The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[gsmoove23]

I think proofs for or against God for the most part are circular arguments that only work for people with the ideology of the person putting forward the proof. For instance, many people use science to explain away miracles when the religious can simply retort, "You just revealed the process by which He worked." The question that I think has been brought up here already is if you were given seriously solid proof that went against what you believe would it change your mind, I'm not sure it would change mine? I would love to hear a really good argument for or against God that would prove me wrong though.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
John, why do you think that. For many it isn't nice to believe in a good supreme being and an afterlife where sins may be punished. It brings to mind all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the life you're leading and it also brings up the possibility of their being a real true Evil and a real struggle in the world between Good and Evil. For me certainly it has sometimes been preferrable to believe in no God.

I was thinking about a God like this:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
God is described as a truly good being, loving even the greatest sinners as equally as the greatest saints.

I don't think that such a God would punish anyone just because that person did wrong. The punishment would have to serve some sort of good. But on the other hand, it is true that many claim to believe in both an infinitely benevolent God and in eternal damnation. There are a variety of usually absurd ways in which organized religions reconcile these teachings. Somehow, I doubt that most of the faithful even bother to think hard enough about it, or many other things about their religions that make no obvious sense, to realize that anything needs reconciling.

Anyway, I reckon most religious people consider themselves to be "good", and feel glad to have God on their side. The notion of a world divided into good and evil also has a certain appeal, because it's so convenient to be able to put everything on one side or the other, or at least know that everything goes on one side or the other, even if you don't know which one, and will eventually be dealt with accordingly.

[gsmoove23]

While I can certainly see where you're coming from I know a lot of devoutly religious people who have put themselves through torment over how they are leading there lives. Plus, seeing the world in black and white is a human failing IMO and has nothing to do with religion.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I think proofs for or against God for the most part are circular arguments that only work for people with the ideology of the person putting forward the proof. For instance, many people use science to explain away miracles when the religious can simply retort, "You just revealed the process by which He worked." The question that I think has been brought up here already is if you were given seriously solid proof that went against what you believe would it change your mind, I'm not sure it would change mine? I would love to hear a really good argument for or against God that would prove me wrong though.

Well, a perfect being would never allow an imperfect universe, which is clearly what we have. Therefore, no such being can exist. QED.

If you're going to try to prove or disprove the existence of God, a lot really depends on what you mean by "God". "Existence", too, if you want to be really rigorous about it. To be able to construct a rigorous proof, then you must first rigorously define your terms.

All of my beliefs are subject to evidence. Even the most seemingly basic logical truths could, in theory, be false. After all, I could be completely insane, so that neither my perceptions nor my reasoning is reliable. I seem to myself to be sane, but that could be the case if I were insane, as well, so that doesn't prove anything. Certainty in anything would require discounting the possibility that I'm stark raving mad, and I refuse to do that. If I were wrong, it could have dangerous consequences.

[Japher]

IMO

Categorizing is the arbitrary downfall of both science and religion. The both have the same weakness in that it must, at some level, adhere to the same logical asertion that the initial assumption was correct when addressing new issues. Thus, making religion and science one in the same on the level of defined logic:

Assumption A=B

Issue B=C

Logical Output A=C

In cases were science try to denounce religion by stating that certain events were coincidence, or points out a "scientificly logical" explination, religion merely incorporates that assertation into their initial assumption.

In cases were religion tries to denounce science by realizin "miracles" science does seem to stutter, and in most cases rationalize the events through preset assumptions with arguable logic.

In both cases the logic is undefined, since with science and religion the logic is the initial assumption.

---

Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

This is not true. Wave-Particle Duality is not mutually exclusive, yet the behavior is, and this is not

"contradictory" as a state of existence.

but...

The real problem was that "particle" and "wave" are not exhaustive of all the states of being.

This is true. It not only was the problem, but it still is. Science never says that it has it explained everything, it just says that it will try. Religion doesn't even bother, and just dismisses it as "Heaven-sent" or some other bull.

As a scientist, myself, I believe in a god. Yet, I do not know if I wish to worship him, for I do not know his nature. What I need is Proof!

Question: Would you consider the lack of proof for "Case A" an indication that "Case A" does not exist?

I think the response most scientist come up with for this question leads that scientist to continue to believe in a god. For it would be ignorant to think that lack of proof is proof for the contrary.

I'm done

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Japher
This is true. It not only was the problem, but it still is. Science never says that it has it explained everything, it just says that it will try. Religion doesn't even bother, and just dismisses it as "Heaven-sent" or some other bull.

This is what I don't understand. Comparing science and religion as if they were mutually exclusive. Religion is a system that requires a number of leaps of faith, nobody hides this. Science is a methodology or some such thing, somebody help me out with terminology here, whose sole purpose is to explain the physical world. There is no relation.

[JohnM2433]

A scientific theory uses a model to predict what we will observe. Scientists, on the other hand, may do a great deal more than that. Do not confuse the scientific community, which has "dogmas" and "doctrines" of its own, with the scientific method. The scientific method need only assume that the evidence gathered is valid. One commonly reiterated statement in science is that a theory can never really be proven, only disproven. So when creationists say that the Theory of Evolution is "unproven" or "only a theory", there is a certain vacuous truth to this. Similarly, science cannot definitively say that anything never happens. Its job is only to describe and predict what does. (At least, that's my understanding of it.)

Originally posted by Japher
IMO
This is not true. Wave-Particle Duality is not mutually exclusive, yet the behavior is, and this is not

Eh? What behavior, exactly? And what does "this" refer to above?

Originally posted by Japher
Question: Would you consider the lack of proof for "Case A" an indication that "Case A" does not exist?

I think the response most scientist come up with for this question leads that scientist to continue to believe in a god. For it would be ignorant to think that lack of proof is proof for the contrary.

Well, if a theory predicts something that does not happen, then we can conclude that the theory is incorrect. But yes, a lack of evidence for something does not in itself disprove that that thing does not exist, and it would be a rather large error to assume otherwise.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
- someone or other from SETI, IIRC

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
This is what I don't understand. Comparing science and religion as if they were mutually exclusive. Religion is a system that requires a number of leaps of faith, nobody hides this. Science is a methodology or some such thing, somebody help me out with terminology here, whose sole purpose is to explain the physical world. There is no relation.

A religion is a system of beliefs. Science is a mehodology for describing the world. They are not inherently contradictory. But there is a relation; they both make claims, and these claims may contradict each other. This is where we get into trouble.

Science backs up its claims with evidence. While scientific theories may be wrong, and are indeed frequently disproven and replaced with more accurate theories, the fact that science tries to demonstate its claims generally makes them less suspect than religion's. Hence a "creation scientist" is more convincing than a theologian as he/she at least claims to be doing a scientific investigation.

Atheism isn't really a good scientific theory, because it can't be tested (again, depending on what you count as a "deity"). It's just skepticism: refusal to believe in a spectacular claim without spectacular evidence.

[gsmoove23]

Statements of many theologians of many religions are contradictory to scientific research which leads to the argument that religion and science are incompatible. This discounts the fact that religion is a blanket term for a vast number of differing ideas, even within a single religion. For many people and many schools of religious thought religion simply addresses the soul, God and nothing more, completely separate from the sciences.

The vast majority of Christians don't now believe in a literal translation of the Bible that would conflict with scientific evidence. When you talk about religion conflicting with science you are talking about a certain type of religion where the orthodoxy of faith or scripture or the beliefs of a leader overide all and spill into the understanding of the physical world, but it is not a point you can hold against religion as a whole.

[JohnM2433]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't many religions/sects whose teachings aren't perfectly compatable with current scientific knowledge. I just meant that when science and religion do make contradictory claims, science is usually/probably right.

While some metaphysical claims may be beyond scientific investigation at this point, I'm not convinced that it will always be so. For example, we may one day be able to prove whether or not the functioning of the brain can be explained solely as the result of the behavior of its constituent particles. Think how that would inform our notions of "free will" and the like. If there is a soul, it could be physically detectable with the right technology. (On the other hand, it would be almost impossible to prove that there are no souls.)

"My species has no immortal part. This has been proven by our scientists."
- Nessus explains his race's fear of death in Ringworld

[Ramo]

Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

What do you mean?

But science and logic/math works on different levels.

But mathematical (and therefore logical) systems and conventions are often directly based upon corresponding systems in the physical world. Math is often intended to approximate physical systems. My point is that if you change the rules of physics, you'd probably have to change the rules of some math. The wave/particle duality is an interesting example of the physical world contradicting the fundamental mathematical assumption of non-contradiction in logically valid systems. If such exceptions were more prominent/obvious, you have to wonder how math would develop differently. Which brings me to the issue of whether non-contradiction in logically valid systems is an absolutely good assumption.

The real problem was that "particle" and "wave" are not exhaustive of all the states of being.

That's probably the most reasonable explanation, but it isn't one grounded in any scientific observation. We could also explain electron diffraction or the photoelectric effect, etc., etc., by significantly changing our classical theories to the point of making them hopelessly complex.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by One_Brow
"Mutaully exclusive" would mean "contradictory" as a state of existence.

As I understand it, you can have mutually exclusive states of existence, but not contradictory ones. AFAIK, contradictions do not occur in reality, just in thoughts.

For example, a figure can be a square or a circle (or a zillion other shapes), but not both at the same time. Therefore, for the state of existence, square and circle are mutually exclusive. Contradictory is something like a figure being both a square and a circle at the same time.

Originally posted by One_Brow
However, it is also true that logic/math is the language of choice for the more objectively observable sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), and it is used to create a model to quantify and predict behavior. While the math itself may not be internally contradictory, if the model it derives is insufficiently predictive (for example, the Euclidean model of space), the model is disarded as easily as any other scientific precept. In that regard, math and logic are very much like other sciences.

Okay, what I am try to say is this. Math and logic are formal structures. They are clear, absolute, and unambiguous. They are built upon an internal system that has nothing to do with outside observations.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The idea that science can't work with religion is false. It certainly doesn't work with certain fundamentalist or orthodox religions but these forms are what tend to give religion a bad name. You can believe in God and still be a scientist, most of our great scientists have.

What about naturalism vs supernaturalism?

To me that is the root of the problem. Science relies on naturalism, while religion is outright supernaturalism. These two seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
But mathematical (and therefore logical) systems and conventions are often directly based upon corresponding systems in the physical world. Math is often intended to approximate physical systems. My point is that if you change the rules of physics, you'd probably have to change the rules of some math.

My understanding is physical systems are based on math and logic, not the other way around. That's why you use math to approximate physical systems and not use physical systems to approximate math. This shows that math is more fundamental.

If a physical system is changed, maybe new math needs to be invented to describe it, like new words in English need to be created to describe new things.

Originally posted by Ramo
The wave/particle duality is an interesting example of the physical world contradicting the fundamental mathematical assumption of non-contradiction in logically valid systems.

I don't see that as any contradiction per se. Previously, wave and particle were thought to be mutually exclusive based on past observations. What this says is what we saw was incomplete. This is very similar to the idea of Spontaneous Generation before it was completely refuted by Louis Pasteur.

Originally posted by Ramo
Which brings me to the issue of whether non-contradiction in logically valid systems is an absolutely good assumption.

Well, what suggestions do you have?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As I understand it, you can have mutually exclusive states of existence, but not contradictory ones. AFAIK, contradictions do not occur in reality, just in thoughts.

For example, a figure can be a square or a circle (or a zillion other shapes), but not both at the same time. Therefore, for the state of existence, square and circle are mutually exclusive. Contradictory is something like a figure being both a square and a circle at the same time.

That would be an oxymoron or a paradox, not a contradiction. Contradictions occurs in arguments, not conceptual ideas. For example, you use assumption that lead to the conclusion that the figure is a square and assumptions that lead to the conclusion it is a circle.

Okay, what I am try to say is this. Math and logic are formal structures. They are clear, absolute, and unambiguous. They are built upon an internal system that has nothing to do with outside observations.

I believe I said that in the paragraph above the one you quoted.