I can accept, as a matter of logical fact, that nobody can in the literal rather than colloquial sense prove that there is no such thing as a god.
This, like many other axioms sets the stage for an actual conversation about the evidence, here are a few I've gathered, would appreciate your opinions, and maybe additions to the list. I'll toss out five to start.
1 - It is impossible to prove there is no god whatsoever.
2 - Only a god concept which is well defined can be proven not to exist if it's prescribed traits prove to contradict evidence or become logically contradictory.
3 - Demonstrating an event or phenomena which is not yet explained by science does not prove the existence of god(s).
4 - An appeal to personal revelation or experience is useless to anyone else, as you cannot provide evidence of it, and it is not repeatable.
5 - A natural explanation is always logically more likely than a supernatural one.
Basic ground rules for debating the existence of god or lack thereof
by mankkeli 6 Replies latest jw friends
-
mankkeli
-
wobble
Good points Manny, point No. 1 is superfluous though.
Nobody has to prove there is no god, anymore than anyone has to prove there are no Unicorns, pink or otherwise.
If anyone contends there is a God or Gods, the onus is on them to provide proof, otherwise the rest of us will just carry on with our God free, and Unicorn free lives.
Your subsequent 4 points are excellent ground rules, and can save us an awful lot of time on here, they have been covered so often on so many threads, that only if someone has a different argument does it make sense to post it on here.
I think at the start of any debate it is good if people thoroughly define their terms, so, if any posters want to defend the existence of your God, please let us know what he/she /it is, and is not, and please provide proof we can examine scientifically.
-
mankkeli
Its important not to let ourselves be diverted by what we wish to believe, but to look closely and surely at what are the facts. As concepts become more specific it's sometimes easier to find more specific evidence to disprove them, but that doesn't mean that more general concepts can't be. Sure, it's near-trivial to prove that Bub isn't real, but it's not that much more trivial to show that Romero zombies aren't real. And it doesn't take too much more to show that zombies are purely a work of fiction. And, with enough effort, one can show that all undead humans are fictional. Similarly, a god concept could be disproven at any stage, and disproving a general god would disprove all specific notions derived from it.
-
-
tec
1 - It is impossible to prove there is no god whatsoever.
True.
2 - Only a god concept which is well defined can be proven not to exist if it's prescribed traits prove to contradict evidence or become logically contradictory.
If I understand correctly, then yes, this makes sense.
3 - Demonstrating an event or phenomena which is not yet explained by science does not prove the existence of god(s).
True. As well as the reverse... finding a scientific e xplanation for something does not disprove the existence if god(s). (unless the well defined god concept is dependent upon there being no other explanation)
4 - An appeal to personal revelation or experience is useless to anyone else, as you cannot provide evidence of it, and it is not repeatable.
It would depend on the revelation, wouldn't it? It can be useless to anyone else (though it is still testimony that one can then accept or discard). But I agree that someone else's personal revelation does not tend to prove anything to anyone other than themselves - and perhaps others of faith.
5 - A natural explanation is always logically more likely than a supernatural one.
Unless supernatural is just a word that we give to a natural phenomenon that we don't fully understand... yet. So more likely, yes. Always more logical though... I don't think so.
You asked for opinions, so I just thought I would share where I don't necessarily agree. The problem with rules, I think... is their exceptions.
Peace,
Tammy
-
Pig
You cant prove a negative
Scientists cant set out to prove that elma fud DIDNT invent black holes. If scientists have no alternative explaination it gives no strength to the "elma fud" theory.
Debating about God involves too much emotion. Because God kills you if you dont belive he exists. It's better to debate whether aliens introduced life to earth. Or whether a magical teapot can read our thoughts. If you can prove either of these claims faulse then maybe we can debate God.
-
bohm
I would be a bit carefull about #3 because while i think it is normally true, there are many cases where it would be problematic. For instance, suppose we found a clear message in some animals genomen, science would have no explanation and it would in my oppinion be evidence towards (for instance) a God, tricky aliens, whatever.
I would propose:
- An event which is not explained by science only become evidence for god if god provide a good explanation of the event.