Methods for proving God's existence?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z the category of "false until proven true".

No such category.

Here are some links about "false until proven true"

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

Proving a Negative
The very last part of the above reads as follows:

Thus, the Christian hypothesis is either incoherent or unprovable, and in the one case it is necessarily false, while in the other it lacks justification, so we have no reason to believe it, any more than we have a reason to believe that there is a big green Martian on some planet in some corner of some universe. This is what it means to "prove a negative."

What that means is that because it wasn't proven true, you don't have to believe it. But it doesn't mean it was proven false. Read the whole article.

Project: PM Aphorisms and a house built of straw
Quote from the above:

What I'd pose as the "classical" definition of "doing science" is the coupling of experimental observation WITH Rene Descartes' "Systematic Doubt" wherein everything is presumed false until proven true. What is missing from David's "science" is the controlled experiment. The attempt to prove his idea false. Until then it is still built on a foundation of straw and until there is the attempt to disprove

What that means is that you cannot conclude false until proven true unless you also attempt the counter proof.

USEFUL TERMS
Top of the page, ad ignorantiam

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific Method - Janice VanCleave's Science Fair Handbook - Science Fair Central - DiscoverySchool.com
Teaching little kids what to do when your experiment fails

I'd think that now, after seeing sites ranging from children's science to Wikipedia to logical fallacy, only an ignorant child would continue believing "false until proven true" is valid.

[Zhavric]

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so many links that failed to support your assertion. Argument from ignorance doesn't apply to contradicting existing proven claims and we're not talking about the scientific method, but of basic logic. If we know X = true then stating "X = false" is an invalid statement... unless you provide some evidence.

It's really that simple.

Here's a little quiz. Given our knowledge of physics and biology...

"Invisible Flying Monkeys are real."
A) True
B) False until evidence is presented
C) Unknown

"Monkeys are able to fly."
A) True
B) False until evidence is presented
C) Unknown

"Monkeys are able to turn invisible."
A) True
B) False until evidence is presented
C) Unknown

[Fonceai]

You keep mentioning "existing claims". What are these "existing claims"?

You use the plural "claims" so there must be more than one.

What proven claims are there that show God doesn't exist?

This thread is about methods for proving God doesn't exist, yet your statement implies it's already been done.

I'm curious as to why these proven claims haven't been published and posted everywhere as the answer to the greatest question of all time.

Seriously, if it was proven through more than one claim that God didn't exist, where is the proof? I was never taught it in school, and I'd think that would be a big thing they'd mention.

Please feel free to post these claims which have been proven and yet failed to alter history as we know it.

---

Your quiz, by the way, is rigged and is baiting. Nice try.

Given our knowledge of physics and biology...

"Invisible" implies that photons pass through an object. Currently there is no biological material that allows 100% of photons to pass through it.

"Flying" implies that the object has some way to maintain lift against atmospheric density. At this time, that relies on a means of propulsion and a method of stabilization.

"Monkey" implies that the creature is, well, a monkey.

Given current biological classifications, a monkey is defined as not having wings, currently the only means by which a creature can fly. Therefore, flying monkeys fall under D) Do not exist.

Since a monkey is also defined as being composed of specific elemental and cellular structure, which is all opaque to some degree or another, a monkey cannot be invisible. Therefore an invisible monkey falls under D) Does not exist.

Since invisible monkeys do not exist and flying monkeys do not exist, then invisible flying monkeys do not exist.

[Heehoos]

I don't know, Fonceai. Monkeys might be invisible ... After all, all "visible" things are essentially space. If you look at an atom, hardly any of it is actually particle. Most of it is empty space. We are all made up of atoms that are mostly space... it's the motion of the electrons that give them the illusion of being more matter than they are. It is our limited human ability to perceive that makes things appear solid. Even the atoms of my fingertips as I type really aren't touching the keys of my keyboard. They are magnetically repelled by the electrons the keys. It's all perception.

[Occam]

Two of the popular arguments are "First Cause" and "Watchmaker". They have been refuted innumerable times, but they still work against the innocent.

The silly premise that annoys me the most is frequently inserted in arguments as a shield against observation -- "the extra-natural universe" or "outside nature."

Occam

[Heehoos]

Quote by: Occam Two of the popular arguments are "First Cause" and "Watchmaker". They have been refuted innumerable times, but they still work against the innocent. The silly premise that annoys me the most is frequently inserted in arguments as a shield against observation -- "the extra-natural universe" or "outside nature." Occam

I'm not sure why it's silly? Because we cannot see or measure it? It may not be there; but just because we cannot see or measure it with our limited abilities (compared to the unlimited possibilities in time/space) does not mean that something does not exist. 1000 years ago, we could not have fathomed microscopic organisms.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think as soon as a "convincing" show can be put on using holograms (to fool the television and live audience) and ELF weapons are perfected (to cause loss of consciousness around the area, as well as other visible consequences like puking, internal burning, etc....) we will see the "resurrection" in the form of corporate media broadcast.

Think of how even right now, this is nearly entirely possible....

Talk about a tool in the "NWO" playbook.

Speculation is one thing, give the sheeple something to see hear, and feel, they will believe....

This is not simply sarcasm either.... A prediction from Osborn F. Enready, as Milton likes to call me....Nostra-Dumbass.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai It's more along the lines of that whatever a person thinks is proof of God really only makes sense to that person.

And a drunk might see pink elephants but that doesn't mean pink elephants have any objective reality. A person with red/green color blindness doesn't prove that red and green don't exist. One of those rare individuals who are wired to see sound and taste color don't mean that sound and color, etc. exist as that individual experiences them. There is one and only one reality, just because an individual may sense reality in a bizarre manner doesn't mean that manner is the objective sense of how reality really is.

Otherwise, current science has no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Current science has no way to prove or disprove the existence of Allah, Krishna, Ba'al, Enki or any of the other deities man has invented either. Heck, science can't really disprove Santa Claus either. But because science cannot disprove any of these things, it doesn't make any of them real. Only a fool would claim that because science cannot disprove something, that constitutes proof for it's reality.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Cephus Only a fool would claim that because science cannot disprove something, that constitutes proof for it's reality.

I agree.

I would never make such an argument from ignorance.

Though by your own definition, there are fools like that posting in this very thread.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Heehoos I'm not sure why it's silly? Because we cannot see or measure it? It may not be there; but just because we cannot see or measure it with our limited abilities (compared to the unlimited possibilities in time/space) does not mean that something does not exist. 1000 years ago, we could not have fathomed microscopic organisms.

Agreed, that a long time ago, we didn't technically know atoms, molecules, proteins etc. They also weren't defined with magical powers, didn't have books written about them that tell us how to live and what will happen to us if we don't live like the book says. THIS is the atheists argument in most cases. Claims are made in various books about various gods and none of them have any evidence for reality. It's THESE god(s) that I can confidently say DO NOT EXIST. If you wish to talk about "some undefined" god then there is no point in talking because it's incoherant or at best, hasn't appeared to affect our lives and is meaningless.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai Though by your own definition, there are fools like that posting in this very thread.

Unfortunately, that is true and it tends to be commonplace in most religious debates.

[Fonceai]

I wish I could find the thread, but Isherwood had such an awesome quote that I put in my signature about religion giving definite answers and science being open-ended.

[Captain Chaos]

How could we test for the existence of a god?

I can suggest a few methods. They would not provide incontrovertible proof, but they would offer evidence either for against, depending on the outcome.

Direct contact:
Sometimes people (including atheists) encounter a being that claims to be God, or an aspect of God, or a messenger from God, during near death experiences. If this being is just a god within that person's mind, and has no external reality, then that entity would not be able to possess knowledge of events outside of the knowledge of the person having hte NDE.

So, we put a random number of rocks in a box, deliberately induce NDEs in people, and have them ask "God" how many rocks are in the box. Various precautions would have to be taken to ensure the data does not become contaminated, and it would take many attempts, since people do not always talk to God during an NDE.

If this God entity answers correctly, then that is proof of something paranormal, and would lend weight to the idea that a god exists. If this God entity answers wrongly, then that would lend weight to the idea that our spiritual experience of God is strictly internal.


Elegant simplicity:
Another area of testing would be in looking for hallmarks of design within cosmology and physics. Fine tuning is a start. Natural evolution tends to produce messy but effective outcomes - like the human genome. Deliberate design tends to produce elegant and effective simplicity, like well written software. If we could find other ares of physics besides apparent fine-tuning of the constants that demonstrate elegant simplicity, that would lend weight to the idea of a god existing.


Infinite Emergence:
Evidence for a multiverse. For a god to exist outside of this universe, there has to be something outside of this universe. If we can find experimental evidence that supports multiverse hypotheses, then that lends weight to the existence of a god. It does so, because it opens the door to the process of infinite emergence - which leads to godhood as one of its natural consequences.


Prayer Experiments:
I am pretty skeptical of claims that prayer produces a demonstrable result, because that implies a God who interferes in daily life. Perhaps it is my bias, but considering the nature of the world, I find it hard to believe that God actually does this, or does it in any sort of predictable fashion.

[Praxius]

I'm not sure why it's silly? Because we cannot see or measure it? It may not be there; but just because we cannot see or measure it with our limited abilities (compared to the unlimited possibilities in time/space) does not mean that something does not exist. 1000 years ago, we could not have fathomed microscopic organisms.

True a few thousand years ago, we couldn't.... but 1000 years ago, people didn't care, because they were ignorant to the fact they existed.

So in keeping with this logic, if you can not measure or see something, then why bother to waste time into worrying about it until we can?

So if I can not see or measure the existence of God, why should I care if he exists if it can not be proven? I'd just be wasting time in my life pondering something that really has no effect on my well being at present.

When new technology appears and new concepts come about, then I'll think about it.... if it doesn't work out.... then I just go back to my "Not caring" attitude.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Praxius True a few thousand years ago, we couldn't.... but 1000 years ago, people didn't care, because they were ignorant to the fact they existed. So in keeping with this logic, if you can not measure or see something, then why bother to waste time into worrying about it until we can? So if I can not see or measure the existence of God, why should I care if he exists if it can not be proven? I'd just be wasting time in my life pondering something that really has no effect on my well being at present. When new technology appears and new concepts come about, then I'll think about it.... if it doesn't work out.... then I just go back to my "Not caring" attitude.

In other words...

If God actually wanted you to believe in his existence, you would.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Captain Chaos In other words... If God actually wanted you to believe in his existence, you would.

Makes sense to me, lol.

[Osborn F Enready]

Exactly....

He supposedly gave us all free will to CHOOSE to follow him, or not.

Why do his followers seem so hell bent on removing that free will?

[Fonceai]

How to ascertain the motivations of a being that, in one version, is omnipotent and omniscient?

But that sounds right to me, too.

If God wanted me to believe, God would show me something that, for me, would do the trick.

@Os

Here's the rub...

What if God showed you that he existed, you knew it for sure, and you still decided not to play along?

Much like what you tell a kid screaming for a cookie, "Yeah, I hear you. I just don't want to do what you want."

---

Now I'm probably going to Hell, since I equated God demanding obedience to a overbearing baby.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai I wish I could find the thread, but Isherwood had such an awesome quote that I put in my signature about religion giving definite answers and science being open-ended.

It's quite obvious: religion gives us folklore and insists that a specific folklore is true without evidence. Science continues to search for what the truth actually is.

Don't quote mine.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonce What if God showed you that he existed, you knew it for sure, and you still decided not to play along?

I am pretty sure that a being powerful enough to be called God could be totally convincing.