What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

 This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, n id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real, what miracles or things would he have to do, I personaly would want 2 see all the miracles in the bible performed infront of me, n also be shown heaven n hell n fly thru the universe, etc. i would say it is God even though i cant know know if it is or not, i would continue on beliving that indeed it is God or if i were to be ieternal bliss in heaven forever, i would be very happy with God, but i obviously cant know if its some alien teenager decieving me, i wouldent care that much i hope,  all i know is that im happy n thats all that matters. 

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

 

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Mouse Dude,

Why mus it be without a-priori? Oh, wait, you're one of them lol. A a-posterori empiricist that slips in the bathtub and has to purchase a roll around and one of those special bathtubs.

And here I thought you had something intelligent to say. My bad mouse dude, my bad. You're just as poorly publically educated as the rest.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Actually I am a physicist. The rules of science have been quite adequate to be the source of all significant human progress for the last few centuries. The methodology has been tested. It works. Religion in the western form has done nothing but make trouble. I do enjoy mucking with Jewish and Christian nonsense but many have said it is below me because it is so easy.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Mickey

Hey Mickey,

As a yout though you were public schooled which caused your brainwashing as a physicist. I actually enjoy science immensely and have traveled with some pretty extensive geologist and archeologists among other things.

I'm afraid what you call "science" mickey is not really science. If science cannot be determined in a absolute form, then it cannnot be science since the ratio of error of the probablity is never established.

So what you guys typically do, since you suck if you do it your way, is discreetly steal Christian understanding of logic and science and kind of tap it into your thinking and try to not anybody know.

Though to be honest you probably don't even know you're doing it, it's just second nature to steal Chrisitanity via science. Since according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, if it wasn't for Christianity there'd be no science.

Science started, and ends with Christianity. It is impossible to do it any other way. By doing it in a secular way simply makes you a parrot of memorized formulas.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Mickey,

As a yout though you were public schooled which caused your brainwashing as a physicist. I actually enjoy science immensely and have traveled with some pretty extensive geologist and archeologists among other things.

But you are not a scientist and I do not see you have the ability be one. Who did you travel with, your father?

Quote:
I'm afraid what you call "science" mickey is not really science.

How would you know?

Quote:
If science cannot be determined in a absolute form, then it cannnot be science since the ratio of error of the probablity is never established.

Would be so kind as to translate that gibberish into English? A ratio requires two numbers. You mention only one and in reference to probability the correct term would be confidence interval. Do not forget to define exactly what error you think you are talking about.

I await more gibberish in response.

Quote:
So what you guys typically do, since you suck if you do it your way, is discreetly steal Christian understanding of logic and science and kind of tap it into your thinking and try to not anybody know.

Religion has nothing to do with logic or science. You post like a creationist.

Quote:
Though to be honest you probably don't even know you're doing it, it's just second nature to steal Chrisitanity via science. Since according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, if it wasn't for Christianity there'd be no science.

Cite a bullshit source and you post bullshit. Considering science was invented by the ancient Greeks and geometry by the Egyptians before your Mary got laid it is difficult to see what fantasy you subscribe to. Please tell me more so I can be more accurate in my ridicule.

Quote:
Science started, and ends with Christianity. It is impossible to do it any other way. By doing it in a secular way simply makes you a parrot of memorized formulas.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yet the impossible occurred. Obviously Christians are idiots. Hardly surprising since all of his miracles were have been standard street preacher magic from ancient times down to the god network. And he said nothing that made a lick of sense with the parable BS which your doctrine says, see Acts, was understood by no one under after his death.

Lets get back to that committing sin without knowing it is evil to sin thing you have been dodging.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
I made a blog post about this when I first started blogging

Basically, if "god" as a hypothesis were used (and not just tacked-on unnecessarily) to produce a series of specific predictions, and those predictionsall turned out to be remarkably accurate, then I would be convinced this "god" as it needs to be defined for the predictive power exists.  I would not be absolutely sure, but with more and more successful specific predictions, I would come to regard the assertion "this god exists" to be as likely as assertions like "nothing can travel faster than light."

Of course, if the "god" you use in your predictions has no need of any kind of intelligence or agency in order to derive the predictions, then I would not believe your "god" had intelligence or agency, and I would insist that you stop trying to call it a god, as doing so is unnecessarily and probably intentionally misleading.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Zaq wrote:

Basically, if "god" as a hypothesis were used (and not just tacked-on unnecessarily) to produce a series of specific predictions, and those predictionsall turned out to be remarkably accurate, then I would be convinced this "god" as it needs to be defined for the predictive power exists.  I would not be absolutely sure, but with more and more successful specific predictions, I would come to regard the assertion "this god exists" to be as likely as assertions like "nothing can travel faster than light."

Of course, if the "god" you use in your predictions has no need of any kind of intelligence or agency in order to derive the predictions, then I would not believe your "god" had intelligence or agency, and I would insist that you stop trying to call it a god, as doing so is unnecessarily and probably intentionally misleading.

Unnecessary hypothesis. Correct! Stick with Occam but use Gillette and Penn if necessary. 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
God exists

truth wrote:

 This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, n id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real, what miracles or things would he have to do, I personaly would want 2 see all the miracles in the bible performed infront of me, n also be shown heaven n hell n fly thru the universe, etc. i would say it is God even though i cant know know if it is or not, i would continue on beliving that indeed it is God or if i were to be ieternal bliss in heaven forever, i would be very happy with God, but i obviously cant know if its some alien teenager decieving me, i wouldent care that much i hope,  all i know is that im happy n thats all that matters. 

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

 

 

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."

in the mind and is the person their self. I am my God, as God is the same as "way". I am my way. All others are seen as such also. BUT, If you are made by civil minds then you are the "way" made by government floks. You are as they, as in - OT- (the institution of civilization for the middle east by Nimrod) "as it has been said, as Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the lord". This is the fall of Adam, The Adamites span genesis up to the time of Nimrod. All through that period of time, from creation to Nimrod are Adamites. When Nimrod took over as "god" all the people had to become like him, a hunter, meaning predator. Civilized people become as those that lead. The institution of civilization "is" the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Key word "knowledge". The understanding of creating good and evil by design. To do or cause an evil upon another for one's own good (today it's government and "wall streeters", also known in this day as -economy. A mutually forced system of servitude that is hidden from view in the fact because it is mutual. Mutual servitude is also against the Constitution of the US. (We studied the constitution also) . How can you be a free thinker when you have no idea that you've been fooled by those, (OT) -thinking themselves wise they became fools. 

The serpent= a facet of the inner self, sneaky, unseen, liar, deceiver, as in a common description given to one who is a con man, -snake in the grass.

Government are those chosen (by any means) to decide good and evil (civil law). It is "they" that take the place o "God/Way" within your person. Like in the day of Nimrod all become as those that lead. Civilization can exist on lies only, and be operated by those who acquire the positions of the best liars.

You won't find God any where other then yourself and those you fraternize with, unless you adore material , which of course civilization depends on.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I'm afraid what you call

"I'm afraid what you call "science" mickey is not really science. If science cannot be determined in a absolute form, then it cannnot be science "

^ Jean proves he doesn't know what science is. Since his brainwashing at religious institutions was apparently a complete success, there is no point trying to educate him. However, the audience is more intelligent (proven by the fact noone has yet agreed with Jean, including fellow christians). So for the benefit of the audience:

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

You will notice that nowhere in the definition of science does the word "absolute" appear.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If you care to

truth wrote:

 This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, n id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real, what miracles or things would he have to do, I personaly would want 2 see all the miracles in the bible performed infront of me, n also be shown heaven n hell n fly thru the universe, etc. i would say it is God even though i cant know know if it is or not, i would continue on beliving that indeed it is God or if i were to be ieternal bliss in heaven forever, i would be very happy with God, but i obviously cant know if its some alien teenager decieving me, i wouldent care that much i hope,  all i know is that im happy n thats all that matters. 

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

 

 

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."

take another look at the book with an "open mind" you,ll find that the only conclusion one can extract is----people are what it referes to as God. You, me, and everyone else. You'll also have to put away the European concept of Christianity which isn't Christianity and still isn't. The book deals with people and the consequences of how people think. It will take you several months. If you don't want to have another look but are afraid you may find something that is contrary to your present knowledge of the book so as not to disturb the attack mode on so, called Christians. Then you may not want to void being entertained by such directions of thought.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
truth wrote: This same

truth wrote:

 This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, n id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real, what miracles or things would he have to do, I personaly would want 2 see all the miracles in the bible performed infront of me, n also be shown heaven n hell n fly thru the universe, etc. i would say it is God even though i cant know know if it is or not, i would continue on beliving that indeed it is God or if i were to be ieternal bliss in heaven forever, i would be very happy with God, but i obviously cant know if its some alien teenager decieving me, i wouldent care that much i hope,  all i know is that im happy n thats all that matters. 

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

 

 

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Opie

Opie,

In logic, the way you ask a question is the means in how you will get your answer. Therefore, there can be poor or wrong questions that lead to wrong answers. For example, if I were to ask you when you stopped beating your wife. This begging of the questions assumes things that have yet to be justified, argued or discussed. You may not have a wife, you may never have beaten her in the first place.

The same thing is said for your opening question. It begs the question. You have neglected to define proof. Logically speaking, proof by definition must correlate to the epistemology that you are attempting to use in justification for your proposition. Thus if you are using empiricism, your proof must be empirical.

If you attempt to use empiricism for your understanding, but use mysticism for your proof, your entire argument is self refuting via invalidity.

Please define the following ambiguous terms so as to continue educating your very poor opening proposition.

1) proof

2) absolute

3) exist

Until this is done, you are to intellectually poor to buy a bucket to piss in.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Cognitive dissonance at

^ Cognitive dissonance at its finest. In this example, our guinea pig jean successfully describes the logic of begging the question, yet somehow fails to apply the same logic to his own arguments and beliefs. This is because his leaders have brainwashed him into accepting the bible as irrefutable. Poor chap doesn't have a clue how ridiculous he looks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3283
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:1)

Jean Chauvin wrote:

1) proof

 

empirical (and therefore falsifiable, in karl popper's sense) verification of a valid perception-based cognition.

 

Quote:

2) absolute

 

neither scientifically nor logically falsifiable, therefore irrelevant outside the realm of theology.

 

Quote:

3) exist

 

to be neither dependent on nor conditioned by anything else; to have a substratum.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen