h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Salam to all

Scientists like Dawkins demand proofs for God.

In a court of law, the judge requires witnesses, or an open confession.

What Proofs will be good enough for Professor Dawkins ?

He never tells us his demands.

"In a court of law, the judge requires witnesses, or an open confession."

In a Muslim court, perhaps.

By contrast, in a *civilised* court, witnesses and confessions are not absolutely necessary, and innocence or guilt is determined by something we call a "jury", not a judge, on the basis of a quaint concept called "evidence". This "evidence" need not necessarily be the word of a person, but could be "scientific" in nature - a fingerprint, a DNA sample, a trace of explosive on the sock of a Muslim, for instance. Only backward, barbarian courts rely solely on witnesses or confessions.



The reason Dawkins does not explain what proof would satisfy him is easy to explain.

He makes the mistake of believing that his audience have a glimmer of intelligence and imagination, enough at least to be able to make their own judgement of what would constitute *rational* proof of the existence of god.

You, in your baffled demand that he provide you with a specific test, demonstrate his mistake. However, I am at hand to help you through your deficiency.

Proof of the existence of your omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god would be incredibly easy.

Let him turn the light of the sun green for ten minutes at noon tomorrow.

Let him write the words "I EXIST", visibly across the surface of the moon, tonight, as arrange for the skies to be clear so that we may watch.

Let him bring my uncle, dead these fifteen years, back from the grave with a message for me from the other side.

I could go on and on and on with things which would, for the god you propose, be simplicity itself. However, now that I've given you a clue, you'll be able to go and ask someone you know who can help you.

SoRB

Blimey! Son of Roj Blake, you don't take any prisoners do you?
Well done though, a very good answer.

Thank you. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. I note also there has been no reply.

SoRB

Omrow decided to attack one of my threads about Islam. That's how I stumbled across your article, by following the link on his name. His attack wasn't very constructive though.
Omrow appeared late in the day in a discussion I have had with Adib Qasim/Muzaakboy/Rik Bailey. See what you think.

no- but it can be, a desicion can be based on a witnesses statement. If this is proof in court, why will you not allow it to be proof of religion.

Many people believe they have experienced miracles such as this, there's a little thing called the bible (the world's best-selling book) that's full of such accounts. Why then can you not accept these as proof.

Blub-blub

Blub Blub,
The Bible is FULL of such accounts? Indulge me, and please quote some of them to me.

I'll start off:
Jesus' resurrection.
The raising of Lazarus.
Jesus' raising of a young girl (Talitha cum")

I'm not going to go trawling through the bible, but there are lots of these "my uncle rose from the dead" stories all over, just google Miracle stories or the like and see how many there are.

My point isn't concerned with the bible specifically. My point is, son of roj blake said such an account would be proof for him of a god's existence, and here it all is.

If that's what constitutes "proof" to you then no wonder you believe it's true...

I'm afraid you've erouneously assumed I'm a christian there, Ste, it's not me who believes this is proof, I'm not a christian, or religious at all for that matter, I just felt it was odd for son to say that's what HE would count as proof when he obviously rejects hundredsof accounts that are very similar.

I *personally* believe proof is purley mathematical, and so you cannot prove religion, but neither can you prove science.

The assumption was a fair one seeing as you twice claimed that the bible contained proofs of miracles. Usually only Christians make such claims.

I don't believe in the bible as proof of miricles, you've misunderstand, I'm asking why son can't accept these as proof despite stating this is the type of evidence he is looking for.

I can see why you made the mistake, I didn't make myself completley clear, I'm sorry. But if Son claimed these type of'miricles' would be proof for him, why do you not accuse him of being christian?

Because he said: "Let him bring my uncle, dead these fifteen years, back from the grave with a message for me from the other side."

Not: "Give me a book with umpteenth-hand allegorical stories about uncles being raised from the dead."

Him saying the former then you claiming that the Bible contains this proof lead me to believe you had an unshakeable faith in the Bible if you expect such a request to be satisfied by it.

I also *know* he isn't a Christian.

Ste

I never argued the bible contained actual proof, I tried to say that 'proof' of the nature he believes in is commonplace, you don't wana use the bible? use the internet, were millions of first-hand accounts are readily avalible.

<> (blub-blub)

I think the whole point was that supposed first-hand accounts are not a reliable source of *proof*. They would need to be backed up by medical and scientific evidence that such-and-such 'miraculous cure' actually did take place - not just because a few people said it happened.

I don't think it's that uncommon that people with 'incurable' diseases are sometimes cured. There is a lot we still don't know about how disease works within a particular individual. For example, having an extremely strong will to live will often result in a person getting better . . . meanwhile, people who no longer want to live (like my father) succumb to illness much more quickly.

Many people end up 'beating the odds' and end up living much longer than doctors thought they might.

I don't see anything miraculous about that per se. Except to show how much human will can overcome the odds at times.


az

I like your theory about humans beating the odds, I do think there's alot of power in our minds. I'd be intrested if you could give me links to any such examples.

However, what Son was saying was that he did believe in this type of thing as proof, he just wanted these things to happen to convice him, he didn't need them to be explained, scientifically or otherwise.

Blub blub blub,
I'm afraid I musunderstood you too. Based on your seemingly illogical argument, I too thought you were a Christian, defending your corner. The point I was going to make is that, no matter how many references you cite from the Bible re resurrection, none of them constitute proof, just because the Bible says so.

<>

Seems to me you quite misread SoRB's post, blub-blub. Scientific and independent medical confirmation was exactly what he was asking for - or at least, that's how I read him. But no doubt he will explain this himself if he chooses to.

Sorry, I don't have any links for examples of people 'beating the odds'. And, as you recognised, I was putting that forth as a personal theory, not as fact.


az

Gaggle, the 'proof' for miricles is similair as the 'proof' for science. Both are based on a method of induction and so both are similarly flawed.

Those who believe in the absolute proof of miricles believe this because of an extensive, but finite, number of observations of miricles occuring.

Those who believe in the absolute proof of, say, beta-emmission believe this because of an extensive, but again finite, number of observations of this occuring.

Neither has stronger proof than the other. Both are equally flawed. Therefore, how can those who have faith in science justify attacking the type of proof used by those who have faith in Theism?

blub-blub

Blub blub,
An interesting point. In my opinion, the major flaw in the deductive process of Theists is the extent to which they develop their deductions.

For example, a hypothetical situation where an apparently "dead", i.e. lifeless corpse suddenly appears to come "back to life", and is witnessed by a scientist and a Theist. Both have witnessed the same seemingly "miraculous" event, and at first have no explanation for it.

Both can initially record their observations, which would correlate with each other. The scientist should then try to find an explanation for the event, ideally without personal bias. If the scientist can find no explanation, then it should be left as unexplained until he/she or some other scientist can develop an explanation, based on subsequent research-based knowledge. Such an explanation ought to be subject to amendment if further knowledge enhances or refutes the original explanation.

What Theists tend to do, if an explanation for the "miraculous" event cannot be found, is to automatically attribute the event to some paranormal, divine force/entity. This is a leap of faith, without any logical deductive process whatsoever, and is where their deductive process breaks down. You may disagree with me on this, but once a Theist makes this deduction of divine input into a miraculous event, it is usually unshakeable.

Of course, scientists often do this too, but that is often based on their own ego-trips, and is not proper science.