the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy

The question in the subject line seems to address whether or not 'god' exists. It doesn't appear to directly concern whether or not some individual holds a particular belief.

I do have doubts about 'proving' that god exists, but they come from a rather different direction.

It seems to me that the word 'prove' is most directly applicable in formal logic and mathematics. That's where we encounter proofs. When it comes to the existence of hypothetical beings, we seem to be dealing more with plausible and convincing justifications for making and accepting existence-claims. I guess that my point is that those justifications are rarely going to rise to the point of logical certainty. It's usually more probabilistic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. That's why I often say that I'm an atheist regarding the highly-personalized mythical gods of the Bible, Quran, Gita and so on, while I'm more of an agnostic regarding the universe's original source (if any), ultimate ground-of-being and whatever other philosophical functions that philosophical theology has historically associated with the 'god' idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not really moved by that argument.

Myths, legends and fables are just stories, often very old ones dating back to ancient and perhaps even prehistoric times. The fact that they are ancient stories doesn't necessarily imply that they have to be totally false. There's a common assumption that 'myth' means 'bullshit', which I don't subscribe to.

I think that plausible arguments can be made that they are probably false when they are interpreted as literal historical accounts. But those arguments wouldn't revolve around their age or narrative-form so much as their content.

For example, I just find it totally implausible that the universe's ultimate principle is in fact a giant blustering Jewish-guy on a mountaintop. Or that it would reveal the kind of hard-edged early-medieval Semitic tribal social order found in shariah. In fact, I find it hard to imagine the universe's ultimate principle being anything like a human being at all.

But I do have a great deal of interest in myths as proto-philosophy, so to speak. For example, creation myths often take the form of genealogies of the gods, where primal gods give birth to new generations of gods who sometimes end up replacing them. The thing is, these various gods often personify various cosmological principles, so that the relationships between the various gods can be read as cosmogonies that provide very early accounts of how the observed universe was imagined to have came into being.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um, original question is 'how can you prove a belief.
God does not necessarily have to be involved in this discussion.
(but I understand this really cant be discussed without bringing God into it.. but it is possible)
----

its funny how ppl will justify their answer to suit their belief, IOW if they believe God does not exist, they will reinterpret the question to line up with that belief.(it goes without saying that most theists do this all the time, with the atheist its not as obvious)
its a simple question, 'how do you prove a belief?"

I argue you can't, you can prove knowledge, if someone told you 1+1=3 of course this is not a belief, this is knowledge. it is provable.
if you can't prove it, it is a belief, until such time as there is proof one way or the other, science start this way, someone says 'I believe if I combine X with Y it will make Z" then someone says 'prove it' and the scientist proceeds to test the belief of X+y=Z by conducting tests, when the tests confirm that X+Y=Z then it becomes knowledge (after the scrutiny phase, and others confirm and verify the results.) without proof, it remains a belief.

sure if they tested x+y=z and they found that x+y does not equal z, that does not mean that the scientist is completely wrong, maybe he didn't consider certain factors, maybe it is X2+y=Z, this point being just because the scientist finds x+y does not equal Z only means x+y does not equal z..this argument is for those that claim "the bible is wrong therefore God does not exist" another logical fallicy as one does not follow to the other..its more accurate to claim "the bible is wrong, therefore we cannot use the bible as the goto source for info', at this point I will express my 'belief' that the bible is not a rule book, it is designed to be questioned, to have just enough misinterpretation potential to get ppl to think for themselves, unfortunately we do have ppl in our society who would abandon reason in favor of getting ppl to believe as they do.

 

We have two sides of the brain, with each side processing the data in different ways. The left brain is logical and differential and is the preferred side of the brain used by science. The scientific method factors out the intuitions and subjectivities of the right brain so only the left half of the brain is used.

The right brain is more integral, intuitive, and spatial is preferred by religion. If you wanted proof of God you need to learn to use your right brain so it is easier to creating a meeting of the minds. You can't present a 3-D concept in 2-D space, except as an illusion. This is why left brain translation never seem to get it done. The only way to get a 3-D ball to overlap a 2-D plane is to let out the air and make it flat. Then it is not a ball anymore and explanation falls flat.

The reverse is also true, in that 2-D theory seems flat to someone used to thinking in 3-D. In other words, theory called universal sometimes appears less than 3-D to someone used to 3-D. It can appear 3-D if you are used to 2-D. This is why religion will often not just accept science theory; something seems missing; z-axis. For religion to see science it needs to ignore the z-axis, and not expected spatially integrated theories, while for science to see religion it needs to add the z-axis to allow for spatial integration.

One bridge that science does use is the concept of random, which is right brained. Random adds another dimension to cause and effect, which can change the expected results. This is primitive right brain which is why I don't really like random. The need for random appears because the 2-D left brain can't generate 3-D theory so there are always gaps. It is easier to blame this on random, then say a 2-D piece meal approach to knowledge; specialty, leaves gaps.

A good analogy for the gaps is the concept of diversity versus melting pot. Diversity specializes each culture so its unique and differential nuance is retained. Diversity is a left brain push for differentiation. The specialization of cultures creates walls between them, such as language, since only those in a given speciality know all the nuance. Data is left out when any culture attempts to integrate all the others. The theory falls short of 3-D, causing unexpected perturbations to appear, which we lump as chaos; primitive right brain god.

Both sides (of the brain) seem content to stay there and judge from that side. I was a little different in that I was born more right brained but was educated to use the left brain at a high level. Although I could go back and forth these always seems so mutually exclusive and hard to combine. So I did R&D of the mind to build a bridge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let me give an example of trying to translate right brain to left brain and the problems that can appear. The right brain allows someone from the west to recognize the oriental features for billions of people, even when mixed in a crowd. There is a spatial recognition process like a tool with endless applications. The left brain sees details and is better at looking at one person and seeing how they are unique data. It is not looking for the 3-D gist of what is in common.

That being said, how would you use language to explain this spatial recognition process of the right brain, to someone who is left brained and used to seeing details on a case by case basis? One may say the eyes look similar in spatial recognition. But to someone, using the left brain, similar is too fuzzy, since they are used to seeing differences along the length of fuzzy.

The point i am making unless you can use both sides of the brain, it is not always easy to translate side to side. The best approach is to use each side of the brain, when its range of utility is called upon. Nobody uses a hammer as a swiss army knife dual all tool. Sometimes you need a wrench, which will make the job so much easier and less damaging to the nut and screw than a hammer.

 

What about the many laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the old testament?

Here's a list of some of the actions that merit the death penalty in the OT.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Testament

It's interesting that ISIS and the so-called 'Islamic State' are being excoriated (and in my opinion rightly so) for continuing to take the Islamic shariah versions of these supposedly divinely-revealed OT laws seriously today. Apostates (including Muslim Shi'ites) are simply killed. Adulterers are being stoned to death in public executions each week in Mosul. If a town is attacked and fails to surrender, then all of its male inhabitants are to be put to death and the females enslaved. (They actually seem to interpret this one liberally by their lights, since they only seem to apply it to those they consider non-Muslims, such as the Yezedi 'devil-worshippers'. When it comes to opposing combat troops though, they don't seem to take any prisoners and publicly display captured soldiers' severed heads on stakes.) And on and on...

There still seems to be quite a bit of cognitive dissonance between our modern Western ideas of ethics and morality, and the ancient traditions that at least the more fundamentalist end of the Christian spectrum continues to insist are their God's revealed 'word'.

 

Your "diagram" (and much of your drivel) is incorrect.
The brain is nowhere near as differentiated as you persist in claiming it is.

 

Wellwisher,

You are hiding behind an elaborate brain explanation, when the truth is definitions of God are seldom logically consistent. You are saying, in effect, chill out man, it's all cool, just be intuitive. Intuitively, it also sounds like a silly fairy tale. So it fails on both sides of my brain.

 

The subject line reads: "the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy"

I fail to see the connection between that (in my opinion false) proposition and your (seemingly rhetorical) 'question' about belief.

I don't think that the word 'prove' is really applicable to the question of whether or not god exists. That question is more a matter of plausible and convincing justification that needn't rise to the level of apodeictic certainty.

'Knowledge' has traditionally been defined as 'justified true belief'. So it seems to me that from our perspective, the issue about god's existence ends up revolving around the quality of the justifications that can be advanced for the assertion that it's in fact true.

There shouldn't be any implication here that all beliefs are equivalent, all of them just as good as any other. Different beliefs can have very different levels of justification. Again, knowledge itself can be considered a species of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are a) well-justified (what that means is an open philosophical question) and b) are in fact true (ditto).

 

because the person often asking believes that 'God' is a belief, that there is no such thing as 'God' , and I have often heard ppl arguing as if to have any belief equals belief in 'God', so to me there has to be a distinguishing criteria to separate a 'belief' and a belief in 'God', because the context in which I hear it being spoken is often confusing, some equate belief to knowledge, to believe in something means they have knowledge, the root of knowledge is 'to know', I do not 'know' that God exists, leaves me with I 'believe' God exists, which the second statement holds more true than the first. which leads me to believe that there IS a separation between knowledge and belief, since 'to know' involves testing, (I know 1+1=2, I have tested this, It qualifies for I 'know',)

if God is just belief, then it reads Prove belief exists, this question doesn't make sense.. If God is just a belief, how can you prove a belief? is a logical question, first establish that a belief can be proven, but if it can be proven it is fact!(not a belief) therein lies the fallacy..


" first establish that a belief can be proven, "
I think that is my argument in a nutshell..

 

The "Old Testament" is, in large part, retconned by the Birth, Life, and Death of Christ, thus the New Testament and the "New Covenant in Christ" - it is the reason we break bread and wine, in remembrance of the Last Supper and His sacrifice for us.

At least, that's my understanding of it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why must religious people be so dishonest? These are clearly not the only rules laid out in the many different versions of the bibles and certainly many other rules are as law-like as these particular set of commandments.

 

The Ten Commandments are OT too.

 

There are different levels of proof required for simply having a personal belief or opinion, and trying to demonstrate or prove that opinion as a fact to others. In the latter case, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm a very pious polytheist; I believe in and worship all of my gods, and I pay Them the proper and due respect with regular practice. But even I will recognize that I cannot prove the gods' existence to others, due to a lack of scientifically testable evidence. They are provable only to oneself, or perhaps in limited groups, via experiential discovery of Them. Recognition of this does not reduce my firm conviction that They exist, nor does it reduce the attention I give to Them. And I think it's stupid when other theists feel attacked or offended when the subject is brought up and the lack of scientific or testable evidence is recognized.

 

The Ten Commandments were intended not just for "Christs people" but for "All People"; they were given to Moses to be disseminated to all.

If I am not mistaken (and I am no religious scholar, so I could be) - these are labeled, by Gods own command, as "above all other laws", saying something to the effect of "There is none other commandments greater than these"

I would dig into it more to find the passages, but I was up most of the night vomiting... pretty sure I've got the flu.

 

Shouldn't you have done this shit already?

I mean, really, you seem prepared to tell people that they should and shouldn't do, to sanction people for venerating the wrong deity and you can't be bothered to pay attention to the divine figure that you claim to worship?

It's no wonder that most religious people treat other human beings like shit when they can't be bothered to respect their own deity.

 

You are making some incredible (not to mention, incredibly WRONG) assumptions about me PhysBang, as well as my beliefs.

I will not "sanction people for venerating the wrong deity". I do not presume to tell people what they "should and shouldn't do". Hell, I don't even presume to tell people what I think I should or shouldn't do, unless they inquire.

My beliefs are pretty simple, and one of them is that nobody holds station above anyone else; ergo, it is not any mortal persons place to judge another for what they believe, so long as those beliefs do not harm another. Put eloquently:
An ye harm none, do as ye will.

Again, you are making a grave assumption here - yes, I have read the bible... yes, I have studied it. I do not, however, have an eidetic memory, nor do I have a photographic memory. In fact, my short term memory is pretty craptastic all said and done.

To be blunt, PhysBang, it seems less like you take offense at the ideals of my beliefs and more that you take offense at me... whatever I have done to offend you so, I do apologize.

 

The left brain is differential and the right brain is integral. In math, differentiation finds the slope of the curve at a given point. Isn't this the type of proof of God that you require; specific data occurrence? The right brain is integral, with an integration finding the area under the curve. Terms like omnipresent or omniscience try to integrate the entire curve of reality from alpha to omega. This how the right brain will handle the problem.

A good analogy to contrast the left and right brain is the left is like a microscope and the right is like a telescope. Both tools are very useful but each will have practical limits, in terms of how it allow us to look at the world. The microscope can see close but tends to lose sight of the larger picture. It can see the bacteria in the water sample, but can't see the context of where the water came from. The result is specialization to what is under the microscope; way of science.

The telescope is the opposite and can see far away and therefore can see how distant objects relate. It can look out in the night sky and see all the stars in the milky way and infer the spiral shape. But it can lose track of the details below a certain size, because it can't get very close. The result are generalizations due to the broader picture but with fuzzy details. If you expected an astronomer to use a microscope to explore the universe, he would come across like an idiot, because this tool is not designed for this.

I realize that God, which is a right brained concept, that integrates the universe in the minds of the faithful, gets very fuzzy at the detailed level required by proof in science. They can't get a sample useful to the left brain microscope. But science, due to specialization falls short in terms of providing integrated theories that can transcend the walls of specialization so that a biologists would use the same theory as the physicist. It is all matter and energy, right? Left brain science looks piece meal, when viewed from the telescope of the right side of the brain. This is why religions sense that specific areas of science need to up its game to prove it is more than a series of specialty correlations with gaps of uncertainty between that need chaos to intercede to hide the lack of integration.

If you ever looked at the art of Escher, his artwork called relativity is symbolic of the left brain approach. Each speciality becomes its own center of the universe, based on its relative speciality reference. It looks fine to itself, But from that POV other references don't always line up properly. The right brain people can see this but the microscope is too close to see. You need a longer view to see how all the POV relate to each other, which falls short of 3-D in reality.

If you try to use both sides of the brain, in a conscious way, you can empathize for the limitation of each side and how they are designed to work as a team and not as adversaries each with half the story of life. The adversary way is perpetuated by the left brain, since it likes to specialize each thing with the microscope, with areas of specialty not allowed to cross into the other's territory, even of the brain can explain this. They will get upset if the religion tries to challenge evolution since the microscope can't see both. This is predictable and confirms how the sides of the brain play a role even in the division of culture.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nope.
Stop pushing crap.