the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy

Discussion in 'Religion' started by NMSquirrel, Sep 10, 2014.

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Asking whether God exists? I don't personally believe that God (at least the kind of 'God' one finds in the Bible and Quran) literally exists as anything more than a figure from religious mythology. I do think that many people believe in the existence of this sort of God though, it's a common belief.

    I do have rather pedantic problems with the challenge 'prove God exists', mainly because I don't think that the concept of proof applies in situations like these. One doesn't provide logical or mathematical proofs that there are clean socks in one's drawer, one provides plausible justification for thinking that there are. (I just looked and saw some.)

    Having said that, I don't really see any logical difficulties in asking a person to provide some plausible justifications for their assertion that God exists.

    I don't understand what you are saying there.

    I guess that 'believe' and 'know' are often used interchangeably in everyday speech. 'Know' is kind of of a more emphatic way of saying the same thing that 'believe' conveys.

    People believe all kinds of things, some of it true and some of it false, with widely varying degrees of justification. I'm generally inclined to follow the philosophical tradition and to define 'knowledge' as 'justified true belief'. The things that we know constitutes a subset of the things that we believe, consisting of those beliefs that are: 1) actually true, and 2) suitably well justified.

    Claims of possessing knowledge suggest that suitable justification for the claims can be provided if doubts arise.

    I don't see any problem in asking somebody who believes in God what they think justifies their belief. That's doubly true when people are insisting that they know for a fact that God exists.

    It's true that I don't believe in the literal existence of God and I think that God-beliefs are indeed beliefs. But that doesn't create any logical difficulties for me that I can see. It still makes perfectly good sense for me to ask people who believe things that I don't believe why they believe those things.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    I don't think it's pedantic at all, but rather a valid issue with the notion of proof with regard such concepts.
    And as we agree, "plausible justification" is not proof, but does speak to their view of what is rational or not.
    Indeed - if we're in the philosophy section then such usage of the terms is, I think, appropriate, although I think Gettier et al raised some weakness in the rather simplistic notion of "justified true belief".
    But on the whole, if someone raises a notion of "belief" and "knowledge" in the philosophy section, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are using the philosophical understanding/definitions of such, just as we would use the medical definitions if discussing in a medical section.
    "Suitable justification" is a rather woolly notion, as it differs from person to person (as I hold what we deem "rational" to do). One what person deems suitable might make another laugh with condenscension.
    Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I would even view a thread on religion, let alone post, as I am intrigued as to the question of why... why someone believes what they do... driven by the difference between my atheism and my twin brothers somewhat deep religious conviction.
    Indeed. It is, for me, the key question in understanding the nature of belief. You ask some people why they believe and they merely repeat what they believe, as if it is self-explanatory for the why.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    yes, but the problem comes with the source of that justification, every thing else you said i agree with, it is here i believe that it starts to become issue, " who decides the value of the justification presented? the believer believes in the value of their statement so much so that to claim 'i know' is reasonable to them.
    since "prove god exists" exists on a subjective level, the claim "who decides" is again rendered powerless, as "who decides" is subjective to the 'who'
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    another thread falls silent after I post...

    I am starting to get a complex..
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The latest consensus thinking in cosmology uses dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe. This theory sounds all proven, since it has the consensus behind it, but the problem is, dark energy has never been seen in the lab, to show it is real and not just mythology. In the case of dark energy, science does not require one have close up proof, in lab. Rather one can use broad based inference to prove this is real, even if it can't be seen in the lab.

    This sets a precedent that allows an alternate scientific way to prove God, that does not require direct lab proof, but can use only inferences based on bulk phenomena. For example, animal shapes in the clouds proves God exists. Instead of looking through telescopes to infer dark energy by bulk effects, I predict that God will cause animal shapes in clouds; periodically. This may not be settling proof, since we all prefer up close looks at God, but remember ,cosmology says this is not needed in science for a consensus.

    Both applications of inference by bulk require faith, which is the belief in something not seen, directly. Some religious people infer God by the beauty of nature. This is like a dark energy effect that permeates all of life. Like dark energy, the rules do not require we see this up close in the lab, to make sure this is real, and not just a product of the imagination.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    You've got that back to front.
    "Dark energy" is the name we give to something not yet pinpointed that is producing an observed effect.

    Sheer unadulterated nonsense.

    Yeah.
    If you knew anything about science you'd make fewer posts like this.
     
  10. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    doesn't the math support the existence of dark matter/energy?
     
  11. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    Well, that's what you get for not letting anyone get the last word..DUH!




    <trust me, I worry about myself sometimes..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    >
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The math based on what ?
     
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    how Can math reveal dark matter

    don't understand much of that, does 'How can' equal 'it does'?

    my original point was if the math supports it, it is highly likely dark matter exists.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    It's given as the explanation for the amount of mass which seems to be missing from large objects based on the difference between their motion as predicted by calculating it vs. the actual motion observed, and from observations like lensing. In a sense you could say it supports the math, in that it matches the math to the observation. Therefore it must exist; at least that's the logic.
     
  16. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    the math says that X+Y=Z, and Z has been observed, now its a matter of determining if the Z they see is the same Z in the equation..?

    I can see how the 'god debate' could play into this..
     

Share This Page