falsity of god's existance be proven or suspend judgement?

Just Arrived Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 3

Hi to all, an atheist here.
Beautiful forum!

I was talking with this christian about science and god. We agreed that a god (general sense) cannot be proven nor disproven. Then he said something like: serious science should suspend judgment on both 'does' and 'doesn't' exists issues. Because scientifically the falsity of a thing too must be well proven, before dismissing it. It is not true that for science anything not yet proven to exist doesn't exist. After all, there is a 'chance' it does!

I contend all these assertions are misconceptions, and I'm relying on your knowledge to articulate a proper and solid answer!
Thank you all,
crashCourse

ps I know this is rather about basics, but please go ahead if you don't mind Wink

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 379

I can't really point out anything wrong with that. However, If he is basing his belief on the small chance that whatever belief that science hasn't yet disproved about god can still be right because we don't know it isn't, then that is wrong. He would basically violate his own line of reasoning. He is right in that "It is not true that for science anything not yet proven to exist doesn't exist. After all, there is a 'chance' it does!". However, this works both ways. It is not true that for science anything not yet proven to exist exists. If there is a chance for something to exist, there is also a chance it doesn't exist.

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:58 am

Using the logic of anything science doesn't prove doesn't exist can be thought of as existing allows a lot of liberty to believe in anything you fancy.

Ask him what he thinks of the idea that there are many gods above his god (they think the god we "know" of as little more than an ant) and they have not yet been proved to not exist.

It may seem like a hostile, combative question but maybe it can help dislodge this way of thinking.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 379

Quote:

It may seem like a hostile, combative question but maybe it can help dislodge this way of thinking.

It doesn't have to sound combative. That depends on your tone and how you say it. But make sure you also point out why what he said does not make an argument for god.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jul 07, 2008 Posts: 26

If you stick with a specific definition of God it may be possible to prove that God doesn't exist. This is what victor Stenger did in his book "God the Failed Hypothisis. He proved that the Judo-Christian-Muslim version of God can't exist. The Good God can be ruled out even easier.
If he was a Good God he would not inspire religion and stand by silently while they spend thousands of years committing atrocities in his name.
Instead he would open up an honest line of communication and teach people to figure out what is in their own best interest and do it.

for more see
http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/therealgodmaybe.htm

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 379

That guy had so many typos in there it was crazy. I also thought he made quite a few other errors in his posts at the end talking about evolution and the big bang.

Just Arrived Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 3

Very interesting!

Elaborating it just now..
CrashCourse

Just Arrived Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 3

Thanks to all of you.

It took me some thinking (and you help) to actually formulate a good counter-argument. I'm not clueless about bible and christianity and generally I can spot and disprove many of their errors. Still, I got somewhat displaced by the firm assertions of this guy I was talking with. I already explained to him the 'ad ignorantiam' fallacy, and we even agreed that there are no proof for a god. Still he insisted: prove not that god doesn't exists and I can rationally belive it does.

I think I will articulate my answer like that: keep it as a working hypothesis then, because in the very moment you *believe* it instead, you're not into science any more, and you can not say you're rational.
What's more, it is correct to say that even as a scientific hypothesis, the 'god' one doesn't carry much weight, because it doesn't have the required trademarks: observable, testable, falsifiable, in direct connection, predictable results, precise, adjustable, simple and necessary. This completely invalidates it.
Also, to say that 'because science doesn't know, then my thesis X is true' is of course a fallacy in reasoning.
Now, this god of yours *could* still exist, but we won't know untill it stops hiding. Untill proof of that (if it ever will be) the only real rational stance is to rule it out, as we do with any other good hypothesis and, of course, fantasies. Please understand that science is not interested in 'proving false' any of this fantasies, it would be simply loosing time we can spend on searching by the *best* hypothesis.
Remember: the burden of proof is upon you, who affirm a god's existance.
Plus, well, in truth you're a christian, so you don't believe in 'a god' but in a much more precise kind of god. Now it happens that the traits of the christian god are in open conflict, this proves it false indeed, and believing it is exactly irrational. By the way it doesn't mean you're stupid, it only means that regarding your faith's basic principles you someway stop using your reason fully and correctly.

I generally like to express my conclusions in a brief fair and complete way, whenever possible. What do you think of that?

Newbie First Class Joined: Jul 07, 2008 Posts: 26

I'm not saying this hypothetical god exists but if one does exist instead of continuing to believe in the imposible it would be better to consider ideas that might be true. If your not sure and you can figure out a course of action that works both ways then that is the way to go. Ruling out this potential god won't hurt. What does hurt is ruling in the impossible and starting wars over it.

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:12 am

I suppose it's possible that any number of strange things exist--fire-breathing dragons, for instance, or mermaids or flying pigs or leprechauns. Just because science has never actually proven them doesn't mean they don't exist, right? And how about the thousands of deities in the Hindu religion--might all be real, and just because we don't have photographic evidence isn't proof that Vishnu or Kali aren't real. See, this is the problem with the "Let's accept a God notion because it might be real" crowd. Where do we draw the line in accepting the possibility for all sorts of weird, goofy, impossible things?

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:01 am

ApostateLois wrote:

I suppose it's possible that any number of strange things exist--fire-breathing dragons, for instance, or mermaids or flying pigs or leprechauns. Just because science has never actually proven them doesn't mean they don't exist, right? And how about the thousands of deities in the Hindu religion--might all be real, and just because we don't have photographic evidence isn't proof that Vishnu or Kali aren't real. See, this is the problem with the "Let's accept a God notion because it might be real" crowd. Where do we draw the line in accepting the possibility for all sorts of weird, goofy, impossible things?

Its like Bertrand Russells teapot. Are we agnostic about that? Or is there simply nom reason at all to suspend belief in such a thing?

Gerard

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 379

In science, until proof of something is found, we don't by any means go around saying that that something is true.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jul 07, 2008 Posts: 26

Some of you may have missed my point.
I'm saying the version of God that religious people insist on believing can't possiblly be true. The "Good God" would never act the way this God does. If there is such a thing as God it isn't the God that deserves to be worshiped. The religious assumption is if God exists therefore he must be Good and honest. This can't possibly be true.
If God does exist he musst be deceptive and dishonest!!
A God that inspires religion is not trust worthy!!
A God that inspires religion inspires tyrany and religious wars.
Either thre is no God or a Tyranical God either way Scientific ways of figuring out the truth are more trustworthy if the scientists show the work and how they came to their conclusions. Unfortunatly the scientists don't always do a good enough job showing the work. Some times this is partly because the public doesn't do a good enough checking it but not always.
If they don't show the work they run the risk of replacing one divine source of truth with another.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore