Truth about God

Discussion in 'The War Zone' started by StimpE, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. StimpE

    StimpE lol, Internet!

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Saw this article on some site, forgot it though. what do you guys think :p
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Can Science Prove that God Does Not Exist?
    "No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
    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. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.

    Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. 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.

    To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. 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.

    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.

    This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? 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. 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.

    God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.3

    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

    The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).

    Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.

    The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything-that there is nothing for him to do-has led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god. In Why Believe in God? Michael Donald Goulder argues that the only intellectually respectable position on the god question is atheism.5 In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey, argues that the traditional theistic conception of God must be replaced by one grounded in human relationships and concerns.6 Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world.7

    What if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature.8

    Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove.
     
  2. Fred

    Fred Moderator

    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I just got home from work (It's 3:30 am) and I'm quite tired, but I'm going to give it a [short] go. I probably wont address every issue, but really, i dont care to.
    This first answer covers quite a bit of the text, I think. And for the answer, I am going to quote the very well respected C.S. Lewis (it's a little bit long :
    Yeah.. that's exactly the point. We aren't really in a place to judge whether God is properly merciful or properly just. The fact is, we are all off base and dont know what we're talking about. If there was any kind of definite proof for the lack of a supreme being, there wouldn't be such a movement in the world. If there was an ultimate proof, the number of people worshiping a god of some kind would plummet. I dont think EVERYONE would just give it up, but I think there would be a really significant difference. Back to the point i was originally on -[our inherent inferiority]- We may think it would be just to kill of everyone that, for example, robbed our grandmother... but the fact is that we have all "fallen short." Does that mean we should all be offed? I think we dont think that sounds like the greatest idea. God is both completely merciful and competely just. The punishment for sin is death, yet all have a chance to be forgiven. That sounds pretty fair to me... Everyone who screws up has to pay for it (but everyone is going to screw up in some way), yet everyone has a fighting chance to be redeemed and live forever -- all they have to do is believe completely that someone/thing is forgiving them.

    Anyways, that's all I'm gunna do right now. I'm sure someone else can offer a better explaination..
     
  3. Big B

    Big B HWF Godfather

    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Okay, for the God is merciful and just part:

    If you factor in mercy and justice alone, then yes, God is inconsistant. From a Christian perspective, you also have to include the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus death took the sins -past, present, future- on him so he'd have to physically die. God's wrath was appeased since the only consequence for sin is death and damnation (meaning an existance totally devoid of God).

    God is just and does require the punishment fits the crime. The punishment for sin is death. The bad news, as we all know, is that you will die physically. This is a fact, no matter what side you're on. Jesus death allows us the choice to follow and avoid the afterlife without God. Before, you sinned, and basically you were SOL. God accepted 'perfect' animals as sacrifices in the place of the sinner, but by his standards, that really wasn't good enough. Accepted, yes, but ultimately not enough.

    Of course, taking all of the above out, you also have to realize that there's only so much we know, and so much we can speculate on with the given information we have. A big point to factor in is that there is no person alive at the beginning of the universe or Earth (that we know of, and discounting God---if you believe in God to start with). Both have strong evidence, but none can really prove if God did or did not exist.
    On the same token, the Bible has thousands of texts that corroborate each other. Plato's works have only two known copies and both coincide with each other, despite being several hundred years apart. It would be very hard for one to manipulate the biblical texts to pull a big hoax in the past, because there was little need to given how few people were literate. You'd only need to have a few people shut up and lie to the others. Even if you did want to manipulate the Bible, you'd have to know where all the copies were and pull off a massive editing setup that couldn't be detected. That's a pretty tall order, if you ask me.
     
  4. max12590

    max12590 Masterful Geek

    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, I think it basically comes to this:

    We know exactly nothing.

    Contradictions and unrestricted negatives out the window, Gods existence or nonexistence cannot be proved by any scientific means. What we need to remember that nothing in science is final. In my mind, science proves nothing. You may wake up tomorrow and scientists will be saying gravity is nonexistent. Before you call me crazy remember this, people thought it was impossible for man to fly, people thought the Earth was flat. these were, in their time, scientifically proven facts.

    But back to the whole God argument...

    I think that the decision of God's existence is up to the individual. This is yet another reason that God's existence or nonexistence cannot be proven by science. God, as nearly all Christians think, is not a thing, He is not tangible, He is not sitting on his sofa somewhere eating pizza and watching the Sopranos. Religion is a tool for people to explain things that, contrary to what the article says, truly have not been explained by science. Unless I'm missing out on something, I never saw the scientific report on the meaning of life. Just as a person cannot be scientifically proven beautiful, God cannot be scientifically proven to exist or not. Neither one is tangible nor measurable. At this point, unless logical evidence exists, science cannot say jack.

    Well, thats all I have to say about it. I hope my thoughts stayed semi-coherent, I kinda just let that flow... oh well. But at the end of all this I will tell you that I do not worship God, however, I have no clue about his existence.
     
  5. Karanislove

    Karanislove It's D Grav80 Of Luv

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    In India there are so many religions............. If you talk about Hindus, there are some books written on GODs like Mahabharat, Ramayan.....These are not just books you can find their clues today as well. For eg. in Ramayan it is mentioned that a person named Ravan had his base in Lanka which is Sri Lanka and GOD Ram made a bridge to enter in Lanka from India..Scientists have found rocks under the base of sea of that bridge.

    In Sikhs, a book name Guru Granth Sahib is written..... there are so many places which are mentioned in that book you can find in India...So many temples etc.....

    According to me..... I believe that their is GOD and only thing GOD want is speak truth and if you cant cant help others then dont do bad either.
     
  6. Sheephead

    Sheephead Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am god
     
  7. Karanislove

    Karanislove It's D Grav80 Of Luv

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Oh My God~!:sun:
     
  8. Nic

    Nic Sleepy Head

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    :eek: Im in the presence of god.
     
  9. Big B

    Big B HWF Godfather

    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    God either exists or doesn't. It's a lot like gravity: believe in it or not, gravity still exists. By the same token, you can believe that aliens exist or you can't.
    The choice to worship God is an entirely different matter...
     
  10. Nic

    Nic Sleepy Head

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Are you saying god exists but its up to you wether to worship him?
     
  11. Sheephead

    Sheephead Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if you say god is like gravity then you are saying god is real, thanks you very much for believing in me
     
  12. Big B

    Big B HWF Godfather

    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The argument is if God exists or not. The belief or non-belief does not change this. And yes, I do believe that God exists...but that's not the central issue of if God exists or not.

    The God/gravity argument is a poor one, but I was trying to make a point that if something exists, it still exists, regardless of if you believe in it or not.
     
  13. Sheephead

    Sheephead Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Thank you for believing in me, my son
     
  14. Karanislove

    Karanislove It's D Grav80 Of Luv

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    God of fraud~?! lol
     
  15. Sheephead

    Sheephead Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am no fraud, you can find the light in the deapest valleys
     
  16. Karanislove

    Karanislove It's D Grav80 Of Luv

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    just in the deapest Valleys? You are fraud.....you have taken away lights from other places.....lol~!
     
  17. DuctTapeMan

    DuctTapeMan Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if ur god then what color underwear am i wearing
     
  18. DuctTapeMan

    DuctTapeMan Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    your info seas u r from the uk, r u seaing god is only preasant in the uk... and u r not always online, i thought god would watch and listen to his children all time... so u r infrering god is not the god of love us christians believe him to be?
     
  19. DuctTapeMan

    DuctTapeMan Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    only some one of little or no faith would desicrate the name of I Am, the god of millions, the true god, the one who sent his only son to suffer yours and infinite others deaths, the one who sent the only pure person to have lived and to ever live to have huge nails pierced through his flesh to be susspend to a peice of wood, the one who sent an innocsent man to suffer a crimanals death, and the man obblieged because he knew it was for the good mankind and because he loved his god, he knew his god would not abandon him, abandon all of humanity.
     
  20. Willz

    Willz MiCrO$oFt $uK$ :D

    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    well this is what i think, i will belive in god when i see him, untill then, i aint saying i belive in him or dont, same about jesus.
     

Share This Page