studied experimental psychology. Look up on google if you don't know him.

More later on! got to go!
DJ

 

[Moridin]

X is omnipotent. X appears not omnipotent when seen from within the limits of human "perception".

Not in this case. We can just define X as omnipotent as ultimate reality.

If Rock, and Heaviness are taken as "absolutes" then X doesn't seem to be omnipotent. But that can never deny the absolute omnipotence that might be possible outside of the limited perception of existence and causality that humans attribute to what they see.

Burden of proof is on the one making that assertion.

How do we know that? Doesnt it have a "self awareness"? Otherwise, how can it bring about a goal oriented change in itself? If its cannot bring about a change within itself, then its not self aware and conscious.

Yes, it can. A tree can drop their leaves, but that doesn't make it conscious. A table is not conscious just because a ball bounces of it when thrown at it.

 

[marcflores]

d_jnaneswar, if the group cannot agree on a definition of God or a god or many gods, or the definition of anything else for that matter, the argument is moot... wouldn't you say? Everyone has a personal opinion of what a god is which is closer to proving that a god is an opinion or a personal artifact rather than a universal power.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Not in this case. We can just define X as omnipotent as ultimate reality.

True. X as omnipotent as ultimate reality. My studies tell me that God is omnipotent, but within our perceptional limits, he is omnipotent to the extents of possiblity. That is, he can make even something that is extremely improbable as possible.

Burden of proof is on the one making that assertion.

Hmm.. True that burdain of proof is on the one making that assertion. I don't have any beyond the anecdotal. I am trying to find the proof that fits within the main stream scientific acceptablity. As far as now is concerned, all I have is a proof based on reason and tentative deductions. Not to mention, a lot of anecdotal.

Yes, it can. A tree can drop their leaves, but that doesn't make it conscious. A table is not conscious just because a ball bounces of it when thrown at it.

A table is not causing a goal oriented change within itself. So, its obviously not "self aware". But one can't rule out the possiblity that the energy within the atoms of the table has a sense of "awareness". It remains to be proved. I agree. But its a possiblity. Also, the whole universe could be argued to be possible only when the entire universe itself is trying to self-adjust, that is - bring about a change within itself. It can be argued to be "goal oriented" and only conscious ( As in living things, being self aware, self adjusting and goal oriented.. not conscious just as the "awake" state. I know i might be crossing vocabulary boundaries. I shall find accurate ways of explaining myself. The term "conscious" I am using is in the sense that Peter Russel used in his book ).

If that were the case, then the universe running itself would not be problematic in science. And since the universe came from itself (whether you include parellel universes or not, if you do, then replace "universe" with "all that exists" including parellel universes), I can go on and argue that that itself is what is termed as God. I can go on to prove with tentative deductions that other attributes of God, like omni presence are applicable to this idea of a God.

If all the alleged properties fit, then there's no denying that there's no God.

d_jnaneswar, if the group cannot agree on a definition of God or a god or many gods, or the definition of anything else for that matter, the argument is moot... wouldn't you say? Everyone has a personal opinion of what a god is which is closer to proving that a god is an opinion or a personal artifact rather than a universal power.

I agree. It could just be an opinion. Which is one of the root causes of the whole problem of His existence. God as an opinion or a personal artifact doesn't hold water when we see all the anecdotal evidence available. Also, the fact that many people who claimed to see God and then live a life according to such an experience, describe the experience in similar ways and lead lives in similar ways, irrespective of the distance between them, in time, space and tradition. This begs to ask the question to find out the reason for such things. Anecdotally and through their teachings, one can find the argument of God coming up again and again. Pushing it aside as a "personal artifact" doesn't appeal to the scientist in me. I see a possiblity, and am on my way to finding whether it is there for sure or not. Indeed, its an insult to humanity to call "God" a delusion, without accurate testing, especially since the ancient times, it was such claims of God that shaped our traditions and lives and values.

I don't accept to the normal popular view of God being an old man in the sky. I only accept the definitions given by people who claimed to see him, not all of us who just "read" about Him. The hallmark of such people is unparellelled humanism and love for all. A sense of Mastery over existence is also shown and is available as ample anecdotal evidence. Right from Sai Baba of Shirdi (Not to confuse with Satya Sai Baba, who is so widely proclaimed as fraud) to Ramana Maharshi, to Baha-ul-la and Hazrat Tajuddin in Islam, to Saint Bernard, Saint Catherine, Eckhart in Christianity, to Suzuki and Huang Po in Zen to Buddha Padma Sambhava and others in Buddhism, all these expressed their experience of Oneness of the universe in the same way. Their words are also peculiarly similar. Only difference is that in religions where they used the word God, people described it thus, while in concepts like zen, it is expressed as "what is" and in buddhism, as "Dharma Kaya". All the psychological aspects of it that they explained are similar. Their lives later on, were also similar. They all said that such experience was "bliss that paseth understanding" although many of them weren't aware of what the Bible says. They allegedly displayed control over the natural phenomenon. Add to that, the experiences of their devotees, millions of them.

In such huge amount of anecdotal evidence that barely changed even over centuries (talk of repeatablity of an experiment), it begs to ask of inquiry to my mind. Others not interested, no problem. Others want to remain atheistic, no problem! Would I want to rush to a conclusion, not at all. Unless I find that such anecdotal evidence is complete moot, I would leave the concept of God as a possiblity, owing to my respect to the humanity and wisdom such great people displayed (which, for the record, even a single atheist is yet to display, if one says Buddha is an atheist, I would agree and say that the atheism of Buddha is exemplary and would be glad if any other atheist can display it).

Thats why, there's a need to think it out. Atleast for me. For me, its the ultimate theory of everything, if its true.

This, as far as I thought out, is of three levels of proof for myself.

1. Logical, reasonable and tentative deductions.
2. Testing (somehow, I have no idea of how to do this as it fits to the rigorous standards of modern science. Thats why I am here. To know what really science is and to apply similar investigative methods to this) and experimental proof (or just mathematical is fine for me).
3. Experiential, that such a state is indeed achievable if the prescribed methods are practiced.

I am doing the first and the third. I am unqualified to do the second, which is where I am trying to make it up to it.

And to do this accurately, one needs to define what God is. The very concept of Christian God being different to Allah being different to Buddhist God is revolting to me. I feel that if there is a God, there is only one, or none. When I read what real people (not just scriptures) said about what God is, I was surprised to know that all of them gave similar experiences, which were not contradicted by any of their own traditional scriptures. That showed me a common ground between all these ideas and I feel that if I can find out that God whose traits are acceptable to the majority, I am happy that I found God.

I am in the process of doing it. Brushing it aside is not an option for me, especially since I am in the thick of things in terms of anecdotal evidence and personal life.

I am sorry if my posts appeared to divert from the question. There is no point blank answer to such tough questions. Premise needs to be set up as a common ground. That was what I was trying.

I don't know for sure whether a tree is said to have consciousness or not. (Conscious in the sense that peter russel uses, which includes being aware.. not just used in the sense of the human waking state mind) I wonder if trees were ever supported to "percieve" their world, within the realms of science. I have not much idea about the research that went on it. As far as I know, trees are alive. Trees grow. Trees react to climate changes and environment changes. I don't know what modern scientists think of this. I am willing to educate myself here. Do trees percieve? Are they "aware" of their surroundings?

Dogs, cats and other animals, that display goal oriented behaviour, short term memory, basic abilities of analysis, etc are "conscious". Again, I am just clearing up the sense in which I am using the term. I know I might be wrong, if so, please correct me. Dogs and others do seem to be aware of their surroundings and react accordingly, and bring about changes within themselves, such as locomotion, without an external agent acting upon them actively. I am not sure how much of this applies to trees.

DJ

 

[strings235]

What we must first analyze is not the answer but the question. If we tie this with mathematics and logic, then we have an answer, or at least an answer that conforms to the methodologies of reasoning today.

The existence of a higher being cannot be formally proved or disproved (as mentioned above, we have no technology to do either). Furthermore the only way to formally disprove the existence of a god is to define everything in existence, which is inherently difficult, and then realize that a god does not exist in the realm which we have defined. We must also accept that only our defined realm of existence could possibly exist. There lies the problem. The final task is too great for modern science. We have no means to that show the "universe" finite (and even there lies the possibly of multiuniverses and unexoplored dimensions). So even if we could miraculously show that a god doesn't exist say in the known galaxies, we can't prove that one doesn't exist because existence doesn't span in a finite realm.

But a more personal insight is that we cannot have our own preferences and say that because no evidence disproves the extraordinary that the extraordinary does not exist. Thus it is equally fallacious that because no evidence proves the extraordinary, it cannot exist. Let's leave this to modern politics and law but heaven forbid this kind of bias in the realm of philosophy. In conclusion, the existence of god is simply a CONJECTURE. Treating it like it the same way mathematics does, it cannot be true unless evidence shows it AND a contradiction must lie in this conjecture for it to be proved WRONG.


So, anyone any opinions on my theory?

 

[sd01g]

Treating it like it the same way mathematics does, it cannot be true unless evidence shows it AND a contradiction must lie in this conjecture for it to be proved WRONG.
?

It might be true, but we might not have all the evidence. Unless we have all the evidence, we cannot make a meaningfull analysis. Until we understand the mysterious force of gravity we cannot rule out a higher power that uses this force to affect the universe. After all, it is gravity that controls most of the formation of the galaxies, stars and planets.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

hey guys,
I just read about Higgs field. The article is bout the new particle accelerator that they built and its abilities to test higgs field and higgs bosons.

Curiously it states that understanding higgs bosons will clear up "The ancient question of what mass actually is". The article boldly makes it clear that the mass of subatomic particles, why some have it and why some (like photons) don't have it, is still not completely understood.

So much for Mass being a well defined thing if this is true.
I would like to hear about what you guys think.DJ

 

[Moridin]

hey guys,
I just read about Higgs field. The article is bout the new particle accelerator that they built and its abilities to test higgs field and higgs bosons.

Curiously it states that understanding higgs bosons will clear up "The ancient question of what mass actually is". The article boldly makes it clear that the mass of subatomic particles, why some have it and why some (like photons) don't have it, is still not completely understood.

So much for Mass being a well defined thing if this is true.
I would like to hear about what you guys think.


DJ

Mass if a well-defined concept in classical physics. What Higgs is describing is the origin of mass or why things have mass, which is not at all relevant to classical physics or indeed this context.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

So, Higgs belongs to the "quantum" or "atomic" department. In the classical sense, mass is well defined. Right.
Doesnt this mean that Mass is a "taken" for simplicity sake? Mass at a more fundamental level still being not fully understood, but taken for granted for reasons of observational validity on a "bigger" level? Observation still being a function of and limited to the workings of a person's sense organs and brains that is.

DJ

 

[Moridin]

Remember that classical physics provides a well-defined definition of mass, independent of your own subjectivity. Furthermore, one does not need to resort to a more fundamental level, when a less fundamental level works just fine. After all, there is no reason to invoke Einsteinian relativity at low velocities where Newtonian mechanics works just fine.