On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:25:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

True, but when it comes to scientific proof of something "supernatural", 
there's always room for doubt (as there's always room for some degree of 
doubt in a scientific proof).  Most who ask for proof of God's existence 
are looking not for scientific proof, but absolute proof.  Perhaps you 
are different from most who engage in this type of discussion.

>> 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.

Fair point.

>> 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.

Well, you and I are on the same page there - I guess that was more or 
less my point.  Those things that constitute "proof" with regards to the 
commonly referenced book of record (the Bible - and yes, I do realise 
that there are debates about its historical accuracy, and to some 
readings, serious doubts as to it's historical accuracy; I personally 
look on it as a moderately interesting collection of mythological 
stories).

>> 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. :-)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that, but it makes sense to me that 
such an argument could be put forth in a convincing manner.

>> 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).

That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again, 
with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say with 
a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way 
described in Genesis, we can't say 100% for certain that (a) they didn't, 
or that (b) the way it was recorded in Genesis was an accurate reflection 
of the events that did occur.  What I mean by that is that if the story 
was passed down to Moses by God, perhaps Moses wrote it down wrong.  We 
don't know if that's the case or not, and as discussed earlier, that's 
essentially a non-provable point (unless someone with a time machine and 
knowledge of the language of that time can step forward and demonstrate 
what actually transpired).

After all, history is (re)written by the victors.

>>> 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.)

Fair point, and in fact many who make such claims are declared to be 
insane.

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

I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and 
also happened to have identical life experiences.  So this type of event 
is fairly non-anthropic, since free will is part of the human condition, 
and identical life experiences require a sort of symbiotic relationship 
that doesn't exist between humans.

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

I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books 
were in fact essentially the same.

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

There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The 
Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North 
America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of 
Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the 
LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would 
constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?

> 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.

That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good 
people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we are 
not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.

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

How many people make up a religion?  I'm sure we could find this 
situation happening in any moderately sized religion.  Personally, I 
believe that everyone believes something different, and that religion (or 
maybe more appropriately, spirituality) is entirely a personal 
experience, so with that definition, anyone with a child without birth 
defects would fit the criteria.

What would constitute "religious parents", for that matter?  Again, I see 
that as an intensely personal thing.  I have a friend up in Oregon (whom 
I may have mentioned before) who has kids, but for her and her husband, 
their brand of "Christianity" is one that falls outside of organised 
religion; they travel to places like El Salvador to help people, because 
in their view, helping those less fortunate is a very Christian thing to 
do.  They use the bible as their guide.  Does the fact that they do not 
participate in an organised church make their brand of religion any less 
valid?  If so, why, and if not, then the fact that their son has no birth 
defects would seem to meet this criteria.

I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is 
arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough that 
you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter was 
made.

> 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.

Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but 
based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but was 
being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".  And many 
individuals have - we only have to look at world leaders to see people 
who have changed the world.  Or people who invent things - you could say 
that someone like Tim Berners-Lee changed the world - figuratively, he 
made the world smaller, and made it possible to communicate with people 
on the other side of a mountain (as I'm doing right now, in fact, as I 
believe part of the Rockies are between the two of us), so in a 
figurative sense, he moved the mountain between us (or rendered it moot).

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

There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already 
happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church 
(for that matter).

>> 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.

It's a way of justifying "bad things happen to good people".

> 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.)

Well, God must've meant for that to happen as part of his greater plan 
for the world. (That's what I mean)

>> 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.

The thing is, historically, God/gods/religion have been used to explain 
the inexplicable.  (This is part of the reason I don't believe in a god, 
because it seems to me to be the "easy way out" for explaining something 
that defies explanation).  The second reason they exist is to provide 
comfort to those who need comforting (like my mom, whom I mentioned 
before, I believe).  For those people, like I said, if it works for them, 
that's great - it doesn't work for me.

>> 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.

Yes, but that's what makes it work; it is in the context of a humourous 
work of fiction.

>> 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.

Yes, true, but the thing is that in a discussion about whether a 
"miracle" has occurred (which several of your proof points seem to 
imply), you can't really get to a point of any of those defined as p 
would allow you to infer the "q of God's existence" with anything even 
approaching 100% certainty.

It's late and I don't know if what I said there even makes sense now; I 
guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of those were to happen, I 
can see that the counter is "well, that's impossible, so there *must* be 
some other explanation and I'm just not seeing it".

Jim

Post a reply to this message