« Eastern fundamentalism | Main | I get a glimpse of Tango Zen »

June 13, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Although the essay is a good discussion about the fetishism of proof, the essayist "Dave" actually reframes the question, and does not address the the original, more fluid one, thus: Another version of the “how can you be sure there is no god” question, would be: “what is your evidence that there is no god?”

That is not a different version at all. It is a different question entirely. Because the answer to the first, internal to the essay, is that the writer is not, in fact, sure.

The writer then creates the opportunity to propound the logical impossibility of proving a negative, through many examples. But there is a philosophical equation process, where we can take disparate propositions and devise parallel syllogisms for them.

We use the syntax of language to create the logic sentence: God exists, therefore I experience God, and; God does not exist, therefore I do not experience God.

By stating them as syllogisms, we see that the ideas behind the sentences are faulty logic. Not necessarily faulty thinking, per se, but not strictly amenable to logical proof. This argument has been more or less heated throughout philosophical letters, even depending sometimes on the language used to make the statements.

Because the existence of God, and the complete catalog of my modes of experience, are two completely divergent propositional cases: I have been using this object as a table, you put your feet up on it and say this object is an ottoman. The existence of the object is only "a priori" essential to my belief in what it is. And afterall, in this discussion, it is belief that is the nutmeat.

An ottoman used as a table, a table used as an ottoman... The whole universe is beautiful, not divine; or the whole universe is divine, not beautiful.

But let's ask a different question: if there were a God, how would the universe be different? Conversely, and for balance; if there were no God, how would the universe be different?

Nothing to prove, just a gendankenexperiment.

I find it so funny that socialists and liberals (they are one in the same really) harp on the subject of God - yet they claim there is no such thing as God.

So, if there is no such thing as God, why do they "waste" their time in fear of what they claim does not exist?

Talk about STUPID!

Edward, interesting thoughts, as always. You reminded me of one of Clifford Pickover's thought experiments in his fascinating book, "The Paradox of God and the Challenge of Omniscience." He writes:

"Consider two universes. Universe Omega is a universe in which God does not exist, but the inhabitants of the universe believe God exists. Universe Upsilon is a universe in which God does exist, but no inhabitant believes God exists.

In which universe would you prefer to live? In which universe do you think most people would prefer to live?"

I think I'd choose Universe Upsilon. I think most other people would say the same. But I'm not sure if I'd believe them, given the ubiquity of blind belief.

Liberals and athesis are diffinately bed buddies. One things for sure, if liberal politcal policies pervailed, huge wars results as corrupt and evil dictators become more and more enboldened. Yet liberals believe that the entire history of mankind is wrong on the axiom "evil prospers when good men do nothing". Therefore, by parrallel argument, they should also be wrong on the subject of God's existence.

Yes, yes, I remember the window from ethics class a hundred years ago, but I can't remember the author.

Two choices on the x-axis: "Believe" and "Don't Believe". Then two choices on the y-axis: "There is a God" and "There is no God". You combine the possibilities and decide which is logically the best bet.

x1,y1 - best world
x2,y1 - worst world
x1,y2 - waste of time
x2,y2 - null impact

The assumption here is that if there is a god, and I don't believe, I am in trouble. Very OT.

My wife immediately said she would prefer your Omega world, (or x1,y2) because the moral constraints observed in a world where people believed in God, regardless of the truth, would make life more tolerable.

This kinda follows from the concern about proselytizing: if everyone believed that I believed in God, no one would need to convince me at the point of a sword.

Dear Brian,
Kindly forgive my analytical nature in dividing "things"(/ideas) up, but (although rather belated in so doing) I wish to mention a set of distinctions I evolved some years ago.
The term most English speaking folks use for the (supposed) "divine" which they encounter in their experience of the world is a word that sounds essentially the same as "gawd." Based on my observing this word widely appearing as "god" and "God," in various written materials (in English), I have also (perhaps) given vent to my own egotism in deciding to further use the additional term "GOD." The distinctions among these (same sounding) words/terms is as follows:
A "god" is - quite simply - a "false god" in the opinion of nearly all. For all but a particularly small minority of people in the world, thus, Odin is a (false) "god." Ditto for Enlil. (Among non-Hindus, this is also true for Shiva - but such a judgment will not be permitted among faithful Hindus. And for Jews, likewise, Jesus Christ is a [false] "god" too - not truly constituting the "divine," despite being so believed in by their Gentile neighbors, particularly in "Christian" lands where Jews are a minority.) Knocking the capital out of the word, thus, reduces some such supposed divinity the diminished status of a false assertion.
In my "Western" (specifically "American") dominant culture, then, it is the generally accepted practice that the word "God" refers to the concatination of divinity which occurs as a character in the Bible. In the Hebrew "scriptures" it is the character mostly known as YHWH - but who is also referred to as Elohim, El Shaddai, and some few other names/titles/circumlocutions. In the Greek "scriptures," thereafter, the character Jesus Christ(i.e., Christ Jesus, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Lord, etc.) is the denominated divinity (at least as in association with his supposed "Father" [cf. the god in the "Old Testament," just above].) In very early Christian theology, thereupon, this supposed interrelationship came to be expressed by the logical knot referred to as the "Trinity." So far as I can perceive, however, the "divine" characters/personages in the Bible are just misconstrued notions of "god(s)" as defined above.
Despite all this, however - and as you suggested in your day's presentation that concluded with your "Wow!" - there yet seems to be that from which we have, in fact, arisen, which has expressed itself in the (known or unknown) occurances of history/past times, which constitutes this moment of the "present," and which will lead into the future which flows from the now. Personally, I refer to this as "GOD." It constitutes all which truly was (including also all the mistaken thoughts/conclusions/assertions made by all the thinkers/sayers/writers of the past), the circumstantial condition of what exists as presently actual "reality" (including the misperceptions various of us presently accept/believe in), and what will eventuate therefrom/herefrom. "GOD," thus, is the that which has been, is, and will come to be. In its non-differentiated expression, it is the "One."
For me, I believe that my notion of "GOD" seems better to account for all the various "gods" I've encountered in my studies of what numerous different folks/cultures have said/written (including about the god[s] in the Bible) than any of those supposed gods I've ever been told about have been able to account for this plethora of alternative accounts. (Of course, my view is not accepted whatsoever by the "true believers" adhering to the various different "theological" groups I differ from/with. My experience is mostly in being disagreed with by Christians [of one type or another], but I rest well assured that my views are/would be rejected by adherents of many, or most, other "religious" viewpoints just as well.)
So, I sum up: I employ the following distinctions: "god" = a "false god"; "God" = the false god(s) found told about in the anthology called the Bible (in the English language variant of our "Western tradition"); and "GOD" = the that from which we (and "all") have come, which constitutes the situation of my/our being "here," and what will be when this present moment has passed (like when other folks might later read/consider my words/suggestion/contention).
I hope what I've said may be valuable for its consideration by you and others. Robert Paul Howard

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.