Proof is NOT Possible
I saw an interesting docu drama on George Price the other night. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price
He had come up with a mathematical theorem that "proved" that altruism was an illusion. He was one of those guys that had swung the pendulum from atheism to theism and had finally died by suicide after giving away all his possessions in 1975 ( clinical depression perhaps?). Heere's a Wiki quote about his theorem.
Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result. He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith. Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.
Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling(each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the farther genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.
Now once again, this is one of those things where the existence of any deity can be argued, so the bottom line to me is that arguing that one had "proof or disproof" of the existence of God is a waste of time and monumentally so. My mom used to warn that contemplating such to such a degree would "drive you crazy", and apparently it helped push Price over the edge as conversion to Christianity didn't apprently save him from his own mental state.
"Proof" will always be subjective which negates the idea that it's "proof" in the first place. A believer will find proof in anything and a non believer will always find ways of falsifying it or finding "counter proof", while in the meantime, nothing will be concrete "proof" of anything except that time was wasted in arguing.
So my question to theists, is, if there is a God, why is he so vague about objectively proving himself? Why does he seem to want his follwers to believe without something objective and provable? Why is faith so important to him? Is he trying to "prove" something to himself or does he just get an ego kick?
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."