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

<

Is not all this 'evidence' simply personal experience and say so?



az

Adelaide, I'm not aware of any evidence that proves the existence of God. What do you have in mind?

<>

Pretty much my point, really... There comes a time when you just have to trust that people aren't making stuff up just to bamboozle you. take the New Testament for example. But for the pastoral epistles and Revelation, it consists of accounts of peoples' experiences, which they shared not to stuff up anyone's life, but to tell them "Guess what happened to me, and here's how it's changed my life".
If you or anyone else accept someone's film review, or account of a rock concert or political meeting as being factual, then why not someone's account of a life changing meeting with someone?
If you object that it's 2000 or so years old, where does that leave Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, or Suetonius?

"There comes a time when you just have to trust that people aren't making stuff up just to bamboozle you."

Why?

<>

I think there is a big difference between well-documented historical facts and personal experiences that some people had 2000 years ago. So yeah, the 2000 year gap does make me even less able to take these people's word as Truth. Well okay, may have been true for them, but so?

<>

I take someone's personal account and opinion of a film or concert as simply being that - their opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with having life-changing moments - in fact I think they can be very personally important and even spiritual at times. But this is not 'evidence' that people who have experienced such things are talking about an undeniable TRUTH.


az

<>

But this decision to trust/not trust has to have a cause/reason/motivation. It has to be discriminating, and acknowledge the possibility that it may prove mitaken. Otherwise it's just being gullible (or possibly unreasonbly sceptical in the case of not trusting). But either way there must be *grounds* for the decision, or it's worthless.

Noggin

"There comes a time when you just have to trust that people aren't making stuff up just to bamboozle you."

This is especially rich coming from YOU!

What you're saying is, there comes a time when you have to give up thinking for yourself. Well, no thanks.

"take the New Testament for example. But for the pastoral epistles and Revelation, it consists of accounts of peoples' experiences, which they shared not to stuff up anyone's life, but to tell them "Guess what happened to me, and here's how it's changed my life"."

Except, once again, you're either knowingly lying or just wrong, aren't you? Any even slightly educated Bible scholar will tell you that two of the *gospels* weren't written until well over century after Jesus died, by people who not only never met him, but most probably never even met anyone who had met him. They were and are propaganda. I should not be surprised that you can't appreciate that obvious fact.

"If you or anyone else accept someone's film review... why not someone's account of a life changing meeting with someone?"

Ooh, bad example. I do not accept other people's film reviews, and I'll tell you why, since you bring it up.

Many years ago I read a review by a man named Marcus Berkmann of the movie "Batman Forever", in the Daily Telegraph. I had seen the film the week before, so was interested to see what he made of it, and Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance in particular.

I read the review in disbelief, shading eventually into anger. (Surprised? )

Berkmann mentioned Arnie's character, Mr. Freeze, explaining that he was driven by grief and anger over the death of his wife. Well, OK.

Except anyone who had seen the film would know that a central point of the film's plot was that Freeze's wife was NOT dead, at any stage of the movie. Indeed, the very specific point of the climax for that character was to find out that his wife was still safe.

It amazed me that a major national newspaper would publish a film review written by a reviewer who had demonstrably not seen the film he was writing about. I know you can't believe everything you read in the papers, but that's just ridiculous.

So far, Della, your "evidence" is just other people telling me stuff, and rather importantly, telling me stuff which is difficult to take seriously, let alone actually believe.

Why am I so special? Um... are you saying I don't *deserve* to have your god appear directly to me? And if I don't, if I'm so unworthy, what would be the point of me having anything to do with this entity? If he has no use for me, why should I have a use for him?

I don't think I'm special. I think you are, but I'm using the word "special" in a rather specific sense...

H.

<>

The evidence for light being a wave is that it reflects, refracts, interferes and diffracts as all other waves do. So light is a wave.

The evidence that light consists of particles is the photoelectric effect. So light is particles.

Each experiment is proof for each theory. Of course there are other experiments and evidence but nevertheless, the experiment in each case prooves the theory, until someone comes up with another theory.

But if someone comes up with a better theory, then what happens to the "proved" status of the old theory? It is precisely because of this possibility that science does not consider any theory as proved - just as very well corroborated.

Noggin

"the experiment in each case prooves the theory,"

No. The RESULT in each case SUPPORTS the theory. That's all it can do. No result or set of results can PROVE a theory. They can only support it, or falsify it.

For instance, taking your example: the photoelectric effect disproves the wave theory of light, so we KNOW light is not a wave. The fact that light can produce interference patterns disproves the particle theory of light.

Thus we know that light is NOT a wave, OR a particle. It's something else, neither one nor the other, which is fine - the universe is under no obligation to make intuitive sense to humans.

Evidence can only ever support a theory. If the theory is a properly constituted, falsifiable theory, it must always be amenable to disproof in the face of contradictory evidence.

Of course, if you build up a HUGE body of supporting evidence, and never, ever, despite your best efforts, ever observe any contradictory evidence, you may start to consider your theory a "fact", perhaps as "prooven" (sic ). But you'll be wrong.

H.

OK so I shall reword. Does everything have to be 'supported' scientifically for it to exist?

Well, now we come back to that word "exist".

Like I said, the existence of god is incontrovertible. However, by precisely the same logic, the existence of Santa Claus is incontrovertible. Both incontrovertibly exist as patterns in the minds of those who believe in them - children, mostly, in the latter case, one hopes.

So, what do you mean when you say "exist"?

Do you mean "exist as an idea, with no reality external to the minds in which they form"?

Or do you mean "exist in external reality, independent of the minds of any individual"? Because if you mean this one, doesn't that *require* objective evidence? Doesn't that mean, supported scientifically? Or at the very, very least, ABLE to be supported scientifically?

For instance: does the Loch Ness Monster exist? It might, or it might not. The evidence is inconclusive. There IS evidence for it, but it's not persuasive, not terribly supportive of the "there's a monster" theory. Most of it can be explained away more credibly in other ways. But the existence or otherwise of such a creature is a theory amenable to falsification.

The problem one has with gods is that those who DO believe in them have no need of evidence, as the first definition of existence is good enough for them. And those who do NOT believe demand evidence of the second type, and there isn't any. And believers get quite cross and say that you shouldn't NEED proper evidence, as the evidence that is good enough for them should be good enough for you. But this cuts no ice.

There may, one day, be good, objective evidence for the existence of Nessie. I'm not holding my breath.

I very much doubt that there will ever be any evidence for the existence of gods outside the heads of their believers.

I look forward sincerely to being proven wrong.

H.

<>

Which still wouldn't prove that they don't exist.


az

Does you really mean that you would like God to exist?

"Which still wouldn't prove that they don't exist."



Why must I keep repeating this? You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove something does NOT exist. It is a nonsense to suggest you can. Proof is a one-way street. With sufficient evidence, you can prove something DOES exist. No amount of evidence can prove it does not.

You can't draw a square circle. You can't prove god doesn't exist.

OK?

H.

"Does you really mean that you would like God to exist?"

Well, look at it for a moment from my perspective:

1. The universe is pitiless, pointless struggle, death is the end and the time between birth and death is without reason or purpose.

2. Most people in the world I'm aware of seem to think that god does exist, which puts me in a minority. Further, my experience leads me to consider that people who DO believe in god do so because they are in some way weak, mentally.

3. Despite my ultimate desire to know everything, I will die before I have learned more than the tiniest fraction of all there is to know.

Now: if there IS a god:

1. The universe is here for a reason. Death may not be the end, and there is, on some level, a purpose for existence.

2. Most people in the world are in fact right, and I far from being a blighted minority on a planet full of idiots I am merely an unpleasant person who doesn't like other people much.

3. An omniscient being implies that the universe is fundamentally knowable. Excellent!

Wouldn't YOU rather god existed, given those two sets of alternatives?

H.

Depends on what one means by 'god', I reckon.


az

Just responding to something Hoo said earlier:
>>He's omnipotent. He could do it<< Saying God is omnipotent leads you into a whole world of trouble because quite simply, he isn't, even if he does exist: http://www.courses.rochester.edu/wierenga/REL111/omnipch.html
Does anybody have an answer to my earlier question - wouldn't a doughnut-shaped universe still need an original point from which it expanded

There are ways to prove a negative - although in the case of Nessie you would probably have to drain the Loch. This is unlikely to prove popular with the Scottish Tourist Board.

To prove a negative the usual approach is to examine the implications of 'if X is true' and see if it leads to some absurd conclusion. This may not be easy or indeed possible in most cases but it is occasionally quite easy.

For example the story of Noah: work out how much space a hundred million pairs of beetles would require. What 28 feet per hour of rainfall would do to the breathability of the air (that's 28,000 feet - the height of Everest - divided by 1000 hours - 40 days and 40 nights). Or ask yourself where 28 trillion tonnes of water went afterwards. Or why all the lakes didn't end up salty and kill all the freshwater fish. Or why the polar icecaps don't contain a salty record of the event... etc.

F

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Drain the loch & find no Nessie? Perhpas she nipped out while no-one was looking.

There was an interesting TV programme about the story of Noah. Taken literally as written in the Bible it is highly implausible. However, events may have taken place that gave rise to the story.

No, you can't prove a negative.

Hoo, some interesting thoughts there.

I think it does depend what sort of God you envisage as a possibility, whether or not you would like God to exist.

My take on your points -

1. I'm happy to accept the universe as is, without seeking a reason for it. Generally I feel that the purpose of my life is continuing the species, enjoying my time here & helping others enjoy their lives. I hope I will live after death in the hearts & minds of those I leave behind. Anything better would be an unexpected bonus.

2. There are diverse views about God. The religious people I know best seem to choose to believe broadly speaking because that's what makes them happiest. No relation to their intelligence, though I suspect those with low intelligence are more susceptible to indoctrination.

3. I'm keen to expand my knowledge, but accept that I'll never know everything. An omniscient being that is not human wouldn't mean that I could know everything too, so no advantage there.

On the whole I think I would rather that God doesn't exist, because I don't like the thought of a God that allows the dreadful suffering that happens.