"Can science prove God does not exist?"

[Yahweh]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html

That is probably one of the most well-written pieces of Philosophy I've ever read.

(Dont be surprised when you see plenty of people quoting that article...)

[T'ai Chi]

From the article


By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.


I don't see how the conclusion (bolded, underlined by me) follows AT ALL from the premise. So if I don't need a god to explain something, that proves that no such god exists?

Logic aside, to prove a universal negative you have to look through all of time and space, past present and future, everywhere. Last time I checked, that was difficult to do.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I'll admit that I am convinced that it does prove the non-existence of god.

However, I do argue with it's theory that Vulcan does not exist.


How else would you explain Mr. Spock?;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I don't see how the conclusion (bolded, underlined by me) follows AT ALL from the premise. So if I don't need a god to explain something, that proves that no such god exists?
You have to remember to take in all of the related arguements, if you break it down into individual statements, you omit some of the important supporting arguements.

The article showed one of the logical inconsistancies of a Supreme God, then it explained how everything could have come about just as did sans creator, then it gave a few examples of some bad postulates that have been dreamed up (just there for clarification), then it showed how belief in God was unacceptable as a form of reasoning. From the material provided, it is reasonable to conclude God does not exist.

[baggie]

sorry don't buy the arguments

quote: "One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan",

these were disproven because to accept them would contradict some other observation, e.g. the Michaelson- Morley experiment etc. It is unlikely that these theories could ever be revised to cover our known observations.

A lesser proof would be to show that it goes against experience, e.g. I accept there are no red crows in the world because no one has ever seen them. This is not a proof that red crows could not or do not exist, only that it seems unlikely. However, if one did pop up on an island somewhere, I would not worry at all. I feel God is a bit like that, no proof but hey he could be hiding.

The problem is simply in the word "prove". If you want to make it cover both cases above - fine thats your definition and you have "proved" gods nonexistance. If like me you feel a bit uncomfortable about that, then you remain an agnostic.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

This is very unscientific.

The claim that god exists is nonfalsifiable. Therefore, it is outside the domain of science. Science can neither prove, nor disprove the existance of any god.

Furthermore, the idea of proving a negative, as this article claims, runs against logic, as well as science itself.

[Filippo Lippi]

I think some people haven't read the article and/or the other posts in this thread.

[Some Friggin Guy]

The claim that god exists is nonfalsifiable.

Evidence, please.

I would like hard proof that the existence of god is nonfalsifiable.

[baggie]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


Evidence, please.

I would like hard proof that the existence of god is nonfalsifiable.

and I would like hard proof that the claim that the existence of god is falsifiable

The author is claiming that there is no phenoma in the natural world that needs a god to explain it (in principle), therefore god does not exist. That may be true (though my Christian wife says she experiences god's presence - does that count?) but has yet to be proven. E.g until science explains all of the natural phenoma in the Universe, then god is still viable. You may say, well its just a matter of time. OK I can wait, but until then, CASE NOT PROVEN.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I was not saying case proven. (Okay, I did in an earlier post, but that was jsut to make a cheesy Star Trek joke.)

What was was saying is that god IS falsifiable...in theory.

You are correct, we can't do it now. There may come a time where we actually prove he DOES exist, but until then, to say god is nonfalsifiable is jumping to just as much of a conclusion as saying it is falsifiable.

Essentially, I am saying that I disagree that god exists outside of science. However, it doesn't exist entirely within science either. God, basically straddles into science.

[sorgoth]

I guess that means my worship of the invisible pink unicorn is perfectly reasonable, then! (To certain posters)

[baggie]

Originally posted by sorgoth
I guess that means my worship of the invisible pink unicorn is perfectly reasonable, then! (To certain posters)

not only reasonable, but if it keeps you out of trouble, desireable.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Since the focus is clearly the Christian concept of God, I will offer this one... albiet internal and possibly weak evidence for the disproof of God (and I am loathe to use proof out of it's proper context). Anyway. In Romans I it states that God is actively visible in the actions of the entire universe. Ergo, if there is any action that God is not actively visible one can conclude that said Deity does not exist.

My chosen example for this is star formation, which, we are told in the Psalms is due to the direct fingers of God. If we then observe star formation that is not due to some supernatural effect like the direct fingers of God, can we conclude otherwise than said God - based on Romans vis a vis Psalms, does not exist?

[Upchurch]

If I may critique the article:
They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.This is actually a very strange false dicotomy. While on the surface, it makes sense, we now know of phenomena in the universe that do have a property and lack it at the same time. The real world is more complex than simple binary (yes/no) logic would have us believe. So, right from the get go, his argument has a real world flaw, even though it is valid within the philosophical context it is presented.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent.This would only be true if (1) the above assumption were true and (2) there were a concrete, non-floating definition of "God"
Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.Is the heirarchy of "being" completely analogous to the concept of numbers? What he presents in this passage is not an argument, but an opinion. As such, it is unproductive to the discussion.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.Okay, this is a valid contradiction, but I have a few problems with the way he presents it. First, the author claims that this is an example of the analogy with numbers given above and I'm not sure I see the connection. If someone can explain how this exemplifies or supports the connection, please let me know.

Second, this is, yet again, another of the many free-floating definitions and criteria for the term "God". He's not found an internal inconsistancy for the concept of "God" but for one definition of "God". What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Oo. This is flat out incorrect. These various thing were disproven, not because other explinations were found that didn't require them, but they predicted things that did not occur. Ether, for example, predicted an "ether drag" that was never observed. I'm not that familiar with "phlogiston", but Vulcan would have been predicted to be certain places at certain times based on orbital calculations. Obviously it was a no show.proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt.Hey, he got one right!

Screw the rest of the article. The author's premises and general understanding of science is enough off base that any evidence presented toward those premises would be pointless.

I'm sorry, Yahwah, but I can't see any merit in this piece.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by sorgoth
I guess that means my worship of the invisible pink unicorn is perfectly reasonable, then! (To certain posters)

Gah! Stop that! Invisible and pink are contradictory qualities!

[baggie]

Originally posted by c4ts


Gah! Stop that! Invisible and pink are contradictory qualities!

I think he means that only he can see the holy pinkness. Keep on the medication sorgoth :)

[Darat]

This piece just seems to be using a bland Christian definition for God, but makes little headway even against that very narrow definition of God.

To pick up on one of the passages that Upchurch also commented on:



Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.



Even as someone who has great trouble understanding how a Christian reconciles "evil" in the world with an "all good" God I can see several flaws in this passage. The main flaw to me is that there is an assumption of the definition of "just" and "merciful" to support the argument the author was trying to make. After all how do we determine "logically" what is just or merciful?

[LW]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Screw the rest of the article. The author's premises and general understanding of science is enough off base that any evidence presented toward those premises would be pointless.


Seconded.

[LW]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

My chosen example for this is star formation, which, we are told in the Psalms is due to the direct fingers of God. If we then observe star formation that is not due to some supernatural effect like the direct fingers of God, can we conclude otherwise than said God - based on Romans vis a vis Psalms, does not exist?

Well, I would like to know how you can rule out for certain that God's fingers are putting the star together. You know, someone could argue that when creating the universe, God specifically placed all the atoms so that some time in future they would form the star in question.

[Upchurch]

I just wanted to point out that just because I disagree with this article and think that science can't prove that God does not exit, that does not mean, automatically, that God does exist.

I should also point out that, if God exists, it should be theoretically possible for science to do so. Since no one has done so, this could mean one of three things:
God is not there to prove.
God is there and is subverting attempts to be proven.
God is there but we haven't found that pivotal piece of evidence.
Personally, I don't believe that anything is "unknowable", so I reject outright the possibility that "God is there but is unprovable." If God is there and effects the physical world, that effect is detectable.

[Keneke]

The JREF forums are at a debate level that surpasses the deepness of this article, like, every single frickin' day.

What this paper does prove is the inherent emotional similarities of the scientific community and religion, in that uneducated members seek to espouse the mysteries of The Order before gaining a full knowledge of how the answers are obtained. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what scientists want.

[Whoracle]

"A lesser proof would be to show that it goes against experience, e.g. I accept there are no red crows in the world because no one has ever seen them. This is not a proof that red crows could not or do not exist, only that it seems unlikely. However, if one did pop up on an island somewhere, I would not worry at all. I feel God is a bit like that, no proof but hey he could be hiding."


But if someone were to tell you, hey there are red crows, You'd probably ask for a little proof now wouldn't you? It wouldn't be your responsibility to disprove them. They made the claim, it's their job to back it up. So how come Christians get to make a claim, offer no proof for it, then demand the other side offer proof that what they are saying is not true, and yet still think they are right?

[baggie]

Originally posted by Whoracle
"A lesser proof would be to show that it goes against experience, e.g. I accept there are no red crows in the world because no one has ever seen them. This is not a proof that red crows could not or do not exist, only that it seems unlikely. However, if one did pop up on an island somewhere, I would not worry at all. I feel God is a bit like that, no proof but hey he could be hiding."


But if someone were to tell you, hey there are red crows, You'd probably ask for a little proof now wouldn't you? It wouldn't be your responsibility to disprove them. They made the claim, it's their job to back it up. So how come Christians get to make a claim, offer no proof for it, then demand the other side offer proof that what they are saying is not true, and yet still think they are right?

good point, but if he said I saw some red crows but can't quite find them now, I couldn't argue against it. If 600,000,000 christians say they feel the influence of the "red crow" in their lives, maybe even feel that he communicates to them (like my wife thinks happens to her-not in a vocal sort of way mind you) - is that not some (albeit not convincing) evidence?

[baggie]

Originally posted by Keneke


What this paper does prove is the inherent emotional similarities of the scientific community and religion, in that uneducated members seek to espouse the mysteries of The Order before gaining a full knowledge of how the answers are obtained. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what scientists want.

couldn't agree more

[Whoracle]

We should know by now throughout history that just because the masses think something is right doesn't mean it is.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Keneke

What this paper does prove is the inherent emotional similarities of the scientific community and religion, in that uneducated members seek to espouse the mysteries of The Order before gaining a full knowledge of how the answers are obtained. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what scientists want. I don't know that I would count the author as a member of the scientific community. He had a poor grasp of it.

Of course, maybe that's how religious communities feel about fundamentalists: the emberassing uncle that nobody really wants to claim as actually being part of the family.

[Pyrian]

Am I the only one who had a fundamental problem with this:And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative.Right off the top he's claiming that something which can't be disproven must be possible!

The argument about the Ether is rather amusing, since it could easily be applied to the "cosmological constant", which was similarly "disproven", but lately has been resurrected...

I find the most difficult thing about having any discussion about God is God's rather mutable definition. I can't possibly disprove that God is a gnome-like creature on a planet circling a distant star. :rolleyes:If 600,000,000 christians say they feel the influence of the "red crow" in their lives, maybe even feel that he communicates to them (like my wife thinks happens to her-not in a vocal sort of way mind you) - is that not some (albeit not convincing) evidence?Certainly - but evidence of what? I would argue something different than a Christian might...

In another forum I made the argument that monotheisms appeal directly to humanity's instinctual desire for an alpha male.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Upchurch

This is actually a very strange false dicotomy. While on the surface, it makes sense, we now know of phenomena in the universe that do have a property and lack it at the same time.
This is a pretty big thing to toss off without even one example.

I'd like an example, please.

[Pyrian]

I figured it was a reference to some sort of quantum wave/particle dichotomy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I'd like an example, please. Sure, electron spin. By quantum mechanics, the wave function of the electron allows it to have different spins at the same time. Only after the wave function is collapsed does the electron have one specific spin.

It would be tempting to argue that the electron had the one spin the entire time but, as I understand it, that isn't correct. It's a Schrodinger's (sp?) Cat kind of thing. Alive and dead until observed.

[Yahzi]

That doesn't strike me as contradicting the notion that an object either has a property or doesn't. Before the waveform collapses, it has all the spins, and afterwards it has one. The only contradiction is the claim that an electron can only have one spin at a time: but given that we aren't actually talking about something spinning, maybe this is just another way of saying we don't really know what spin is.

I know that light acts as a wave or a particle depending on the test, but I don't see this as a logical contradiction, but simply as a poor application of an analogy (obviously light is neither a simple particle or a simple wave, but some other phenomena).

[Scott Wheeler]

I think whether or not a claim of existance of god is falsifiable all depends on the specific claim. When fundimentalists make very specific claims of god which can be falsified such as the creation sory from Genesis then the claim is falsifiable and IMO has obviously been disproven. OTOH if we are talking about the deist claim of a god creator that walked away and doesn't interact with the universe you have a claim that is not falsifiable. When discussing "god" we always have to consider the definition of god. Einstein's god is not Jerry Falwell's god.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html

That is probably one of the most well-written pieces of Philosophy I've ever read.

(Dont be surprised when you see plenty of people quoting that article...)

Huh?? I've already refuted this in that other thread! :eek: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870101163#post1870101163Seems like you've just ignored me. Oh well I'll just paste it in.



From Link

No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.

Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.4



This guy hasn't got a clue. By such reasoning one indeed could conclude that God doesn't exist, but we would also have to conclude that no consciousnesses at all exist. If God's activity can be replaced by reference to the physical laws of nature, then so can our own consciousnesses. All of our behaviour can be described employing physical laws. We simply need to apply those physical laws to the processes in our brains and our local environment. But we know this must be false since each and every one of us is implicitly aware of his or her own consciousness.

I agree with Plato of course, but I'm pretty damn sure he wasn't saying this proved there was no God. I'm sure that he wasn't as stupid as the guy writing the article.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

You have to remember to take in all of the related arguements, if you break it down into individual statements, you omit some of the important supporting arguements.

The article showed one of the logical inconsistancies of a Supreme God, then it explained how everything could have come about just as did sans creator, then it gave a few examples of some bad postulates that have been dreamed up (just there for clarification), then it showed how belief in God was unacceptable as a form of reasoning. From the material provided, it is reasonable to conclude God does not exist.

You complete and total moron. F*cking read my response.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? I've already refuted this in that other thread! :eek: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870101163#post1870101163Seems like you've just ignored me. Oh well I'll just paste it in.
I'm not sure if you refuted it, oh well.

This guy hasn't got a clue. By such reasoning one indeed could conclude that God doesn't exist, but we would also have to conclude that no consciousnesses at all exist. If God's activity can be replaced by reference to the physical laws of nature, then so can our own consciousnesses. All of our behaviour can be described employing physical laws. We simply need to apply those physical laws to the processes in our brains and our local environment. But we know this must be false since each and every one of us is implicitly aware of his or her own consciousness.

I agree with Plato of course, but I'm pretty damn sure he wasn't saying this proved there was no God. I'm sure that he wasn't as stupid as the guy writing the article.
Hey, you entitled to your own opinions, I've got my own. For some reason, I just really liked that article (I know it isnt "defiant proof there is no god"), it just appealed to me for some reason (must be the colors).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Yahzi
That doesn't strike me as contradicting the notion that an object either has a property or doesn't. Before the waveform collapses, it has all the spins, and afterwards it has one. The only contradiction is the claim that an electron can only have one spin at a time: but given that we aren't actually talking about something spinning, maybe this is just another way of saying we don't really know what spin is.

How about the double slit experiment, where a photon can be shown to pass through both the left and the right slit?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by baggie


and I would like hard proof that the claim that the existence of god is falsifiable

The author is claiming that there is no phenoma in the natural world that needs a god to explain it (in principle),

Confuses physical explanations with metaphysical explanations.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm not sure if you refuted it, oh well.


Hey, you entitled to your own opinions, I've got my own. For some reason, I just really liked that article (I know it isnt "defiant proof there is no god"), it just appealed to me for some reason (must be the colors).

Why why why why why???? Why do you f*cking like it?? Who the hell cares about an atheist disproving the atheist conceptualisation of God in any case?? Not that he manages to do even that. BTW the guy also clearly has no knowledge of the philosophy of science either. An absolute load of rubbish.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why why why why why???? Why do you f*cking like it??
I thought it made a few good points (yeah, I also noted a bit of fuzzy logic as well).

This is one of the things that caught my attention:
"Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones."

I couldnt disagree with that in any way, shape, or form.

Just to cite an example, think about Young Earth Creationism...
Me: How old do you think the earth is?

Bob: 10,000 years old.

Me: What?

Bob: Thats what it says in the bible.

Me: I think that's just a booboo.

Bob: The bible is the word of God, God is infallible.

Me: So you are telling me the Grand Canyon was formed in 10000 years.

Bob: Yes, God put it there. Oh, by the way scientists discovered that dust on the moon is too thin, proving the earth is 6000 years old.

Me: Most creationists dont take the Moon Dust "theory" seriously at all, its just a parrot which only reflects how little outside reading has been done on this topic. (For more info, see http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html, and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html). Aside from that, what do you think of the rocks that millions of years old.

[ Try to imagine a conversation like this going on for about 2 hours... eventually Bob will conclude that the devil put me on this earth to try to steer him away from god *sigh*.]

Can you see why supernatural explanations dont really cut it?

As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.
How do earthquakes happen?
God makes earthquakes.

Where does thunder come from?
God makes thunder.

Where did I come from?
You didn’t suddenly spring into existence the moment you were born.

You were happy in Heavenly Father’s presence, but He knew that you needed more in order to progress. You did not have a physical body like you do now, and you needed a chance to gain experience on your own—away from His presence, but with the ability to communicate with Him and receive help. So He sent you to Earth, hoping that you would return to Him and receive everything He has to offer you.

Before you were born, you lived with your Heavenly Father as one of His beloved spirit children. You knew and loved Him, and He knew and loved you.

Although you have forgotten your life before you were born, your Heavenly Father has not. He knows you and loves you. He wants you to come to know and love Him, too.

(Source: http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1117-1,00.html)

Again, another demonstration where supernatural explanation clearly dont cut it. But at the same time, the 3 short questions I asked can and are easily explained in purely natural and materialistic *evil grin* terms.

Who the hell cares about an atheist disproving the atheist conceptualisation of God in any case??
Why bury your head in the ground and say "I dont care", there is no such thing as a meaningless question.

Not that he manages to do even that. BTW the guy also clearly has no knowledge of the philosophy of science either. An absolute load of rubbish.
I personally thought it was very well written (except for what he had to say about unrestricted negatives).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I thought it made a few good points (yeah, I also noted a bit of fuzzy logic as well).

This is one of the things that caught my attention:
"Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones."

I couldnt disagree with that in any way, shape, or form.

Personally, I'd classify "natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones" as a metaphysical statement.

[LW]

Originally posted by Yahzi

This is a pretty big thing to toss off without even one example.

Human language has rather many concepts that are inherently fuzzy, for example, cold and hot.

If the temperature drops to 0 degrees Centigrade in June, it is very cold. If it raises to 0 in January it is comfortably warm.

We did a demonstration in the 8th grade. There were three cups of water, one ice cold, one so hot that it could be barely touched, and one in the middle. We put one hand in the cold one, one in the hot one, and then simultaneuosly moved them to the middle one. The water was at the same time cold and warm.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by baggie
e.g. I accept there are no red crows in the world because no one has ever seen them.

OK, its not exactly red, but it's not far off. http://www.earthlife.net/birds/images/corvidae/jay.jpg

[baggie]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


OK, its not exactly red, but it's not far off. http://www.earthlife.net/birds/images/corvidae/jay.jpg

damn, I guess god does exist then

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LW


Human language has rather many concepts that are inherently fuzzy, for example, cold and hot. A better example than mine, yes. Thank you, LW.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
From the article



I don't see how the conclusion (bolded, underlined by me) follows AT ALL from the premise. So if I don't need a god to explain something, that proves that no such god exists?

Logic aside, to prove a universal negative you have to look through all of time and space, past present and future, everywhere. Last time I checked, that was difficult to do.

Not necessarily. All you have to do is prove that God has logically contradictory attributes. Just as square circles can't exist so goes for God. The trick is to nail down someone's definition of God well enough that you can actually define His attributes.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Agammamon

All you have to do is prove that God has logically contradictory attributes. Yes, you can prove that every single specific god doesn't exist, but you cannot prove that the universe is goddless.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, you can prove that every single specific god doesn't exist,

Well this should be fun. Go on then.

[LW]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Well this should be fun. Go on then.

OK, I'll start.

I posit that God is a clearly visible blue walrus that eternally sits under every single table in the universe.

I just looked under my office table, and He wasn't there, so it seems that I just proved that He doesn't exist.

Who's next?

[Or, I might be lying, you better check your table yourself.]

Upchurch's point was that if you fix the definition of God, you can disprove his existence, at least in many cases.

[Upchurch]

Funny, Ian.Originally posted by LW

Upchurch's point was that if you fix the definition of God, you can disprove his existence, at least in many cases.

My point was that as long as you have an ambiguously defined concept of "God", it cannot be proven not to exist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW


OK, I'll start.

I posit that God is a clearly visible blue walrus that eternally sits under every single table in the universe.

I just looked under my office table, and He wasn't there, so it seems that I just proved that He doesn't exist.

Who's next?

[Or, I might be lying, you better check your table yourself.]

Upchurch's point was that if you fix the definition of God, you can disprove his existence, at least in many cases.

Such a definition could not reasonably be labelled as God. How about my definition?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

How about my definition? Personally, I don't see how your definition could be reasonably labelled as God.

edited to add:

Actually, there is at least one definition of god that I can prove exists. Where someone to have an idol in their home that they worshiped, one could prove that this god exists.

[LW]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Such a definition could not reasonably be labelled as God.

OK, fair enough. What about an omnipotent and omniscient clearly visible blue walrus that eternally sits under every table in the universe that he made 6000 years ago.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LW


OK, fair enough. What about an omnipotent and omniscient clearly visible blue walrus that eternally sits under every table in the universe that he made 6000 years ago.

An omnipotent and omniscient clearly visible blue walrus that eternally sits under every table in the universe would, of course, be quite capable of making sure that everytime someone saw him they ignored him and forgot they'd ever seen him right away, so there's no way to ascertain through experimentation that such a beast does not exist.

[Upchurch]

Except that, as has been shown on this board many times, omnipotense is internally inconsistant. The fact that the sub-table blue walrus god is omnipotent makes it inconsistant and, thus, logically impossible. There really isn't even a need to check under the table for this one.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LW

Human language has rather many concepts that are inherently fuzzy, for example, cold and hot.

With all due respect, that's just stupid.

The water is not cold and hot at the same time. The water is a single, fixed temperature. The fact that it is percieved differently is no more surprising than the fact that large buildings, from a long distance, look small. Would you assert that the building was both large and small, or that it changed size as you got closer?

[Upchurch]

Okay, let's go back to scientific principles.

A rocket has X mass as seen by a passanger in the rocket. The rocket has a Y mass (where X < Y) as seen by a person standing on a nearby planet. Thus, the rocket has the property X mass and not X mass at the same time.

[Thanz]

All that this article attempts to do is raise Occam's Razor from a logical tool to some sort of universal law. As such, he is misapplying Occam's Razor. Occam doesn't prove anything. It merely directs us to logically choose one hypothesis over another.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, let's go back to scientific principles.

A rocket has X mass as seen by a passanger in the rocket. The rocket has a Y mass (where X < Y) as seen by a person standing on a nearby planet. Thus, the rocket has the property X mass and not X mass at the same time.
I don't follow this at all. Why would the mass be different?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, let's go back to scientific principles.

A rocket has X mass as seen by a passanger in the rocket. The rocket has a Y mass (where X < Y) as seen by a person standing on a nearby planet. Thus, the rocket has the property X mass and not X mass at the same time.

At the same time doesn't have any meaning.

[LW]

Originally posted by Yahzi

With all due respect, that's just stupid.

The water is not cold and hot at the same time. The water is a single, fixed temperature.

In case you haven't noticed, there exists a concept called 'coldness' in the English language (I just checked OED and Random House Webster's and both have the word). Coldness is (obviously) dependant on the temperature, but the two concepts are separate. You can measure the temperature of an object easily, but measuring coldness is much more difficult as it depends on the context. Can you provide an exact definition for the word "coldness" that can't be easily broken with a single counterexample?

If you want to attack my example, I'd suggest that you go on the line that "hot" and "cold" are not really mutually exclusive even though they are used that way in natural language.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Thanz

I don't follow this at all. Why would the mass be different? Relativistic effects

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Except that, as has been shown on this board many times, omnipotense is internally inconsistant. The fact that the sub-table blue walrus god is omnipotent makes it inconsistant and, thus, logically impossible. There really isn't even a need to check under the table for this one.

Only if you assume that "a thing can not both be logically true and logically false at the same time" is a fundamental condition underlying both the universe and the hypothetical blue walrus. I don't see why that axiom should be a given. If there is an omnipotent entity that axiom is clearly false, but so what?

Of course, we already know about statements that are logically undefined, and thus tests the limits of that axiom. "This statement is false" and all that.

Anyway, for the discussion about Occam's razor, we can avoid the whole thing by just changing "omnipotent" to "powerful enough to mess with everybody's mind."

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Relativistic effects
I obviously don't know enough about physics to carry on this conversation, as I still don't know what you are talking about.

In my own world of high school physics, I always thought that mass was a measure of how much "stuff" an object is made of. This may be a horrible oversimplification, it may be flat out wrong. But in my high school physics world, the mass of the rocket does not change no matter who is looking at it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

At the same time doesn't have any meaning. As long as the rocket's speed is constant over an interval of time, one could easily calculate trocket for a specific tplanet, thus marking a single moment for each observer to measure the mass of the rocket from each point of view.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Thanz

In my own world of high school physics, I always thought that mass was a measure of how much "stuff" an object is made of. This may be a horrible oversimplification, it may be flat out wrong. But in my high school physics world, the mass of the rocket does not change no matter who is looking at it. It is, in fact, different depending on who you ask.

A quick and simplified way to think about it is using the famous E = mc^2. From the planet point of view, the rocket has more energy (because it is in motion) than it does from the rocket's point of view (because the people in the rocket see themselves as standing still and the planet moving past them), right?

Since m = E/c^2, as energy increases, mass increases. Therefore, from the planet measures the rocket as having more mass than the rocket itself measures it as having.

Note: this is way simplified and I dropped the relativistic gamma to try to keep it uncomplicated. For a more technical, but brief, explination look here (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html) and here (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MassIncrease.html)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Upchurch
A quick and simplified way to think about it is using the famous E = mc^2. From the planet point of view, the rocket has more energy (because it is in motion) than it does from the rocket's point of view (because the people in the rocket see themselves as standing still and the planet moving past them), right?
I would have thought this is wrong. The people in the rocket know that the rocket is moving. The rocket is either moving or it isn't, and the calculations you present just show that one of the calculations is going to be wrong. Objectively speaking, the rocket is moving at x speed. That will determine its mass, not whether or not we see it moving. Isn't mass an objective quality of something, rather than a subjective quality of something?

[hammegk]

Upchurch said:
If God is there and effects the physical world, that effect is detectable.
Can anyone else see the circularity inherent in that statement?


Also, Uppie, I look forward to your discussion of the objectiveness and/or subjectiveness of "mass". ;)

When you finish that discussion, try the same for "energy". :D

[Upchurch]

A goof-up lost my longer, more detailed (and better written) reply. Please pardon this quick redo.Originally posted by Thanz

I would have thought this is wrong. The people in the rocket know that the rocket is moving.It isn't, but don't take my word for it. Look up Special Relativity online. The Twin Paradox, especially, exemplifies this.

Think of this way, have you ever been riding in the car and watched the parked cars? Doesn't it look exactly they are passing you instead? As long as there is no acceleration involved, it is as equally valid to say that the planet is passing the rocket as it is to say the rocket is passing the planet.
The rocket is either moving or it isn't, and the calculations you present just show that one of the calculations is going to be wrong.As I've said, the rocket is moving and it isn't depending on which POV you consider. Both calculations are correct and both the person on the planet and the person on the rocket can calculate what the other would measure.
Objectively speaking, the rocket is moving at x speed. That will determine its mass, not whether or not we see it moving. Isn't mass an objective quality of something, rather than a subjective quality of something? The mass is not subjective in the sense that it is arbitrary. There is a very definite pattern that the mass increases based on the relative speed of each observer. On the other hand, the mass is not objective in the sense that everyone will see, from their own perspective, the exact same mass as everyone else.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Can anyone else see the circularity inherent in that statement?Oh, please. Back this claim. Entertain ...I mean, enlighten us.
I look forward to your discussion of the objectiveness and/or subjectiveness of "mass". ;) You'll find it above. Enjoy.When you finish that discussion, try the same for "energy". :D Easy, re-read the "mass" discussion and replace "mass" with "energy" (plus or minus a scalling factor correction). They are, in fact, the same thing.

edited to add:
Or are you just trolling?

[Flatworm]

The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false.

I stopped reading after this. Apparently the idea that a proposition can be undecidable never entered his head. Utter garbage.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

At the same time doesn't have any meaning.

Upchurch
As long as the rocket's speed is constant over an interval of time, one could easily calculate trocket for a specific tplanet, thus marking a single moment for each observer to measure the mass of the rocket from each point of view.

No, I don't have a great deal of understanding of relativity, but it seems to me you're wrong. You're projecting your now to the rocket.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Thanz

I obviously don't know enough about physics to carry on this conversation, as I still don't know what you are talking about.

In my own world of high school physics, I always thought that mass was a measure of how much "stuff" an object is made of. This may be a horrible oversimplification, it may be flat out wrong. But in my high school physics world, the mass of the rocket does not change no matter who is looking at it.

This idea of mass being how much stuff there is was just a metaphysical picture of what mass meant. Mass is just a term in our mathematical equations describing reality.

[Pyrian]

Interesting Ian:
Such a definition could not reasonably be labelled as God. How about my definition?Which is what?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, I don't have a great deal of understanding of relativity, but it seems to me you're wrong. You're projecting your now to the rocket. Allow me to rephrase than in a more mathematically specific and technically correct way.

For a given dtplanet, there can be calculated a dtrocket over which the mass of the rocket is measured, where dt is a differential (or period) of time. The relation of dtplanet to dtrocket can be shown by the expression (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html):

dtplanet = dtrocket / (relativistic gamma)

Better?