how can one 'prove' a belief?
the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy
- Thread starter NMSquirrel
- Start date
Generally theists aren't asked to prove their belief.
Most atheists (me included) are perfectly [sup]1[/sup] happy to accept that someone believes.
The reason we ask for "proof" that god exists is because theists so often "suggest" that people should behave in certain ways, or not eat certain foods, or not love certain other people.
And their "justification" for this is because "god says so".
THAT is when we want proof.
If theists/ religions didn't try to dictate how people should behave [sup]2[/sup] then, fine, "proof" not required...
1 When I say "perfectly" I mean just me here, of course.
2 And, I suggest, that even if they restrict their dictatorial behaviour to co-believers, it should still require some evidence. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, manage to dictate what types of medical treatment may be administered to minors (I think there's a thread on this somewhere, probably started by Bells). Should an adult's unsupported belief be allowed to endanger (even lead directly to the death of) someone else?
It is indeed a logical fallacy, beyond that which Dywyddyr mentioned, since one can only prove that which is defined. And definitions of God are all over the place. Most of them are so contradictory or nebulous that they make no logical sense.
As long as the theist acknowledges that it is just a "belief" we should have no problem. The request for proof enters the picture when the theist starts telling others how to live their life based on what their "belief" says.
Okay, a hypothetical question then:
I believe in a God who has love for all mankind, who does not hold one above the other, and who recognizes that mankind is fallible and will make mistakes; in a God who, in order to save us from our own wrongdoings, sent his Son to die for us in our place, that He may take upon Himself our burdens, sins, shame, and punishment. The verdict is already passed; we are saved. The only "requirement" at this point is to try and be a decent human being, to not stay into worshiping false idols (material wealth, power, lust, etc) and to, in general, simply "not be an asshole". A God who calls for us to help one another, live life the best we can, and generally do what we can to help those less fortunate; a God who does not discriminate against those of other religions, colors, nationalities, or beliefs, but rather embraces them as part of the "collective whole of humanity" that He originally created. A God that states that no man should have dominion over another (note, when I use the term Man, I am referring to humanity as a whole), that no man is "greater" or somehow "more worthy" than another.
Would this require incredible "justification" to explain the belief in this kind of God? Would it be wrong for me to proclaim that we should ALL try to live this way?
I wouldn't call the question a logical fallacy. The fact that God exists only as a matter of belief (moreso hope) rather than by any evidence of such an existence--and against overwhelming evidence that God does not and can not possibly exist (i.e. the Universe is governed by laws which can not be repealed by magic)--assumes the audience never heard of God (or such a god), thus it would be perfectly valid for them to counter with a demand for proof. That is, the person advancing the theology is making extraordinary claims which need supporting evidence, otherwise the claims are thrown out. As we see in the Christian Bible (nearly all the apologists engaging us here are Christian), the story about Thomas doubting the reanimation of a dead body takes a preemptive strike at such line of inquiry, indicating that the story was added in the era when christology was only first evolving. And we also see that the Christian movement, which purports to originate in and around Jerusalem, is never mentioned in the Rabbinical writings. Evidently the Jewish people in the homeland weren't buying it, with or without the preemptive strike against all "doubting Thomases". (And it's doubtful many expatriated Jews were converted either.)
But there is a more direct question which needs to replace this one, since it typically leads to a stalemate. And that is: prove that there exists any description of God which is not solely reliant on myth, legend and fable. This is a win for the atheist "anti-theists" such as myself -- knowing that all religion is based on fundamental fallacies which adopt myth, legend and fable as historical narrative, it must be rejected. Therefore God does not exist.
Understandably the religious apologist doesn't want to argue this anymore than they want to be asked for material evidence of God. My question is harder on them because it requires them to let me drag them through the evidence of syncretism in the Bible, which is therefore a sure argument. A person with no interest in the evidence (no scientific curiosity) is easily bored, and the ones with a mild curiosity are afraid of the truth, so they resist going there, too. In dozens of threads where I've posited this, the general response is to flee from the evidence.
The fallacy a person like me sees in your argument is rendered moot because the result is a good one. You haven't violated any of the principles of humanitarianism that would make you a hypocrite, and you are providing a positive benefit to society by all the humanitarian acts and attitudes you carry out.kittamaru said:
The only question that remains in my mind is whether a genuine believer such as yourself is able to "do no harm" through religion. For example, if you vote for a candidate who promises to elevate God in society I would fear what religion has done to you. But if you shrink from such politicians as many good believers do, as manipulative Bible thumpers, then I would say you probably pass the first test. The second would be whether you indoctrinate children. You may not have been in that position, but in my mind this is a final test. I believe that the indoctrination of children is criminal.
I think it's fine for you aspire to a society of well-behaved citizens, without attempting to subjugate any one else to your . . . I'm going to call it "indoctrination". That is, there are religious people who maintain that religion is a private matter and therefore the "proclaiming" part of this is wrong. On the other hand if you keep your religion to yourself, yet implement this "proclaiming" by, say: supporting lobbies to promote amnesty for folks brought into the US without informed consent (as children); if you lobby or advocate in favor of laws that promote equality among women, minorities and homosexuals; if you promote the teaching of science and laws restricting the ability of parents to secret their children away from a proper education (through the guise of home schooling); if you think or act positively in favor of separation of church and state . . . and those are some of the better-known areas . . . then your "proclaiming" succeeds on both fronts. Upon passing these tests I would be willing to vote you into office. Otherwise I would fear you, at least to some degree, as a person who belongs to a bloc of voters/crusaders who pose a threat to the peace and security of free people everywhere.
It's a horrible example, thinking that someone's suffering can be punishment for another person's wrongdoing. And sending your progeny to die. And making sure he never wrote anything down. And that we are born broken and need to be saved.
If you remove the values from the mythology, then I might agree with them. However, you left out the disagreeable parts, "no other Gods before me", "no graven images", following stupid laws without question... What you described is a liberal Christianity that serves as a slippery slope to fundamentalism. So yes, you better have justification for it if you want to persuade skeptics.
Yes, it would require justification and yes it would be wrong for you to proclaim this.
If you're going to appeal to an authority - any authority - as justification for pushing ANY agenda then you have to show that that authority is valid.
And you'd therefore have to show that it exists.
If you started proclaiming all of the above simply as "I think it would be a good idea if everyone..." then people would listen to you based on you and the merits of your argument/ idea.
Introducing "god" as part of that argument - especially as the source of that argument _ then you cannot, rationally, also claim "I don't have to prove that this is true but you still have to listen to me and do it this way".
I included the no false idols (no other Gods before me) - ergo, our pursuit of material wealth, power, fame, etc
As for "no graven images": http://www.antiochian.org/content/no-graven-image-icons-and-their-proper-use
And a little further on
At the same time;
It would seem, and I rather agree, that it comes down to the idea of holding something in honor, as opposed to worshiping it. To hold an image of God in honor, to use it as a means by which to focus your prayer or meditation, is fine; to worship the image itself, rather than the symbolism and meaning behind it... that is where the problem arises.
As for "following stupid laws without question" - to what laws are you referring? The only true "laws" we are given are the 10 Commandments:
Exodus 20 said:
So, to paraphrase:
1) You will not worship other things before me (power, glory, material wealth, etc)
2) You will not worship idols made in the image of what is thought to be in heaven
3) Don't take the Lords name in vain (we're all kinda FUBAR on this)
4) Observe the holy day (Sunday) as a day of rest (yeah, again, we're all kinda screwed on that)
5) Honor your parents (seems reasonable enough)
6) Do not murder (duh)
7) Do not commit adultery (again, seems fair enough)
8) Do not steal (fair enough)
9) Do not provide false testimony (reasonable enough)
10) Do not covet the things those around you have (don't be jealous... well, human nature not withstanding, makes sense)
Hardly seems overbearing or brutal to me? Or are you referencing something else?
A fair enough point, but it brings us back to the original question then - is there any sort of evidence that would successfully validate the existence of God?
I think Spidey was referring to the 600+ laws which include things like removing the foreskin, no meat with milk, yada yada . . .
Let me say it more simply. I find a few Biblical morals to be OK. If you threw out all the bad ones and the superstition, and the God worship, then you are left with humanism. Why taint good values with the legacy of the horrible lessons in the Bible?
Original sin is a horrible lesson, as is punishment by proxy.
Maybe if God arranged the stars to spell a message in English? Or wrote something in huge golden letters in the sky?
Well a good start would be: define exactly what "god" is.
So long as he/ she/ it remains a nebulous concept it's going to be impossible to prove or disprove.
How about Spidey's message in English made out of stars?
What would would distinguish this as evidence of god as opposed to evidence of a massively advanced alien technological culture?
After all, given sufficient power there'd be very little difficulty in simply moving a star.
Indeed, indeed... how one define's "God" plays a large role in what would constitute proof of God.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
We can prove beliefs that align with universal laws or virtues like desire, self, knowledge, and pride. We know believing in pride is okay because it makes us feel good and accomplished. This belief is fulfilling so its a winner, we proved our belief.
In Contact Carl Sagan's character (played by Jodie Foster in the movie) asks why God didn't just inscribe "E=mc[sup]2[/sup]" on the moon.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I am an atheist, but I am open-minded enough to acknowledge that God could exist. Any atheist must, since you can't prove a negative.
I also acknowledge that it is possible it could be proven to exist (though it would require circumstances beyond our control.)
If a colossal white-bearded man, taller than the atmosphere, appeared, making himself visible to every person on Earth, and snapped his fingers and balanced the Moon on top of Everest, I would be inclined to consider that a preponderance of evidence. It would be enough for me that, if there were those who argued he was just a Highly-Advanced Alien, I would demand that they provide enough evidence to make 'HAA' a more plausible explanation than 'god'. I think I would also accept that, by his presence, he would pretty much define the term 'god', rendering arguments of 'yah but god is poorly-defined' moot.
Now, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that this - or anything similar - will not happen.
I also acknowledge that it is possible it could be proven to exist (though it would require circumstances beyond our control.)
If a colossal white-bearded man, taller than the atmosphere, appeared, making himself visible to every person on Earth, and snapped his fingers and balanced the Moon on top of Everest, I would be inclined to consider that a preponderance of evidence. It would be enough for me that, if there were those who argued he was just a Highly-Advanced Alien, I would demand that they provide enough evidence to make 'HAA' a more plausible explanation than 'god'. I think I would also accept that, by his presence, he would pretty much define the term 'god', rendering arguments of 'yah but god is poorly-defined' moot.
Now, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that this - or anything similar - will not happen.
True... however, if you or I were to go back in time, say, four thousand years and introduce such capabilities as the ability to generate fire on command (lighter), call lightning to strike (tesla coil), fly (helicopter or airplane), smite people (firearms), and other such modern tech, I would wager it is a 50/50 chance you would either be considered A) a God or B) a Witch/Warlock
In which case, like I said, you'd have to define exactly what the difference is between "god" and "HAA".
Quite possibly: but it be the god of the Bible?
Or just "a" god?