Science Forums 2

[Freethinker]

Primary to this discussion is the word/ concept of "proof". I see it thrown around here quite a lot, such as:

A really objective proof!

or

What may be enough proof for me is not enough, or definitive, or the right type, of proof for you. ...My 'proof' isn't good enough for you,

But we have to evaluate what IS and what IS NOT proof. And that is where it falls apart. What I typically find when a believer is asked for "proof", is that they think their REASONS are PROOF. Basically showing that the very concept of PROOF is something they lack a factual understanding of. You mention:

try not to 'shift the burden' as a means to answer questions.

As everyone here knows, I spend a good deal of time trying to educate beleivers on this very problem. This along with every other agument fallacy. They do not comprehend that how many people with what titles over how long really is not in any form PROOF of something. As most people in the US for thousands of years, including Newton... ... Nor is their inability to comprehend, proof that something does not happen the way it does. Such as "It seems impossible that the eye..." Or the fear of big numbers as in "the chances of such and such are ten billion to one..."

As to my approach, the first issue is simple Logic.

Does the defintion/ requirements of the specific god violate simple logic. The major tools in this regard are evaluation of claims using the well established rules for constructing a logical argument (such as the fallacies) and Ockham's Razor. If it can't pass this simple initial evaluation, I see no reason to prusue it further.

If the presentation does not violate simple basic rules of logic, then it is a matter of internal consistancy. Does the concept/ defintion contradict itself? e.g. the Christian god is claimed to have Omnipotence/ Omniscience, yet we are claimed to have free will. The two are mutually exclusive. The defintion is internally self contradictory. Thus can not be valid.

Then does it contradict other knowledge. Does it require the rejection of scientific finds that are well established, highly provable. e.g. that QM destroys the possiblity of an intellegent first cause

Finally (perhaps, I am still working on the details as I go) there is actual PROOF. Can we actually find anything that would show a need for a god as the best answer. This gets tricky as any sufficiently advanced society could perform feats that would seem impossible to a lower civilization. e.g. there are many fireplaces today that would seem to have logs burning, yet never consumed by the flame. Of voices that come out of little boxes with no person obviously able to fit in them.

Although I propose a very extensive set of requirments, I actually think it would be extremely easy for a god to prove it exists. Obviously anything that would be a god would have no trouble proving it. Otherwise that entity would have a limitation and thus would not be a god.

But we come back to "proof".

It seems like the beleiver always starts for the concept of beleiving they CAN "prove' their god exists. Obviously, they have decided to accept, so it should be obvious to anyone else. But they find that what THEY think is "proof" is far from it. So at some point they want to claim that we non-believer just refuse to accept their "proof". Later this turns into "I have no proof YOU would accept." As if there still actually IS "proof". They are not willing to admit to themselves that what they THOUGHT was "proof" in fact is NOT "proof", but is actually REASONS. Finally it usually turns into my being told I am the devil or will burn in his hell. Or better stated as the complete rejection of rational thought when they come to understand they were not using rational thought in the first place.

So if you want to PROVE your god exists, it really is quite simple.
<B