0
   

Proving a negative

 
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 01:13 pm
Proving a Negative (1999)

By Richard Carrier


I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative. Of course, we could be mistaken about what we saw, or about what a crow is, or things could have changed after we looked, but within the limits of our knowing anything at all, and given a full understanding of what a proposition means and thus entails, we can easily prove a negative in such a case. This is not "proof" in the same sense as a mathematical proof, which establishes that something is inherent in the meaning of something else (and that therefore the conclusion is necessarily true), but it is proof in the scientific sense and in the sense used in law courts and in everyday life. So the example holds because when p entails q, it means that q is included in the very meaning of p. Whenever you assert p, you are also asserting q (and perhaps also r and s and t). In other words, q is nothing more than an element of p. Thus, all else being as we expect, "there are big green Martians in my bathtub" means if you look in your bathtub you will see big green Martians, so not seeing them means the negative of "there are big green Martians in my bathtub."

Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question.

The Method of the Best Bet

Logicians note that it is easier to prove that there are such beings than to prove there aren't simply because we only need to find one of them to accomplish our proof, and thus will not have to look everywhere--unless we are so unlucky that where the one Martian is just happens to be the last place we look. But in the final analysis, it is not being "negative" that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth of the assertion. For instance, "there is gravity on every planet in every universe" could be disproven by searching just one planet and finding no gravity, but if we kept finding gravity we could never decisively prove it true, any more than if we kept failing to find Martians in the universe would we be able to decisively prove that "there are no Martians in the universe." Thus, what people call the "you can't prove a negative" axiom is actually nothing more than the eternal problem of induction: since we can't test a proposition in every place and at every time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times and places. We can only infer it.

In computers this sort of proof (of the positive or negative variety) results in an infinite loop (or quasi-infinite loop), and clever programmers can give software the tools to recognize such routines before executing them. Then, instead of executing them, they have them execute a simpler subroutine that equates to a "best guess." Not surprisingly, we all do the same thing: since we have neither the ability nor the desire to devote a dangerous proportion of our time and resources to testing every proposition of this kind, we adopt a simpler rule: given insufficient evidence, then no belief. This is the same thing as "given sufficient evidence, then belief," since insufficient evidence is the same thing as sufficient evidence for denial.

This amounts to a "best guess" solution, where we recognize that a statement may be true, but have insufficient grounds to believe it. Or, in the case of propositions for which we have abundant but incomplete proof, we recognize that it may be false, but have insufficient grounds to disbelieve it. This is the basic principle behind all hypothetical thought, from the theories of science, to the "sun will come up tomorrow" variety of common sense. Given the set of all propositions of the first kind (where there is a lack of evidence despite some reasonable measure of checking), nearly all of them are false, so it is a safe bet to assume they are all false until proven otherwise. Conversely, given the set of all propositions of the second kind (where there is continuous evidence after some reasonable measure of checking), nearly all of them are true, so it is a safe bet to assume they are true until proven otherwise.

Unprovable Statements


Consider the negative case. When it comes time to decide what to believe, if we did not assume such "unprovables" were false, we would either have to choose which unprovables to believe by some totally arbitrary means, which amounts to a ridiculous "belief by whim" method, or else we have to assume that all such statements are true. Of course, we only have to believe true those unprovables that do not contradict other proven statements or that do not contradict each other, but even in the latter case we have no grounds for choosing which of two contradictory unprovables we will believe, and this is the same "belief by whim" dilemma. But even with these provisions, this policy would result in a great number of absurd beliefs (like "there are big green Martians in the universe"). Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as they are proved. In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence. Even if it is less certainly false than propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new evidence that we come across.

A similar line of reasoning establishes the opposite in all positive cases. If we did not assume all such unprovables were true, we would either have to choose which unprovables to disbelieve by some totally arbitrary means, which again amounts to a ridiculous "belief by whim" method, or else we have to assume that all such statements are false. Of course, it would be plainly absurd to believe that all the statements for which we have some evidence are false. Although "absolute skeptics" actually claim to assume this, they put in place of truth a concept of assent which amounts to the same solution as I have discussed above: betting on the truth of a statement that we have many reasons to believe but can never be certain of. Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables for which we have good evidence are true, until such time as they are disproved. In other words, it is reasonable to believe a proposition when there is good evidence. Even if it is less certainly true than propositions which are actually irrefutable, such as mathematical truths or "I am thinking, therefore I am," it is still reasonable to regard them as true so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new evidence that we come across. In all cases, we can perhaps move the bar up and down--changing the amount of "checking" that counts as reasonable and sufficient before resolving to believe--but this affects all our beliefs, as the bar cannot be set differently for different things without again engaging in "belief by whim" methods, and we will all find that there is such a thing as having the bar too low or too high, as one can find through the same reasoning as I have engaged in here.

The Unbelievability of Christian Theism


Christian Theism in its most basic sense entails observations that would necessarily be made by everyone everywhere and at all times, and thus it is as easily disproven as the alien in the bathtub. For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go. Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian 'theory' entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false. Likewise, God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose, but the universe lacks moral features--animals thrive by survival of the fittest, not survival of the kindest, and the laws of physics are no respecter of persons, they treat the good man and the bad man equally. Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord, and there are no messages or features of a linguistic nature anywhere in its extra-human composition or behavior, such as we would expect if a thinking person had designed it and wanted to communicate with us.

Christians attempt to preserve their proposed theory by moving it into the set of unprovables that lack all evidence. They do this arbitrarily, and for no other reason than to save the proposed theory, by creating impassable barriers to observation, just as requiring us to look in every corner of every universe creates an impassable barrier for one who is asked to decisively disprove the statement "there are big green Martians." For instance, the advanced theory holds that God alleviates suffering in heaven, which we conveniently cannot observe, and he has reasons for waiting and allowing suffering to persist on Earth, reasons which are also suitably unobservable to us, because God chooses not to explain them, just as he chooses, again for an unstated reason that is entirely inscrutable, to remain utterly invisible to all my senses, external and internal, despite being always around and inside me and otherwise capable of speaking to me plainly.

The problem is not, as some theists think, that we can find no explanations to "rationalize" a god in this world of hurt. I can imagine numerous gods who would be morally justified and even admirable, and others who would be neither evil nor good, and still others who are evil, but none of these would be the Christian god. The fact is that Christianity is the proposal of a theory, and like all theories, it entails predictions--but these predictions are not being born out. So Christians invent excuses to save the theory--excuses which have absolutely no basis in any evidence or inference, except the sole fact that they rescue the theory. This is Ptolemy's epicycles all over again: the motions of the planets and sun refused to fit the theory that they all revolve around the Earth, so Ptolemy invented numerous complex patterns of motion that had no particular reason to happen other than the fact that they rescue the theory of geocentricity. It is simply far wiser to conclude that instead of this monstrously complex and bizarre architecture of groundless saving suppositions, it makes far more sense, and uses far fewer suppositions, to simply admit that the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth after all. As for all the other theories--all the other possible gods--there is no more evidence for them than for this incredibly complex deity with a dozen strange and mysterious reasons that only too conveniently explain why we never observe him or his actions in any clear way.

Of course, even these groundless "solutions" to the Christian 'theory' do not really save the theory, because, to maintain it, at some point you must abandon belief in God's omnipotence--since at every turn, God is forced to do something (to remain hidden and to wait before alleviating suffering, etc.) by some unknown feature of reality, and this entails that some feature of reality is more powerful than God. And this feature cannot merely be God's moral nature, since if that were his only limitation, there would then be no barrier to his speaking to me or acting immediately to alleviate suffering or designing the universe to have overtly moral or linguistic features, since any truly moral nature would compel, not prevent, such behavior. Thus, the Christian hypothesis is either incoherent or unprovable, and in the one case it is necessarily false, while in the other it lacks justification, so we have no reason to believe it, any more than we have a reason to believe that there is a big green Martian on some planet in some corner of some universe. This is what it means to "prove a negative."



Proving a Negative
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,537 • Replies: 119
No top replies

 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:55 pm
@hue-man,
Well, this guy supposes some things about God that I don't think even most Christians would agree with. But I'll let any Christians who feel like commenting take that up. What I will say is that certainly many of these notions of God are not, even remotely, biblical. First,

Quote:

For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go.


Really, God granted everyone the ability to know him? Why then does the bible say that he hated Esau? Why does the Bible say that some people are not his children, that some people are the children of the devil? I think we are supposing an awful lot of God to say that he wants the children of the devil to know him. By definition God is within you? Are you sure about that?

Quote:

what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate.


If this is true then no one is compassionate, not unless they sell everything they own, give every last cent of money away to the needy, except for as little as they absolutely need to keep in order to survive, and they spend every available moment of their time helping others. So then I would safely assume that this fellow has not met one person that is, by his definition, compassionate, because I certainly know that I haven't. Perhaps then he needs to rework his definition of the word, because if he doesn't recognize compassion when he sees it in his fellow human beings, how could he possibly recognize the compassion of God?

Quote:

God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose, but the universe lacks moral features


How could the universe's lack of moral features have anything to do with the purpose for which the universe was created? Since Christianity is a vice of man created by and for man, it should only be God and man's morals that are questioned in relation to the purpose of the universe, not the lack of morals in animals and other aspects of nature. So the latter part of that paragraph was just completely silly.

Quote:

at every turn, God is forced to do something (to remain hidden and to wait before alleviating suffering, etc.) by some unknown feature of reality,


Given what I've said above this statement becomes utterly void, and with it, this guy's whole theory. But even so, how could God choosing to remain hidden and to wait be something that God is forced to do? Rather, Richard Carrier would force God to reveal himself to disprove this essay... because hey, that would prove God's omnipotence wouldn't it? Sorry but I've seen much better attempts at disproving God.
Dichanthelium
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:47 pm
@Solace,
I really like the first part, where you have scrutinized the concept of proving a negative. But when you launch into a polemic against Christian theism, you overlook the fact that Christianity is not monolythic. I think you should could consider whether your acquaintance with Christian theology is sufficient to engage on this topic. I also have serious disputes with Christianity, the institutional variety, popularly understood and popularly practiced, but if we get polemical, I think we need to distinguish between certain popular elements within the tradition and the heart of the tradition.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:00 am
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
I really like the first part, where you have scrutinized the concept of proving a negative. But when you launch into a polemic against Christian theism, you overlook the fact that Christianity is not monolythic. I think you should could consider whether your acquaintance with Christian theology is sufficient to engage on this topic. I also have serious disputes with Christianity, the institutional variety, popularly understood and popularly practiced, but if we get polemical, I think we need to distinguish between certain popular elements within the tradition and the heart of the tradition.


I didn't write that article. Didn't you see the name and the link? This guy makes some very valid points, but I'm sure there will always be someone who doesn't like it - people who are sympathetic to the idea of God, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that's fine with me. I have no desire to debate about this article. I just posted it as food for thought, so eat.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:29 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I didn't write that article. Didn't you see the name and the link? This guy makes some very valid points, but I'm sure there will always be someone who doesn't like it - people who are sympathetic to the idea of God, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that's fine with me. I have no desire to debate about this article. I just posted it as food for thought, so eat.


It isn't about my sympathies. It's about Richard Carrier's consistincies. As I pointed out, he has none.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:36 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
It isn't about my sympathies. It's about Richard Carrier's consistincies. As I pointed out, he has none.


I went through some of what you said, and you are off on a lot of your points, but I haven't decided if I really feel like typing another response and continuing a debate on a subject that I think I think should have ended at least 100 years ago.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:06 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I went through some of what you said, and you are off on a lot of your points, but I haven't decided if I really feel like typing another response and continuing a debate on a subject that I think I think should have ended at least 100 years ago.


Yes, and a hundred years ago a group of people decided that they would, indeed, end the debate once and for all. They declared that there is no God and that to say otherwise was treason to the state. They came to be known as communists. Is that the sort of solution that you are looking for when you say that the debate should have ended 100 years ago?
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:13 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Yes, and a hundred years ago a group of people decided that they would, indeed, end the debate once and for all. They declared that there is no God and that to say otherwise was treason to the state. They came to be known as communists. Is that the sort of solution that you are looking for when you say that the debate should have ended 100 years ago?


Of course that's not what I meant. Communists stand against everything I believe in. While I agree that the idea of God should play no role in affairs of the state, I do not believe that you should coerce people into not worshiping God. This doesn't have much to do with atheism in general, as it has to do with authoritarianism. The United States goes about separating church and state the right way, even though I still think that they could practice it better.

When I said that the debate should have ended 100 years ago, I meant that the idea of God shouldn't be taken seriously by 21st century people who devote their lives to thinking (philosophers). Most of the people who seem to disagree with me on this site either believe in a personal God, or simply leave the idea open for wishful thinking. It's not as complicated as many of you make it seem. I've made reasonable arguments, and logically arguments against any conception of God, and so far I've had people retreat to ambiguous agnosticism, or even idealism as a defense. I just find it to be ridiculous.

I've been spending a lot of time on this subject, and I don't want to spend much more, but I will probably respond to your rebuttal and tell you what I think you misunderstood about this guy's argument. I really didn't plan on debating on this article, but sometimes I can't help myself. I'll get back to you.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:10 am
@hue-man,
I agree that governments should make a definite distinction between church and state, and leave religious dogma/propaganda out of politics. Given George W.'s track record, though, I'm not so sure the U.S. has done such a good job of it of late. Hopefully Obama will put that back the way it ought to be.

You have made several good arguments against God. And others have made several good arguments for God. The fact is that both sides utilize logic and reasoning, yet neither side can provide proof. What neither side seems to understand is that the argument is thus completely futile. And despite your earnest wishes, and theirs, (and mine, for the record, cause I'm tired of seeing people debate the unprovable,) the debate isn't ever going to end.

I deal with both sides equally, you've seen that in how I responded to the Anselm thread. Arguing for or against God is just plain silly in my opinion, especially when people use logic that is only logic on the surface, or when they make unfounded assumptions about the other side's beliefs.

Anyway, come back and continue on about how I misunderstood the article if ya like. I'll take a look when you do.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:03 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
I agree that governments should make a definite distinction between church and state, and leave religious dogma/propaganda out of politics. Given George W.'s track record, though, I'm not so sure the U.S. has done such a good job of it of late. Hopefully Obama will put that back the way it ought to be.

You have made several good arguments against God. And others have made several good arguments for God. The fact is that both sides utilize logic and reasoning, yet neither side can provide proof. What neither side seems to understand is that the argument is thus completely futile. And despite your earnest wishes, and theirs, (and mine, for the record, cause I'm tired of seeing people debate the unprovable,) the debate isn't ever going to end.

I deal with both sides equally, you've seen that in how I responded to the Anselm thread. Arguing for or against God is just plain silly in my opinion, especially when people use logic that is only logic on the surface, or when they make unfounded assumptions about the other side's beliefs.

Anyway, come back and continue on about how I misunderstood the article if ya like. I'll take a look when you do.


I have not heard a good logical argument for the existence of God. The last argument that I heard for the existence of God was the first cause argument, which is a deistic one, and that argument was shot down a long time ago. The logical arguments against God usually deals with the characteristics that are attributed to him, and those attributes can easily be logical deducted, and shown to be incompatible. I have not seen anyone make a logical rebuttal to these arguments. The last trench that some have gone to is the idealism world view, which was also discredited a long time ago.

I truly don't believe that this debate for or against the existence of God will go on forever. Fideists are more than likely gonna dwindle to a core minority of mystic agnostics who believe in ecological primitivism, and will be ostracized from society by the middle of the next century. When the consolidation of philosophy occurs sometime near the middle of this millennium many of the problems of philosophy will be considered to be settled.

My whole point in debating against the existence of God is to show that there is no sensible reason, nor logical reason to believe in the existence of God, and therefore I don't believe in God, which makes me an atheist. I have no conviction to this position - just show me the evidence. I feel like agnostics just ignore these points due to a desire to be neutral. I use to call myself an agnostic until I realized that there really isn't a middle ground between believing in something or not believing in something. If you disbelieve then you are an agnostic atheist, and if you do believe then you are an agnostic theist. Both atheism and theism are not statements of knowledge - they are statements of belief and the lack thereof. Since there is no knowledge/evidence of the existence of God (or supernatural agency) atheists base their disbelief on positivism (the verifiability principle), reason, and logic; while theists base their belief on faith (fideism).

So with that said, which one are you?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 01:18 pm
@hue-man,
Hey, check it out: another strawman argument against God. Who would have guessed?
0 Replies
 
Resha Caner
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 03:25 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Well, this guy supposes some things about God that I don't think even most Christians would agree with.


The first part of this was excellent, and I plan to save it for future reference. I was expecting a good challenge. But, as both Solace and Didymos have pointed out, it becomes a strawman at the end. Hence, it completely falls apart.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 03:36 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I have not heard a good logical argument for the existence of God. The last argument that I heard for the existence of God was the first cause argument, which is a deistic one, and that argument was shot down a long time ago. The logical arguments against God usually deals with the characteristics that are attributed to him, and those attributes can easily be logical deducted, and shown to be incompatible. I have not seen anyone make a logical rebuttal to these arguments. The last trench that some have gone to is the idealism world view, which was also discredited a long time ago.

I truly don't believe that this debate for or against the existence of God will go on forever. Fideists are more than likely gonna dwindle to a core minority of mystic agnostics who believe in ecological primitivism, and will be ostracized from society by the middle of the next century. When the consolidation of philosophy occurs sometime near the middle of this millennium many of the problems of philosophy will be considered to be settled.

My whole point in debating against the existence of God is to show that there is no sensible reason, nor logical reason to believe in the existence of God, and therefore I don't believe in God, which makes me an atheist. I have no conviction to this position - just show me the evidence. I feel like agnostics just ignore these points due to a desire to be neutral. I use to call myself an agnostic until I realized that there really isn't a middle ground between believing in something or not believing in something. If you disbelieve then you are an agnostic atheist, and if you do believe then you are an agnostic theist. Both atheism and theism are not statements of knowledge - they are statements of belief and the lack thereof. Since there is no knowledge/evidence of the existence of God (or supernatural agency) atheists base their disbelief on positivism (the verifiability principle), reason, and logic; while theists base their belief on faith (fideism).

So with that said, which one are you?


Then your argument against God is no more logical than the arguments for God. You make a case against characteristics that are attributed to God, but you don't make a case against God. Those characteristics are simply inaccuracurately attributed to God. So you're shooting down a false idea of God. Which is fine by me, but you're being remarkably short-sighted if you think that by arguing against the misreprestation of God that you are disproving the existence of God.

I went through this earlier as it pertained to Richard Carrier's essay. He, like you, simply makes assumptions about God, and then goes about disproving his own assumptions. That isn't logical, not even remotely. So to claim that you base your lack of belief on logic is simply wrong. You base your lack of belief on the fact that there is no verifiable evidence. That just makes you a materialist, or a physicalist, but it doesn't make you any more logical or reasonable a philosopher than a theist.

Ego always gets in the way of these debates about God, which is another reason why these debates are pointless. Both the theist and atheist walk into it with a pre-determined mindset that they are completely unwilling to change, myself included. Agnostics typically don't care enough about the subject to embroil themselves in the often heated exchanges that take place between the two opposing parties. Which is a pity because at least agnostics make an attempt at objectivity. But like you say, is anyone truly agnostic? So the debate circles on itself and goes nowhere.

I am a theist. Don't get me wrong, being a theist doesn't make me a fan of religion. But religion isn't going to simply disappear. Nor are thesists. Nor will these debates. You look ahead and see a future that is largely devoid of religion and theism? What in the world gives you that impression? The world might very well be better off if you were right, but I simply don't see it happening.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 07:09 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Then your argument against God is no more logical than the arguments for God. You make a case against characteristics that are attributed to God, but you don't make a case against God. Those characteristics are simply inaccuracurately attributed to God. So you're shooting down a false idea of God. Which is fine by me, but you're being remarkably short-sighted if you think that by arguing against the misreprestation of God that you are disproving the existence of God.

I went through this earlier as it pertained to Richard Carrier's essay. He, like you, simply makes assumptions about God, and then goes about disproving his own assumptions. That isn't logical, not even remotely. So to claim that you base your lack of belief on logic is simply wrong. You base your lack of belief on the fact that there is no verifiable evidence. That just makes you a materialist, or a physicalist, but it doesn't make you any more logical or reasonable a philosopher than a theist.

Ego always gets in the way of these debates about God, which is another reason why these debates are pointless. Both the theist and atheist walk into it with a pre-determined mindset that they are completely unwilling to change, myself included. Agnostics typically don't care enough about the subject to embroil themselves in the often heated exchanges that take place between the two opposing parties. Which is a pity because at least agnostics make an attempt at objectivity. But like you say, is anyone truly agnostic? So the debate circles on itself and goes nowhere.

I am a theist. Don't get me wrong, being a theist doesn't make me a fan of religion. But religion isn't going to simply disappear. Nor are thesists. Nor will these debates. You look ahead and see a future that is largely devoid of religion and theism? What in the world gives you that impression? The world might very well be better off if you were right, but I simply don't see it happening.


"Then your argument against God is no more logical than the arguments for God. You make a case against characteristics that are attributed to God, but you don't make a case against God. Those characteristics are simply inaccuracurately attributed to God. So you're shooting down a false idea of God. Which is fine by me, but you're being remarkably short-sighted if you think that by arguing against the misreprestation of God that you are disproving the existence of God."

What I find remarkable about this statement is that you are calling the traditional concept of God a misrepresentation, as if your concept is the objective truth. The word God and the meanings attributed to it are all conceptions that people make up! How do you not get that? There is no evidence for the existence of any conception of God, and believers admit that there God is not physical, and cannot be fully comprehended, which means that he is nothing more than an idea; an idea that is becoming more and more obscure. The God of the gaps is dying slowly; may he rest in peace.

What is your conception of God? In other words, what does the word God mean to you?

You stated that I have made good arguments against God, and in the same post you said that theists have also made good arguments for God. First, I have yet to hear those good arguments for the existence of God, and second, since both of these arguments oppose each other, either one is logical and the other illogical, or both are illogical; which one is it (keep in mind that regardless of your response you'll be contradicting earlier statements)?

"I went through this earlier as it pertained to Richard Carrier's essay. He, like you, simply makes assumptions about God, and then goes about disproving his own assumptions. That isn't logical, not even remotely. So to claim that you base your lack of belief on logic is simply wrong. You base your lack of belief on the fact that there is no verifiable evidence. That just makes you a materialist, or a physicalist, but it doesn't make you any more logical or reasonable a philosopher than a theist."


I hate to keep repeating myself, but you agnostic theists just refuse to hear me. I DID NOT MAKE UP THESE ASSUMPTIONS; THEISTS HAVE MADE UP THESE ASSUMPTIONS/ATTRIBUTES; I AM SIMPLY ARGUING AGAINST THEM. Please tell me you heard me that time?

I've logically deducted the various conceptions of God (deism, pantheism, and theism). Your response is to just keep saying that I'm making assumptions about God, or that I don't have the conception right. Please tell me what your conception of God is?!!

"Ego always gets in the way of these debates about God, which is another reason why these debates are pointless."

I agree that ego is a problem in any debate, and it is best to try your hardest to keep it under control. I must admit that it is this subject that I have the hardest time not exposing my ego, but that's only because I find the belief in a deity to be as ridiculous as the belief that Elvis was God. I feel disappointed that thinkers still have to use their time debating this issue, but that is our intellectual nature.

"Both the theist and atheist walk into it with a pre-determined mindset that they are completely unwilling to change, myself included."

I am perfectly willing to change my position from atheism to theism or deism, just show me the evidence.

"I am a theist. Don't get me wrong, being a theist doesn't make me a fan of religion. But religion isn't going to simply disappear. Nor are thesists. Nor will these debates. You look ahead and see a future that is largely devoid of religion and theism? What in the world gives you that impression? The world might very well be better off if you were right, but I simply don't see it happening."

If you are not a fan of religion then what kind of a theist are you? You sound more like a deist, not a theist. My point of these debates is not in the hope that it will cause religion to go away. I just want to put religion in its place, the same way we put other ridiculous ideas in their place.

I don't think that religion will disappear completely. I think that fideism will eventually be absorbed by a vague mystic agnosticism that will be held by a core minority. I also see religion eventually playing no role in our politics or public policy. These predictions are based on current social trends in the industrialized world.Industrialization and social progress eventually lead to a lessening of religiosity, which eventually leads to the decline of devout followers, which eventually leads to the decline of the religion itself. Because scientific positivism and secular humanism are the driving forces behind this socio-political progress, religion will continue to lose credit among people in modern industrialized societies. Even though the western world will lead the way, the Islamic world will follow the same trend, but it will probably be about 150 years behind. I'm not stating this as an absolute truth, because it hasn't occurred yet, but when making predictions you use the social sciences, and examples from history (which is a social science). In terms of the chances of it not happening, I can only say that it is much more than likely to happen. The trends in this direction can be seen now by anyone who bothers to pay attention. I must admit that I didn't make this prediction up myself; it comes from social science.
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:02 pm
@hue-man,
Can someone please provide a basic, assumption-free definition of God? That would help to focus the discussion.
0 Replies
 
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:13 pm
@hue-man,
Hue-man:Given the current indications of the necessary incompleteness of a cohesive logical-scientific-mathematical model of reality, what is your stance on the mystical?


I understand your stance; you will not make assumptions without enough evidence that allows you to make them with intellectual honesty. What you do not understand, I think, is that there are people who derive their conception of the mystical from personal experience. From a set of experiences, they create a concept of a 'higher power'. Thus such a concept is personal in that no other person could understand it anymore than they could have within them the very same set of experiences as another person. Such a set of experiences cannot be conveyed without filtering by the set of experiences and preconceptions of the person(s) to which they are being expressed. It is necessarily so as well, that even were it so that another person went through the very same physical/social circumstance as another they would interpret the events differently due to subsequent events, that is; they would experience it through a different filter.

The 'religious' that spout nonsense about X which has been refuted, or which doesn't make sense, and those with contradictions in their actions and speech are often those who believe in fairy tales and ghost stories. They are those who lay down first a concept built around fear of the unknown, and then build up from there the concept of the world that they hold. They have a foundation of fear.
Resha Caner
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:51 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic, I was with you until the end of your post. I don't think I have any more or less fear than "people of science" or "non-believers" or whatever label you would use.

I suppose you mean the possibility of hell, but I don't live my life in fear of hell. C.S. Lewis, in his "Reflections on the Psalms", asked if one would would still love God in the same way even if no afterlife - if no promise of salvation - existed. It is an intriguing question. I'm not sure anyone can answer it honestly, but the point is well made. That the point is to love God, not to try and do him favors so he'll be nice to you after you die.

Anyway, I don't think believers live their life with any more or less fear than non-believers. Trying to prove such a thing would be a comical excercise.

ACB hits closer to the crux of this debate. The original essay actually makes a clever move. It never tries to disprove God (at least as I recall). Rather, it tries to make the beliefs of certain groups seem implausible. While it is a strength of the argument, it is also a weakness. For, as has been pointed out several times, one who has not had an experience of God cannot claim to know him. I've never met George Bush, so I can't claim to know him, no matter how much has been written about him.

You must admit that Jews, Moslems, Christians, Hindus, etc., all look at gods in a different way. There is no single definition. And that is the problem. Suppose they are all wrong (of course I don't think I am wrong, but for the sake of argument suppose they are all wrong). That does not exhaust the infinite, and, therefore, the argument proves nothing. As a matter of fact, I think that point is made within the argument itself.

So, it is a clear statement of why Mr. Carrier thinks religion is ridiculous, but not much else. I have also heard very cogent renderings on the benefits of religion.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 09:26 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
Hue-man:Given the current indications of the necessary incompleteness of a cohesive logical-scientific-mathematical model of reality, what is your stance on the mystical?


I understand your stance; you will not make assumptions without enough evidence that allows you to make them with intellectual honesty. What you do not understand, I think, is that there are people who derive their conception of the mystical from personal experience. From a set of experiences, they create a concept of a 'higher power'. Thus such a concept is personal in that no other person could understand it anymore than they could have within them the very same set of experiences as another person. Such a set of experiences cannot be conveyed without filtering by the set of experiences and preconceptions of the person(s) to which they are being expressed. It is necessarily so as well, that even were it so that another person went through the very same physical/social circumstance as another they would interpret the events differently due to subsequent events, that is; they would experience it through a different filter.

The 'religious' that spout nonsense about X which has been refuted, or which doesn't make sense, and those with contradictions in their actions and speech are often those who believe in fairy tales and ghost stories. They are those who lay down first a concept built around fear of the unknown, and then build up from there the concept of the world that they hold. They have a foundation of fear.


I reject mysticism, because I recognize the principle of parsimony, and mysticism ignores it. It also ignores the verifiability principle, which I also recognize.

Don't get me wrong, I do not ignore the fact that people have mystical experiences (especially if they use LSD Very Happy). I just think that in the case of mysticism, people mistake feeling for knowing. These mystical or mystifying experiences can be explained very easily, and in very natural ways, but mysticism ignores the principle of verifiability, and thus chooses feeling over knowing.

I couldn't agree with you more, when you say that the religious have a foundation of fear. I've made that point to a number of family members, and they didn't really object to my statement, so there must be something to it. In the past, this fear was invoked by all types of natural phenomena that humans could not wrap their heads around, while today this fear seems to be primarily motivated by life's uncertainties and imperfections, as well as the fear of death.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:48 pm
@hue-man,
Heh heh, to tell ya the truth, I had to look up the meaning of theist and deist to find out the difference. I'd have to say that, based on the definitions at Dictionary.com, that both are a belief in God, but a theist accepts the idea of revelation while a deist rejects it, I am a theist. I am not an agnostic theist. I know what I believe. Do I claim this belief to be knowledge? No. But anyone who does is just delusional.

Alright hue-man, you, and also Richard Carrier, addressed a traditional idea of God. It's not as if there is only one. Even given that, my original post in this thread still points out the problems of Mr. Carrier's argument as it relates even to that idea of God. And you have yet to directly address my original rebuttal.

Quote:

The word God and the meanings attributed to it are all conceptions that people make up! How do you not get that?


I do get that. And, like you, I reject certain conceptions of God, just obviously for a different reason. As for my conception of God, I do believe in the omnipotent and omniscient aspects. I just simply don't believe in the omni-benevolent bit. How anyone could think that of God is beyond me. Such people need to wake up and realize the world that we're living in. Moreover, they need to analize the lives that they're living.

Now, if you have a logical argument against the existence of God that doesn't include omni-benelovence then I'd love to see it. Omni-benevolence is not a Biblical trait of God, neither old nor new testament.

Quote:

You stated that I have made good arguments against God, and in the same post you said that theists have also made good arguments for God. First, I have yet to hear those good arguments for the existence of God, and second, since both of these arguments oppose each other, either one is logical and the other illogical, or both are illogical; which one is it (keep in mind that regardless of your response you'll be contradicting earlier statements)?



Nice try. You seem to be on a mission to try to catch me in my own words, as if that would disqualify my whole argument. You're above such desperate measures I believe. As for the good arguments, well, hate to break it to you, but the Anselm thread's argument for God was just as good as this thread's argument against. You may not agree with me on that, but your opinion of how good each argument of the matter is doesn't matter, because neither argument holds water. And neither argument is logical. But hey, nice try; in both cases the presented arguments are about as good as it gets.

Quote:

I am perfectly willing to change my position from atheism to theism or deism, just show me the evidence.


There is no evidence and you make this statement knowing that full well. So, no, you are not willing to change your position.

Quote:

If you are not a fan of religion then what kind of a theist are you?


Uumm... I'm a theist who isn't a fan of religion. What more can I say? Believing in God and believing what religions say about God is two different things. I can think for myself and am glad to do so.

Quote:

I also see religion eventually playing no role in our politics or public policy.


I hope to heck that you're right. But I simply don't see the social trends that you do. The trends that I see are remarkably different. It seems like everytime we take one step forward into the light of bringing the public out of the dark age's mentality of traditional biases, we end up taking two steps back. And if you're going to consider the industrialized world, America leads the field. Well, religion is still hugely prominent in America today. Contrary to what the religious say, their numbers are still strong. According to what was posted in another thread on this forum recently, upwards of 60% of Americans claim at least some religious beliefs. That is not a society that is ready to lead the way to a fideism free future. And, let's face it, wherever we end up collectively, it is likely going to be America that is going to lead the way for the rest of the world.
Resha Caner
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:01 pm
@Solace,
Cool. A new word. I didn't know what "fideism" was.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proving a negative
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:06:32