Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision. 
You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things 
don't have certain properties.

> In a purely logical sense, 

Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also. 
There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic, 
almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a 
universally-quantified negative that can be proven.

> 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).

I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they 
truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.

> 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.

I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually 
satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without 
consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)

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

That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that 
things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example, 
it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what 
genesis says (iirc).

>> 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.  

Sure.

God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really 
was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in, 
incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)

A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who 
always won wars of oppression against them.

Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying 
they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.

Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.

Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and 
spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly 
after.

A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.

A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of 
touch.

Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move 
a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll 
believe faith can move mountains.

A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a 
disaster or even lightning.

>> 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).

I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.

I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans. 
(I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some 
leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)

> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening 
> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also 
have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But 
if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink 
those too.

> 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)

The flaw there is that it's using 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.

Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence 
in the world isn't going to help.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message