On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:32:07 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:15:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>> Here's the other thing: Atheists can generally provide a long list of
>>> "here's things that would convince me to be religious."  Theists can
>>> rarely provide a single answer to "what would convince you you're
>>> wrong?"
>> 
>> Well, that's proving a negative (after a fashion, perhaps), which is
>> not generally regarded, AIUI, as a valid scientific approach.
> 
> Errr, not at all. Of course you can prove a negative in the scientific
> sense. "This drug does not cause cancer."

I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
something that would not be disproven over time.

In a purely logical sense, all it takes is one person getting cancer that 
can be traced back to that drug that would disprove the hypothesis that 
the drug doesn't cause cancer.

That's the problem with proving a negative - logically, you cannot test 
every possible test case to come to such a conclusion.  The fact that the 
drug industry lists most of the little side effects anyone saw in their 
clinical trials attests to that.

Then add to that the exceptions to that statement:  If it's taken beyond 
the guidelines the drug company determined from their clinical trials, 
might that cause cancer?  Did they test it?  If so, how?

And so on.

Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logically 
and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or that 
Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't 
fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as I 
know you know).

The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could've 
been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
communications device.  Doesn't matter what it was - we, as people, tend 
to describe things in terms that we can understand.  So when, in Genesis, 
the description of creation is described as 6 days long, are we defining 
that as human days?  Or is "day" a term used because the time periods 
involved were (and are) truly unfathomable?  If the earth shows geologic 
evidence of a collision 4.5 billion years ago with another planet (and 
some suggest that evidence does exist), that might be the dawn of day 1.  
Day 2 may well have come much longer than 24 of our hours after it.

Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it 
didn't happen?  Not really, no.

> I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very
> quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.

I'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.  
You and I do come at this from similar perspectives, but I'm not sure 
what would be on my list - never really thought about it.

> I have never met an theist who could give a single example of anything
> that would convince him *his* religion is wrong. (Note: there have been
> such theists in history - people conquered by christians, for example
> who decided that meant the christian god must be stronger than their
> own.)  I guess you could call the original christians such theists, and
> probably the original muslims, mormons, etc. On the gripping hand,
> they're all followers of JHVH, so it's not real clear this was actually
> changing their minds.

I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would really 
have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must have 
meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that happens 
in the world (and that happened to them).

> Hence, all the arguments that "atheism is just another religion" is
> wrong, because atheism, not being based purely on faith, is open to
> change via argument or evidence.  At least mine is.

Well, depending on what your list of proof consists of.  I do know some 
atheists whose list consists of things like "God can do something that's 
impossible" - and with that, there's a certain degree of faith that that 
will never happen - and it's that faith in the impossible not happening 
that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

> (There's actually a number of interesting SF books I've read wherein
> God's existence is scientifically proven.)

I like what Adams (an avowed atheist) wrote about it, as a conversation 
between man and God:

God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without 
faith, I am nothing.
Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and so 
therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)

Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition 
is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's 
evidence, you don't need faith.

Jim

Post a reply to this message