by nicolaou 185 Replies latest members adult
Adamah, if you have never said the words, I can prove there is no God, then I was not referring to you. The one who said those words will know... if you are just guessing, then it does not apply to you. This happened quite some time ago.
But the who does not matter; I was just mentioning that someone DID say that, here on jwn. I doubt that person is the only atheist who has ever said such a thing.
Peace,
tammy
You always miss the point.
If you are talking to me... then no, I am not missing the point. I disagree WITH your point... as you know, as you also know the reason why I MUST disagree. But I am content, between you and I to agree to disagree. Or we can just go down the same path that we always go down. Doesn't bother me. But it does bother you, and I know it bothers Nic.
Peace,
tammy
Kate, how would the current World look any different without God and sub-atomic particles?
You DO realize that inanimate objects (things besides kittens, like rocks and such) are made up of sub-atomic particles, too, right? ALL matter has sub-atomic particles in it, so proposing sub-atomic particles is just another way of pointing to "things" that have the appearance of having been created, when orderly arrangement is not proof of design.
Here's another article on the prevalent pseudo-logic claim, written by Steven Law, on this page:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/you-cant-prove-negative.html
[From my new book "Believing Bullshit".]
Let’s now turn to a variant of “it’s beyond science/reason to decide.” One reason why some suppose science and reason are incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that certain supernatural claims—for example, that fairies or angels or spirit beings exist—are false, is that they assume you can’t prove a negative. Indeed this is widely supposed to be some sort of “law of logic.”
For example, Georgia minister Dr. Nelson L. Price asserts on his website that “one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.” If Price is correct and this is indeed a law of logic, then of course it immediately follows that we can’t prove that there are no fairies, angels, or spirit beings, or, indeed, that there is no god. We will have established that the nonexistence of God is indeed beyond the ability of reason and/or science to establish!
The fact is, however, that this supposed “law of logic” is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper “You Can Prove a Negative,” “You can’t prove a negative” is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.
Notice, for a start, that “You cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. “I exist” is logically equivalent to “I do not not exist,” which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!)
Of course, those who say “You can’t prove a negative” will insist that I have misunderstood their point. As Hales notes, when people say, “You can’t prove a negative,” what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. If this point were correct, it would apply not just to supernatural beings lying beyond the cosmic veil but also to things that might be supposed to exist on this side of the veil, such as unicorns, Martians, rabbits with twenty heads, and so on. We would not be able to prove the nonexistence of any of these things either.
But is the point correct? Is it true that we can never prove that something does not exist? Again, it depends. If John claims there’s a unicorn in the tool shed, I can quickly establish he is mistaken by going and taking a look. We could similarly establish there’s no Loch Ness monster by draining the loch. But what of the claim that unicorns once existed? We can’t travel back in time and directly observe all of the past as we can every corner of the tool shed or Loch Ness. Does it follow that we can’t prove unicorns never existed?
It depends in part on what you mean by “prove.” The word has a variety of meanings. By saying something is “proved,” I might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt. Or I might mean it has been established beyond reasonable doubt (this is the kind of proof required in a court of law). Can we establish beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns have never inhabited the earth? True, the history of our planet has been and gone, so we can no longer directly inspect it. But surely, if unicorns did roam the earth, we would expect to find some evidence of their presence, such as fossils of unicorns or at least of closely related animals from which unicorns might plausibly have evolved. There is none. We also have plenty of evidence that unicorns are a fictional creation, in which case, it’s surely reasonable for us to conclude that there never were any unicorns. Indeed, I’d suggest we can prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
In response, it might be said “But you can’t prove conclusively, beyond all possible doubt, that unicorns never roamed the earth.” This is undeniably true. However, this point is not peculiar to negatives. It can be made about any claim about the unobserved, and thus any scientific theory at all, including scientific theories about what does exist. We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs existed, but not beyond all possible doubt.
Despite the mountain of evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth, it’s still possible that, say, all those dinosaur fossils are fakes placed there by alien pranksters long ago.
Let’s sum up. If “you can’t prove a negative” means you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain things don’t exist, then the claim is just false. We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis. If, on the other hand, “you can’t prove a negative” means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don’t exist.
TEC said-
Adamah, if you have never said the words, I can prove there is no God, then I was not referring to you. The one who said those words will know... if you are just guessing, then it does not apply to you. This happened quite some time ago.
I've said it repeatedly, and here, I'll just say it again (since you may have missed it all these times): I can prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, on the basis of many different sound coherent arguments.
Well, I would disagree Adamah. But tell me... who is this God of the bible? What does that even mean?
Peace,
tammy
tec:
But tell me... who is this God of the bible? What does that even mean?
Why do you ask these stupid questions? (The answer to that question is that you quibble about semantics in order to avoid substance.)
You know very well what adamah means by 'the God of the Bible'. And if you honestly don't know, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your comprehension skills.
TEC said-
Just because science has not yet discovered how something can happen... does not mean that it did not happen or that it is impossible.
AND
I don't even hink science would state that it will never be possible for cells and such to be reanimated, to the point of 'resurrecting' a person who has died. Just don't have the know-how yet.
You DO see the difference between those situations, right? ...Adamah
Proving God's existence is NOT on the same level as cells being reanimated, since the differences are incredibly HUGE!... adamah
I was referring to the resurrection of the dead, one of the details that the OP was referring to as to what science has disproven... so from the OP:
or defy biology and raise the dead.
Peace,
tammy
TEC said- Well, I would disagree Adamah.
Why? You've examined the evidence; are you dismissing it out of hand, based on your emotional thinking?
Let me ask you this: since you already are a believer, is there ANY evidence that anyone could possibly produce that could convince you that God doesn't exist?
See, I could be totally and completely convinced God existed, if I had even a shred of compelling evidence, since I'd HAVE TO and it would be entirely consistent with my belief system, since I decided long ago to let my beliefs follow the evidence, but not to allow the evidence to be controlled by my desired outcome, only accepting evidence which reinforces my beliefs.
TEC said- But tell me... who is this God of the bible? What does that even mean?
You tell me, TEC?
In fact, I dare say if you ask 4 billion believers, you'd probably get 5 billion definitions, since each person has a slightly different interpretation on who God is, and what it/they wants us to do, etc.
The Bible is exactly where the concept of God arises in most people, and via the oral traditions handed down or shared amongst those who converse about the subject of God; at least, it's the book most religious leaders would say people should read to learn about God's characteristics, since it's supposedly where He expresses His Divine Will for mankind.
And that is untrue, Jeffro.
Because how many people look at the 'god of the bible'... but do not look at Christ, the Image of God, to know God.
People very rarely argue against the God and Father of Christ... as they do not know Him. But they do argue against what they think is an accurate representation of Him, depending upon which portions of the bible they choose to believe (and which doctrines/interpretation of men they choose to give credence to).
So it is not an unreasonable question.
People get 'jehovah' from the bible... and think that is an accurate representation of God, according to the wts. But this 'jehovah' is not an accurate description of God, as he is not shown by Christ... and he is not the same 'god' that a catholic gets, or a baptist, or a universalist, etc.
So if there are different understandings that can be reached from the 'god of the bible'... by looking at the bible... then I think it is a fair question to ask, regarding what interpretation Adamah says that He can disprove.
It is no different than defining the terms of certain words before entering into a debate, to see if you would even bother TO enter in that debate.
Peace,
tammy
