 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Does God exist? |
| Yes |
|
56% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
43% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 606
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| AJHunter wrote: | | I wanna see you prove God doesn't exist. Try that! |
I don't really want to get involved in a debate about religion, but I do want to address this old idea, as it really bugs me.
It is impossible to 100% disprove the existence of something, especially if we're allowing metaphysical ideas in the discussion. For example, it is impossible to prove that invisible unicorns don't exist. This is, of course, true for god as well.
However, this is not a compelling reason to believe that something does exist. In fact, the default position should be disbelief for that very reason. It's true that, if I tried to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns by saying that I never bump into them walking around, you could just say they're very quick to get out of my way. This still doesn't give any evidence for the existence of invisible unicorns, and my default position would remain one of disbelief.
You're the one trying to make a case for the existence of God, AJ. It's up to you to provide evidence, not up to others to disprove your theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bagne
ALL YOUR NUDIBRANCH ARE BELONG TO GASTROPODA
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 518
Location: Halifax
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ Camdog
If we're discussing the existence of something that may or may not exist, and say we don't have any evidence to back up either position, why would disbelief be the default?
Wouldn't it be wiser to say "I don't know"?
In order to confidently say that something does not exist, you would need to present some kind of evidence to back up your claim, wouldn't you?
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, this is the most fundamental principle of debate. Burden of proof is on the one trying to prove something, not the one trying to disprove something.
More fundamentally, disbelief is the default because it makes sense. I don't believe there are monsters in my closet, although I have no evidence either way.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bagne
ALL YOUR NUDIBRANCH ARE BELONG TO GASTROPODA
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 518
Location: Halifax
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me.
I would think that any kind of claim requires evidence, otherwise it's assumed as unknown.
Say we're having a discussion about quantum mechanics - and we disagree on something.
I say: "I am persuaded by the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics."
You say: "No, quantum mechanics is best interpreted to describe a non-deterministic universe."
So, who has the burden of proof? Don't we both?
Scientists don't assume either of these claims by default.
I would say that debating the existence of God is no different from debating the existence of determinism.
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob the Hamster
OHRRPGCE Developer
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 2526
Location: Hamster Republic (Southern California Enclave)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Flying Spaghetti Monster hates you all! ;)
No, just kidding. he still loves you!
Actually, seriously. The impossibility of proving a negative is important to understand.
And Bagne, the quantum physics example you gave (currently) IS a religious question, and IS unresolvable within the limits of currently known science.
| Bagne wrote: |
I would say that debating the existence of God is no different from debating the existence of determinism. |
Well put! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bagne wrote: | | Scientists don't assume either of these claims by default. |
And if we were using the scientific method here, that would be relevant. Unfortunately, as James says, the scientific method yields no results here. (Actually, though, assumptions are made in scientific and mathematical proofs all the time -- take proof by contradiction, for example.)
Wikipedia's summary is useful:
| Wiki wrote: | The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." ...
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. |
And it continues:
| Wiki wrote: | | Some suggest that preferring an active disbelief in an opposing idea over a passive non-belief is improper. However, as mentioned previously, a true practice of this would result in a vastly bloated ontology comprising unsubstantiated logical possibilities. So while claiming it is always more rational to remain open-minded until conclusive evidence justifies otherwise, cognitively entertaining the logical existence of all the gods that have ever been proposed while waiting around for evidence of their non-existence is not easily and often done, even by those offering this criticism of the burden of proof. |
In other words, your argument necessitates that you believe equally in God, the flying spaghetti monster, and unicorns, until such time as you have evidence against the existence of each. Good luck with that.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwinHamster
♫ Furious souls, burn eternally! ♫
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1352
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
satyrisci
~guo~
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@TwinHamster:
Your avatar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shadowiii
It's been real.
Joined: 14 Feb 2003
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TwinHamster wrote: | | What is God |
What is a man?
_________________
But enough talk, have at you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bagne
ALL YOUR NUDIBRANCH ARE BELONG TO GASTROPODA
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 518
Location: Halifax
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ James
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "a religious question"
@ Moogle
| Quote: | | And if we were using the scientific method here, that would be relevant. Unfortunately, as James says, the scientific method yields no results here. |
Eh?
If that's what James was saying, I would disagree with him.
Just because there is a scarcity of direct empirical observation doesn't mean that there isn't anything to be learned.
In the case of determinism, as James mentions, it appears to be impossible to concretely resolve the issue - that is, arrive at a scientific consensus.
However, it is still possible to form a well-grounded opinion.
For example, Einstein put forward the EPR paradox, which argued that a non-deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics violated the principle of locality (a rather "sacred" assumption in physics that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light). So, by assuming locality (which is based on both theoretical and empirical considerations), he came to a legitimate conclusion.
The problem is that not all observations are created equal. That is, some observations lead more convincingly to conclusions than others. In the case of the existence of God, I have my reasons to believe. Whether or not they also convince *you* is a different issue altogether - religious opinion tends to be very personal.
So, while my reasons might not be easily replicable, they exist. Faith should not be blind. In fact, my religion teaches that faith is first "conscious knowledge" and second "the practice of good deeds".
| Quote: | | In other words, your argument necessitates that you believe equally in God, the flying spaghetti monster, and unicorns, until such time as you have evidence against the existence of each. |
Maybe I haven't been clear, because that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that ignorance ought to be our default, and that any claim like "God does not exist" or "The universe is deterministic", should not be accepted without having a reason.
I don't preoccupy myself with unicorns or spaghetti monsters because these are admitted to be the construct of someone's imagination. I don't think it's possible to prove that they don't exist. Mathematics aside, I don't think it's possible to prove _anything_. The best we can do is be pragmatic and come up with "a list of good reasons" to go with one conclusion over another.
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bagne wrote: | | Quote: | | In other words, your argument necessitates that you believe equally in God, the flying spaghetti monster, and unicorns, until such time as you have evidence against the existence of each. |
Maybe I haven't been clear, because that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that ignorance ought to be our default, and that any claim like "God does not exist" or "The universe is deterministic", should not be accepted without having a reason. |
This still means that you have equal belief in any unknown until evidence alters your beliefs, and it's certainly not something you can use as support in a debate. The original statement that sparked all this:
| AJHunter wrote: | | I wanna see you prove God doesn't exist. Try that! |
And your reply, a few posts later:
| Bagne wrote: | | In order to confidently say that something does not exist, you would need to present some kind of evidence to back up your claim, wouldn't you? |
I think the problem here is the word "confidently." Since you can't actually "present ... evidence" to back a claim of non-existence, the normal behavior is to assume something doesn't exist unless evidence suggests otherwise.
Whether evidence does suggest otherwise in this case is another matter altogether, and a topic I'll steer clear of.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bagne
ALL YOUR NUDIBRANCH ARE BELONG TO GASTROPODA
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 518
Location: Halifax
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But ... you can present evidence for the absence of something.
What if say this:
If "X" existed, we expect to see "Y".
We do not see "Y", therefore "X" is absent.
Real life example:
People used to believe in caloric. It was great! It predicted that objects, when put in contact, would reach thermal equilibrium.
But nobody believes it exists anymore. Why? Because caloric was supposed to be a liquid, liquids have known behaviors, and few (if any) of these behaviors are observed when heat is being exchanged. The kinetic model of temperature works much better.
It seems to me that when you are making a claim about reality, be it a positive or negative claim, you are describing it.
This description can be tested with reason, thought experiments, and sometimes it can be tested against direct empirical measurement.
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're saying that if there's no proof that something exists, you should assume it doesn't exist.
I don't think I follow you, because that was my point and you said something completely different not long ago.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baconlabs
PURPLE IS MANLY
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 335
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
It can be argued that if something has an impact on something else, then it exists.
So then, perhaps the real question is: WHAT IS REAL?
Feel free to carry on a monthlong discussion on this tangent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FyreWulff
Still Jaded
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 406
Location: The Internet
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quantum physics is a religious question in the effect that we cannot prove it with the scientific method or any method at all, so you pretty much just have to believe in it. Like religion.
One of the problems we have with it you can chance the outcome of something by simply observing it.
Versus stuff like gravity which has many proofs that can be repeated with the same results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
