Proofs and evidences of the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by dumaurier, Jun 28, 1999.

  1. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Dumaurier:

    Uhhuh.

    Why is it that every time I back you into a corner of your own making, you resort to spouting the scriptures, demonising the opposition, and completely abandoning the topics at hand? Have you anything reasonable to reply with, besides 'praise the Lord' and 'heretics be damned'?

    Cut the idealistic castles in the air and the veiled ad hominem attacks, kick your brain into the thinking mode, and address the issues at hand in this forum. (If that was the best you could do, then we might as well stop here.)

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Boris, like i said, it's been nice talking to you.


    "Blessed are they that have soared
    on the wings of detachment
    and attained the station which,
    as ordained by God,
    overshadoweth the entire creation,
    whom neither the vain imaginations
    of the learned,
    nor the multitude of the hosts
    of the earth have succeeded
    in deflecting from His Cause.
    Who is there among you,
    O people,
    who will renounce the world,
    and draw nigh unto God,
    the Lord of all names?
    Where is he to be found who,
    through the power of My name that
    transcendeth all created things,
    will cast away the things
    that men possess, and cling,
    with all his might,
    to the things which God,
    the Knower of the unseen and of the seen,
    hath bidden him observe?
    Thus hath His bounty been sent down unto men,
    His testimony fulfilled,
    and His proof shone forth above
    the Horizon of mercy.
    Rich is the prize that shall be won
    by him who hath believed and
    exclaimed:
    "Lauded art Thou,
    O Beloved of all worlds!
    Magnified be Thy name,
    O Thou the Desire
    of every understanding heart!"
    (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, pp. 34-35)


    "LAUDED ART THOU,
    O BELOVED OF ALL WORLDS!
    MAGNIFIED BE THY NAME,
    O THOU THE DESIRE OF EVERY
    UNDERSTANDING HEART!"



    and dumaurier repeats:


    "LAUDED ART THOU,
    O BELOVED OF ALL WORLDS!
    MAGNIFIED BE THY NAME,
    O THOU THE DESIRE OF EVERY
    UNDERSTANDING HEART!"


    I bear witness that there is none other God but God!

    May His mercy shine upon you, dear Boris.

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    When I was little, I thought that monsters hid in the dark. I went to bed with the lights on to comfort me.

    Then I grew up.

    The tale of God is a comforting one designed to shield from the harshness, finality, uncertainty and apparent purposelessness of reality. But while ignorance is bliss, such a comfort is hardly worth seeking. To find adventure, one must leave shelter, open the mind, brave the world, and be willing to endure the elements. And what is life without adventure? A life in a Cave.

    Quoting Mel Gibson from Braveheart:
    "Everyone dies. Not everyone really lives."

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 27, 1999).]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. (New Testament: John, 11:25-26)


    So (give) glory to God, when ye reach eventide and when ye rise in the morning;
    Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline. It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living, and Who gives life to the earth after it is dead: and thus shall ye be brought out (from the dead). (Qu'ran, 30-AR-RUM)

    Those who listen (in truth), be sure, will accept: as to the dead, God will raise them up; then will they be turned unto Him. (Qur'an: 6-AL-AN`AM)

    So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus God bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand." (Qur'an: 2-AL-BAQARAH)

    Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence). (Qur'an: 36-YA SIN)

    Say: "Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?" They will soon say, "God". Say, "will ye not then show piety (to Him)?"
    Such is God, your real Cherisher and Sustainer: apart from truth, what (remains) but error? How then are ye turned away? Thus is the word of thy Lord proved true against those who rebel: Verily they will not believe. (Qur'an: 10-YUNUS)

    ...God is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things. (Qur'an: 22-AL-HAJJ)

    Follow ye the Way of the Lord and walk not in the footsteps of them that are sunk in heedlessness. Well is it with the slumberer who is stirred by the Breeze of God and ariseth from amongst the dead, directing his steps towards the Way of the Lord. Verily, such a man is regarded, in the sight of God, the True One, as a jewel amongst men and is reckoned with the blissful. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah)


    May peace be upon you, Boris

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  8. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Great God! Although His signs have encompassed the world and His proofs and testimonies are shining forth and manifest as the light, yet the ignorant appear heedless, nay rather, rebellious. Would that they had been content with opposition. But at all times they are plotting to cut down the sacred Lote-Tree. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah)

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  9. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    But a myriad times alas for the wayward who are like unto dried-up leaves fallen upon the dust. Ere long mortal blasts shall carry them away to the place ordained for them. Ignorant did they arrive, ignorant did they linger and ignorant did they retire to their abodes. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah)

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  10. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Unto Thee be praise, O Lord my God!
    I entreat Thee, by Thy signs that have encompassed the entire creation,
    and by the light of Thy countenance that hath illuminated all that are in heaven and on earth,
    and by Thy mercy that hath surpassed all created things,
    and by Thy grace that hath suffused the whole universe,
    to rend asunder the veils that shut me out from Thee,
    that I may hasten unto the Fountain-Head of Thy mighty inspiration,
    and to the Day-Spring of Thy Revelation and bountiful favors,
    and may be immersed beneath the ocean of Thy nearness and pleasure.

    Suffer me not, O my Lord,
    to be deprived of the knowledge of Thee in Thy days,
    and divest me not of the robe of Thy guidance.
    Give me to drink of the river that is life indeed,
    whose waters have streamed forth from the Paradise (Ridván) in which the throne of Thy Name, the All-Merciful, was established,
    that mine eyes may be opened,
    and my face be illumined,
    and my heart be assured,
    and my soul be enlightened,
    and my steps be made firm.

    Thou art He Who from everlasting was,
    through the potency of His might,
    supreme over all things,
    and, through the operation of His will,
    was able to ordain all things.
    Nothing whatsoever,
    whether in Thy heaven or on Thy earth,
    can frustrate Thy purpose.
    Have mercy, then, upon me, O my Lord,
    through Thy gracious providence and generosity,
    and incline mine ear to the sweet melodies of the birds that warble their praise of Thee,
    amidst the branches of the tree of Thy oneness.

    Thou art the Great Giver,
    the Ever-Forgiving,
    the Most Compassionate.



    (Bahá'u'lláh, Prayers and Meditations)




    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  11. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    KNOWLEDGE WAS ONE;
    THE IGNORANT HAVE MYLTIPLIED IT!
    (The Qu'ran)

    Does not the existence of chaos prove the existence of order?
    ~Yes!
    Did man create himself?
    ~No!
    Is the creator like man?
    ~Impossible!
    Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art?
    ~Impossible!
    Can the picture be like its painter?
    ~Impossible!
    Can the painting be as perfect as the painter?
    ~Impossible!
    Is this contingent world the source of imperfections?
    ~Yes!
    Is the Creator the origin of perfections?
    ~Yes! This must be so.
    Are not the imperfections of the contingent world in themselves proof of the perfections of the Creator?
    ~Yes!
    If there were no power, could weakness be imagined?
    ~Never!
    If there were no weakness, could power be imagined?
    ~Never!
    If there were no wealth, could poverty be imagined?
    ~Impossible!
    If there were no poverty , could wealth be imagined?
    ~Impossible!
    If there were no knowledge, could ignorance be imagined?
    ~Never!
    If there were no ignorance , could knowledge be imagined?
    ~Never!
    If there were no knowledge, would there be ignorance?
    ~Never!
    If there were no existence, could nonexistence be realized.
    ~Never!
    Is man in certain particulars governed?
    ~Yes!
    Does not a thing that is governed need someone/something to govern it?
    ~Yes!
    Is not a characteristic of contingent beings dependency?
    ~Yes!
    Is not this dependency an essential necessity?
    ~Yes!
    Therefore, is there not an independent being whose independence is essential?
    ~Yes!
    Is it not so that if there is a man who is sick then there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved?
    ~Yes! Absolutely true!
    Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect?
    ~Impossible!
    Is it not so that unless the Creator possessed all perfections He would not be able to create because He'd be like His creation?
    ~Absolutely!
    Is it not so that there is an Eternal Almighty One Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation?
    ~Yes!
    Is it not so that the existence of a piece of bread proves that it has a maker?
    ~Yes!


    Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  12. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    And so begins the next great cycle.

    Dumaurier makes a series of illogical claims painted as impregnable truths.

    Boris shows there's no inherent truth in the claims.

    Dumaurier spouts lots of quotes.

    Enjoy, repeat...

    <hr>

    "Does not the existence of chaos prove the existence of order? ~Yes!"

    Chaos does not exist; there is only order (due to your beloved causality, no less). What we call 'chaos' is merely an illusion of unpredictability stemming from complexity. This is just one example of some of the binary constructs (chaos/order) that we create, where only one member of the pair actually makes sense.

    <hr>

    "If there were no existence, could nonexistence be realized. Never!"

    If there were no existence, we wouldn't be having the conversation, much less realizing anything. This is another example of a juxtapposition of two concepts, of which only one reflects reality.

    <hr>

    "Is this contingent world the source of imperfections? Yes!"

    "Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Impossible!"

    Does anybody else sense a self-contradiction here? Which one is it Dumaurier: is the creation perfect or imperfect? And how the heck do you classify it as either, when you have nothing else to compare it to?!

    <hr>

    "Are not the imperfections of the contingent world in themselves proof of the perfections of the Creator? Yes!"

    Would you be so kind as to point out just what part of this world is imperfect, and in what way? Perfection is a relative concept; it only applies within a comparison between two tangible sets of features (and even then the criterion of perfection is arbitrarily defined). What two tangible entities are you comparing? What is your criterion for perfection?

    <hr>

    "
    If there were no power, could weakness be imagined? Never!
    If there were no weakness, could power be imagined? Never!
    If there were no wealth, could poverty be imagined? Impossible!
    If there were no poverty , could wealth be imagined? Impossible!
    If there were no knowledge, could ignorance be imagined? Never!
    If there were no ignorance , could knowledge be imagined? Never!
    If there were no knowledge, would there be ignorance? Never!
    "
    These are all fundamentally the same; I'll take the knowledge/ignorance duo as an example. Knowledge in the sense it's commonly used is a concept that makes sense only with reference to an animal. Within that context, it denotes memory, skills, and theories formed or acquired by that animal from direct experience or from other animals. Thus, knowledge is synomymous to experience, and ignorance to lack of experience. Note that the ultimate reference -- experience -- is a singular concept (at least in English), and that you obtain its opposite by literal negation: <u>in</u>experience. What we have then, is a formation of a binary pair by negation of an existing concept to obtain an opposite. However, you could never start with the opposite and arrive at the source -- because the opposite (inexperience) cannot exist prior to the source (experience); it can only be defined as a function (a Boolean negation) of the source.

    You have listed several examples of such binary formations obtained by Boolean negation of a singular extant concept defined directly by observation.

    The literal manifestation of a concept does not 'prove' that a literal manifestation of that concept's negation actually possesses an independent existence. Darkness is defined as opposite to light, yet it simply means absense of light. Hence, light must exist and be known before darkness can be defined.

    That is all you are showing with your listings of opposites. There is no evidence for God in the fact that we can apply simple Boolean operations to percepts.

    <hr>

    "Is man in certain particulars governed?
    ~Yes!
    Does not a thing that is governed need someone/something to govern it?
    ~Yes!
    Is not a characteristic of contingent beings dependency?
    ~Yes!"

    So far so good, but...

    "Is not this dependency an essential necessity?
    ~Yes!"

    is already questionable (it doesn't apply to your God, does it?), and

    "Therefore, is there not an independent being whose independence is essential?
    ~Yes!"

    is simply false. Instead of independent being, we can have independent physics, and be governed by that. So you see, the 'independent being' is <u>not</u> essential.

    <hr>

    "Is it not so that unless the Creator possessed all perfections He would not be able to create because He'd be like His creation?
    ~Absolutely!"

    Not so at all. We humans regularly reproduce, thus 'creating' other humans -- but we are not any more perfect than our children. A creator can definitely create things that are just as 'perfect' (whatever that means) as the creator itself. In fact, a creator can make things more sophisticated than itself. For example, a simple program that prints out random letters will, given enough time, reproduce all the world's known literary works of genius. All one needs is a computational medium (such as spacetime, for example) within which the creator and its products can evolve.

    <hr>

    "
    Is it not so that there is an Eternal Almighty One Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation?
    ~Yes!
    "

    In light of the above discussion, No. Without an apriori assumption of an Eternal Almighty One, that statement is a total non-sequitur.

    <hr>

    "
    Is it not so that the existence of a piece of bread proves that it has a maker?
    ~Yes!
    "

    By itself, it proves nothing. We need a whole lot of assumptions to hold before we can name, or even demonstrate, a maker. If we assume conservation of matter and energy, and causality, then existence of a piece of bread proves that it (and its components) had a well-defined history. If we assume known physical laws, then the spontaneous formation of a piece of bread is unlikely, and we'd tend to attribute it to a more complex physical process, involving computation and knowledge, which we'd vaguely classify as 'life'. Further, possessing knowledge of Earth's life and its varied behaviors, we would be likely to conclude that a piece of bread was made by members of the species Homo Sapiens.

    Existence of any object or phenomenon in the universe (including bread, paintings, stars, planets, and furniture) derives squarely from laws of physics and initial conditions at Big Bang (which specified position and momenta of all particles since). The laws of physics themselves originate within an unknown (and probably inaccessible), 'outer' reality. Whether they are dictated by other laws, by themselves in a closed loop, by a deliberate will, or by some other mechanism our limited brains can't even fathom -- is a question that will not be resolved any time soon (and probably never).

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  13. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Boris, just answer me this with a simple YES or NO:

    Is it true that a piece of bread must have a maker?

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  14. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    dumaurier & Boris,

    This discussion that you guys are having is totally pointless ! Each has his own language and world or dare I say universe and make sure that the two don't touch at all.
    A discussion also means that there must be some grounds that are agreed on by both paties otherwise there is no communication and all these pages are absolutely useless and boring to read.
    Why not search for some common grounds and go from there ?


    ------------------
    we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
    Plato
     
  15. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Plato,

    You are keen and very perceptive. And, of course, you are totally correct in your assessment.

    ...sigh...




    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  16. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Yes.

    However, there is no such thing as a 'simple' answer here. My 'yes' is a qualified 'yes', contingent on a number of world-theories my brain has been able to form since birth. Which is what I tried to show you at the end of the last post. Thing is, science shows us that a lot more goes on in the world than our brains normally assume. Thus, for example, the loaf of bread is a direct consequence of human civilization, which is a direct consequence of human evolution, which is a direct consequence of evolution of life on Earth, which is a direct consequence of stellar evolution, which is a direct consequence of evolution of matter-energy, which is a direct consequence of the laws of physics and the Big Bang. So the deeper and more informed answer to your question is "Yes, but the ultimate maker is not sentient, nor singular. The ultimate makers are spacetime, matter-energy, and the initial conditions at Big Bang." And even that answer is only as complete as are our theories and facts. For example, we cannot extend it to a specification of what gave rise to spacetime, matter-energy, or Big Bang, at least not presently. Our knowledge stops at this great wall that encircles us and confines us in an epistemological prison of sorts. All of our answers and facts seem forever doomed to exist only within this (admittedly collossal) box.

    Our worldview, our logic, our intuitions about how things work -- are entirely native to the three-dimensional, Newtonian space and simple linear time within which we live. It is fruitless to attempt applying the laws we know to a reality we don't know. It is like applying the laws of blackjack to a poker game -- the likelihood of such an application being correct is vanishingly small. But for all we know, there is even less commonality between our limited existence and 'ultimate' existence; we might very well be trying to apply the laws of blackjack to stellar evolution. The real answer is that we don't know, and probably will never have a clue. Contrast that viewpoint with your own blustering arguments proposing to deductively demonstrate God, based on pre-Renaissance cosmological reasoning. You are a naive anachronism in the modern age, Dumaurier. Religion has made you so.

    This has been in retort to your causality and creator-creation arguments. However, even more salient are the multiple logical contradictions, and straight-out assumptions masquerading as deductions, some of which I went over in my previous post.

    <hr>

    As for Plato's point:

    I don't believe this debate has been about common ground. The 'proofs and evidences' claim only stems from a theist set of axyoms, and quite a few irrationalities to boot -- not from any actual, objective proof or evidence. That is what I have been trying to show.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 29, 1999).]
     
  17. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    And Boris, please, answer me this one with a simple YES or NO:
    Is it true that a painting must have a painter (its maker)?

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  18. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Plato, don't take it personal that Boris didn't understand one iota of what you wrote. The "sunglasses" are thicker than i thought!

    And i must inject here...

    sigh...

    and ...sigh again.

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  19. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Dumaurier:

    Answer me this with a simple YES or NO:

    Did you actually read my last post?

    And then answer this:

    Did you actually read any of my last posts???

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  20. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Dumaurier:

    I believe your inability to understand me may derive from a fundamental assumption we do not share. Namely:

    Everything we are, everything we do, and everything we create -- is not dictated by soul, is not dictated by free will (no such thing) -- but is squarely and exclusively dictated by physical laws. What you will think two seconds from now can in principle be precisely predicted, if we knew the following:

    1) the detailed construction of your brain
    2) the complete state of your brain at present
    3) your immediate environment (say, everything within the surrounding sphere of spacetime 2 lightseconds in diameter, down to the last photon).

    Our behavior, and indeed behavior of anything in the universe, is dictated unequivocally by laws of physics. The illusion of 'creator' and 'creation' arises from the fact that we normally do not perceive this determinism -- as it is impossible to know the precise state of the brain or the surrounding environment (due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) -- and our brains are not capable of retaining or processing that much simultaneous information anyway.

    At the most fundamental level, we and the surrounding universe are nothing but congregations of matter-energy that self-arrange and self-transform according to physical laws as time goes by. The observation that you are an independent entity within the universe is an illusion imposed by your cognitive machinery. You are as much a part of the universe as the keyboard in front of you -- and ultimately, again in principle, just as predictable, and equally devoid of ultimate independence, or free will.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  21. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Tell me this, Dumaurier:

    Based on what you have sensed and observed from your birth up to now, what compels you to surmise a non-physical aspect to our existence?

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  22. dumaurier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    171
    Boris,

    It has become evident to me that your mind compels you to seek answers only within the confines of a physical universe. Your arguements are all inprisoned within theories circling about a physical nucleous. You have shown that you do not believe in a spiritual existence.

    One can conjure thousands of intellectual theories explaining this and that hypothesis; one can ponder for millions of years the beauty of the complexity of the material universe and yet never will his thirst be adequately gratified until and unless he recognizes a Creator behind the majestic appearance of matter, be this via the Big Bang or otherwise.

    Knowledge must lead, in the end, to submission of the reality that man can never fathom the essence of matter. Such submission recognizes an Omnipotent Creator who loves you, Boris, despite your persistence in refusing to acknowledge His love for you. Intellectual arguement proves its point and should subsequently be silenced. In silence are many significant points made.

    There needs must be a degree of love in the heart, my friend, if we are to be just and fair in our arguements. Such love can in no wise come from intellectual arguement of a hostile nature. Nay! One should first subdue the mind to obedience to love and next balance this wonderful condition with reason.

    You and i boris, could never carry on a "love" relationship as long as you continue destroying. The purpose of our exchange should be to seek the truth. Now, this truth is not one sided; it is multifaceted.

    We both agree that a piece of bread must have a maker. We needn't question who the baker is, what is his name, where he lives, if he is tall or short, fat or skinny, Canadian, Russian or American. The baker baked the loaf that sits on the table before us. And we enjoy a good slice with butter having trust that the baker did his best. So, we acknowledge that the loaf of bread had a maker.

    Now, this insignificant composition of wheat, water and yeast had a maker. This you admit. Yet, the very elements comprising the wheat/water/yeast are found throughout the universe to a greater and lesser degree. They could not have come about accidentally or just appeared magically. Even though we might accept that the Big Bang is true, this does not explain Who or What created the elements which existed before the Big Bang occurred.

    I believe there is a God Who brought matter into existence in ways only He knows and which are beyond my understanding. This is what i believe. I believe in an Omnipotent Creator; in God! I believe in a soul and in life after death. I believe in a spiritual existence and could never confine my mind and heart to be strict prisoner within a material universe. These are my beliefs. I don't wish to argue my beliefs and i do believe that no one has the business of endeavouring to destroy my beliefs; in fact, any such endeavours only have the effect of strengthening them!

    I view existence both as a spiritual and a material phenomena, as i've said. To me life and existence is not only made of matter and dependent on itself (evolution, survival of the fittest, and what have you) Nay! I believe behind every atom the Hand of God works wonders. I believe life has a Divine Captain that leads the ship and never once abandons it. And this is where we differ; you don't believe in this. And i am not condemning you for it. I have my beliefs. You have yours.

    Plato is absolutely correct: we should either find common ground or cease encumbering the good folk who take the pains to read these posts. On my part, i must most frankly admit that i am tired of arguement. My initial post expressed my beliefs. And here i reiterate and make them even clearer.

    I see no point in continuing. The subject matter has been exhausted. I have stated my views; you have stated yours. I believe in an Omnipotent Creator and you don't.

    There's no point in continuing.

    ------------------
    dumaurier
     
  23. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    See, now this is just the kind of reasoned argument I've been hoping for all along. Let's try to keep it at this level from now on.

    It seems that this very forum is about personal beliefs, and potential justifications of them. Thus, I am not at all surprised that personal beliefs is what we finally arrive at. After all, one must first have a conjecture in order to seek proof of it. The problem is, that the 'proofs' you have been citing are not really proofs so much as derivatives of the conjecture they are trying to buttress; they are circular arguments in other words. I'll explain what I mean in more detail.

    There are two kinds of proof: mathematical proof and empirical demonstration.

    Mathematical proofs start with axyoms and arrive at a conclusion implied by the selected axyoms and dictated by the particular operations applied. Your 'proofs and evidences of God' are more akin to this mathematical kind of proof -- where the fact that is demonstrated is inherent in the assumptions used to demonstrate it. The problem with mathematical proofs is that they do not reflect reality unless their basic axyoms are somehow justified. However, axyoms cannot in principle be justified through mathematics (read: logical argument) -- they are apriori <u>assumptions</u>. Hence, mathematics, logic, and argument on their own are completely inane when it comes to actually having something to do with reality. In order for the argued conclusions to hold any pragmatic weight, their fundamental assumptions must first be justified by pure observation. Not by argument, not by revelation, certainly not by deduction or mathematics -- but by empirical observation which is independent of observer and can be verified by other independent observers.

    Thus, any theory of the universe must, at its root, stem from the universe itself. Its fundamental axyoms must derive squarely from empirical observation. If even one of the axyoms is not empirically justified, then the entire theory becomes an empty mathematical construct. There is an infinity of empty mathematical constructs, since one can assume an infinity of arbitrary axyoms in an infinity of combinations. It is easy to see that the vast majority of such mathematical constructions will have nothing to do with reality. The only theories likely to at least approximate reality are those whose fundamental axyoms at least approximate empirically collected facts.

    The assumption of God is an axyom. It is an apriori belief and cannot be justified logically or mathematically. However, it does not derive from empirical observation. It is in fact an arbitrary construct, one among the infinity of possible constructs, which is arbitrarily singled out of that infinity and taken on faith. As such, it is highly unlikely to reflect reality; the probability of the God conjecture being true in the real world is mathematically 0.

    That is what I have been trying to show. Not only are there no empirical proofs or evidences for existence of God, but the very assumption of God is overwhelmingly likely to be false.

    One more thing -- the much-dreaded "Occam's razor".

    It has been demonstrated in the course of epistemological evolution that only assumptions that contribute new predictive power to an understanding of a phenomenon are likely to reflect reality. The assumption of God, on the other hand, provides no added explanatory or predictive power -- it adds no new understanding, and it models no aspect of reality. As such, it is useless and redundant. It is certainly not necessitated by anything humans have ever learned from the world.

    Finally, let me remark on that comment that challenges to your beliefs only make them stronger. Such a disposition is not what I would call an open mind, and it is certainly not conducive to discussion or any kind of argument -- antagonistic and friendly alike.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 30, 1999).]
     

Share This Page