the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy

[Yazata]

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.

because the person often asking believes that 'God' is a belief, that there is no such thing as 'God'

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.

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',

I don't understand what you are saying there.

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

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.

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',)

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

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..

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.

 

[Sarkus]

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.)

I don't think it's pedantic at all, but rather a valid issue with the notion of proof with regard such concepts.

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.

And as we agree, "plausible justification" is not proof, but does speak to their view of what is rational or not.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[NMSquirrel]

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.

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'

 

[NMSquirrel]

another thread falls silent after I post...

I am starting to get a complex..

 

[wellwisher]

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.

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

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.

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.

This sets a precedent that allows an alternate scientific way to prove God

Sheer unadulterated nonsense.

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.

Yeah.
If you knew anything about science you'd make fewer posts like this.

 

[NMSquirrel]

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.

doesn't the math support the existence of dark matter/energy?

 

[NMSquirrel]

another thread falls silent after I post...

I am starting to get a complex..

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




<trust me, I worry about myself sometimes..>

 

[Dywyddyr]

Hush!

 

[river]

doesn't the math support the existence of dark matter/energy?

The math based on what ?

 

[NMSquirrel]

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.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

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.

 

[NMSquirrel]

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.

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..