Proof

[mormonman]

Why is it that people that believe in a god, whoever that god may be, feel that they have to prove the existence of their diety to people that don't believe in God? I say it should be the other way around. In the Book of Mormon, Alma, the High Priest, was talking to Korihor, an anti-Christ, when he said this, "And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only. The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:40,44). This is what god believing people should say. No offence, but there is no evidence to their sophistry that there is no God. What evidence is there? Science? God lives by science. There is no basis to say that there is no God.

 

[Tiberius]

Why is it that people that believe in a god, whoever that god may be, feel that they have to prove the existence of their diety to people that don't believe in God?

To justify their beliefs and to reassure the holders of said beliefs that they have made the right choice.

The best way to combat buyer's remorse is to convince yourself that you couldn't live without the thing you bought.

I say it should be the other way around. In the Book of Mormon, Alma, the High Priest, was talking to Korihor, an anti-Christ, when he said this, "And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only. The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:40,44). This is what god believing people should say. No offence, but there is no evidence to their sophistry that there is no God. What evidence is there? Science? God lives by science. There is no basis to say that there is no God.

You're not claiming that science is in complete harmony with religion, are you? because it isn't. One needs look no further than the creationism/evolution debate for proof of this.

In any case, this is shifting the burden of proof. It's no different to me saying, "There are magical fairies on the moon, and unless you can prove there aren't, it must be true."

By this logic, anyone could invent an idea which is hard (if not impossible) to prove false, and thus claim it to be true because it can't be disproved.

 

[Searching]

On that same note - why do those who believe there is no God feel the need to try to prove this to those who believe there is a God? Or worse - put them down for believing in God?

 

[Mister Emu]

You cannot prove a negative. That is why it should not be the other way around.

 

[Tiberius]

You can easily prove a negative, so long as the positive cannot exist without also causing something which we see doesn't exist.

For example, I can prove there is no elephant in my living room, because an elephant in my living room will create certain things (certain noises, a elephanty small, a physical presence that i can touch) and those things are not there. Therefore it is impossible for there to be an elephant in my living room.

Also, just as it can be easily proven that there is no elephant in my living room, it can also be proven that 1+1 does not equal 347.

 

[Mister Emu]

For example, I can prove there is no elephant in my living room, because an elephant in my living room will create certain things (certain noises, a elephanty small, a physical presence that i can touch) and those things are not there. Therefore it is impossible for there to be an elephant in my living room.

Not true, prove there is no infitesimally small, odorless, mute elephant in your room?

 

[Comprehend]

You can easily prove a negative, so long as the positive cannot exist without also causing something which we see doesn't exist.

For example, I can prove there is no elephant in my living room, because an elephant in my living room will create certain things (certain noises, a elephanty small, a physical presence that i can touch) and those things are not there. Therefore it is impossible for there to be an elephant in my living room.

Also, just as it can be easily proven that there is no elephant in my living room, it can also be proven that 1+1 does not equal 347.

Maybe you should take a refresher course in formal logic. No, you cannot prove a negative. Math is a tautology, it is true by the definition of the words you use, which is a more complicated way of saying that you don't prove anything in math.

 

[Tiberius]

Not true, prove there is no infitesimally small, odorless, mute elephant in your room?

Ah, but such a being would not be an elephant, would it? it lacks some of the qualities that define an elephant.

Maybe you should take a refresher course in formal logic. No, you cannot prove a negative. Math is a tautology, it is true by the definition of the words you use, which is a more complicated way of saying that you don't prove anything in math.

This would require us to accept as possible any number of outright stupid ideas. I, for example, can turn into a squirrel at will. You can't prove it's not true, so you must accept the possibility!

 

[Comprehend]

This would require us to accept as possible any number of outright stupid ideas. I, for example, can turn into a squirrel at will. You can't prove it's not true, so you must accept the possibility!

not true. nobody has to accept them as you have already demonstrated. You just can't *prove* it. BTW, not being able to prove a negative is really not something up for debate in any intellectual community. Everyone considers this to be already *proven*.

Edit: One may still evaluate the probability of anything without the ability of proving such a thing. and finally, while it is obvious that one cannot prove a negative. It is only slightly less obvious that we can't really prove anything at all.

 

[Mister Emu]

This would require us to accept as possible any number of outright stupid ideas.

No, it doesn't.

I, for example, can turn into a squirrel at will. You can't prove it's not true, so you must accept the possibility!

No, one cannot prove that such a thing is not true, but I still would not accept the possibility of it occuring...

 

[Tiberius]

People, please note that I said "Accept as POSSIBLE", not "Accept as TRUE." There is a big difference there!

Unless someone could explain how they can accept something as possible while considering that thing as IMpossible?

 

[Comprehend]

People, please note that I said "Accept as POSSIBLE", not "Accept as TRUE." There is a big difference there!

Unless someone could explain how they can accept something as possible while considering that thing as IMpossible?

you don't have to accept anything as possible, but you do have to accept that you cannot prove a negative.

just because you cannot prove something to be false, does not necessarily mean you must accept it as possible, only unprovable.

For example. You cannot prove that God does not exist, the inability to do so does not show that there is a possibility that God does exist, or that you would have to accept such as possible, only that it cannot be proven that he doesn't exist (wow, a proper use of a double negative).

 

[Seraphiel]

Why is it that people that believe in a god, whoever that god may be, feel that they have to prove the existence of their diety to people that don't believe in God?

Because there are people who think that they know or are better then others. And they have to prove there superiority.

 

[michel]

Why is it that people that believe in a god, whoever that god may be, feel that they have to prove the existence of their diety to people that don't believe in God? I say it should be the other way around. In the Book of Mormon, Alma, the High Priest, was talking to Korihor, an anti-Christ, when he said this, "And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only. The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:40,44). This is what god believing people should say. No offence, but there is no evidence to their sophistry that there is no God. What evidence is there? Science? God lives by science. There is no basis to say that there is no God.

I don't feel the need to prove the existence of my diety to people that don't believe in God?.. I am usually (once I say that I believe in God) asked to prove his/its/her existence.

 

[doppelganger]

Why is it that people that believe in a god, whoever that god may be, feel that they have to prove the existence of their diety to people that don't believe in God?

Good question. I call this "The Evangelist's Paradox." I like Spinoza's discussion of it in his Ethics [E4P37]:

PROP. 37. The good which every man, who follows after virture, desires for himself he will also desire for other men, and so much the more, in proportion as he has a greater knowledge of God.

In his two proofs for this proposition, Spinoza offers the following:

n proportion as the mind's essence involves a greater knowledge of God, so also will be greater the desire of the follower of virtue, that other men should possess that which he seeks as good for himself.

The good, which a man desires for himself and loves, he will love more constantly, if he sees that others love it also; he will therefore endeavour that others should love it also; and as the good in question is common to all, and therefore all can rejoice therein, he will endeavour, for the same reason, to bring about that all should rejoice therein, and this he will do the more, in proportion as his own enjoyment of the good is greater.

But Spinoza offers us an important caution in his notes to this proposition:

He who, guided by emotion only, endeavours to cause others to love what he loves himself, and to make the rest of the world live according to his own fancy, acts solely by impulse, and is, therefore, hateful, especially, to those who take delight in something different, and accordingly study and, by similar impulse, endeavour, to make men live in accordance with what pleases themselves.

The danger of a zealous, emotional fervor for what I know to be the Truth is that its rejection by others might be taken by me as a rejection of me. Thus, the evangelical impulse borne out of love becomes a vehicle of hatred.

There is an inherent violence in not genuinely listening to the stories of others' journeys and assuming that I have a nugget of Truth that they don't simply because they may choose to express it with different symbols, words, names or ideas than the ones I prefer.

 

[lunamoth]

Good question. I call this "The Evangelist's Paradox." I like Spinoza's discussion of it in his Ethics [E4P37]:
In his two proofs for this proposition, Spinoza offers the following:But Spinoza offers us an important caution in his notes to this proposition:The danger of a zealous, emotional fervor for what I know to be the Truth is that its rejection by others might be taken by me as a rejection of me. Thus, the evangelical impulse borne out of love becomes a vehicle of hatred.

There is an inherent violence in not genuinely listening to the stories of others' journeys and assuming that I have a nugget of Truth that they don't simply because they may choose to express it with different symbols, words, names or ideas than the ones I prefer.

Excellent reply Doppelganger. Paradoxically, evangelism is not in telling, but in listening.

 

[doppelganger]

Excellent reply Doppelganger. Paradoxically, evangelism is not in telling, but in listening.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Frubals (if I could ).

 

[Kcnorwood]

You can't say ALL belifes feel the need to prove thire religion.

 

[Tiberius]

you don't have to accept anything as possible, but you do have to accept that you cannot prove a negative.

I don't see how this is true. You're saying I can't prove there isn't a blue whale perched on top of my head?

just because you cannot prove something to be false, does not necessarily mean you must accept it as possible, only unprovable.

I don't see how this is. If we cannot prove something can't happen, then that means that it could happen, as far as we know. If we don't accept it as possible, then wouldn't we be hypocrites for not taking it to be possible?

In the case of the above example, wouldn't that be like me saying, "I can't prove that there isn't a blue whale on top of my head, yet, there is no blue whale on the top of my head"?

For example. You cannot prove that God does not exist, the inability to do so does not show that there is a possibility that God does exist, or that you would have to accept such as possible, only that it cannot be proven that he doesn't exist (wow, a proper use of a double negative).

First of all, you seem to be saying that there could be a zero possibility that God exists, even if we can never prove it. Isn't that just guessing then?

Secondly, isn't it possible to show that God can't exist if the properties that God must have contradict observable and testable laws of nature?

All this stuff about not being able to prove negatives is just philosphy, and philosophy is just ideas. Unless there are concrete examples in the real world, it's just an idea, with nothing to say that it operates in the real world.