Scientific Proof Of God

[Brian Peacock]

...
I can't work out what you are saying here, or if you are even addressing the problem I tried to illustrate by means of the black swan analogy. Maybe if I try to rephrase it, you might do likewise by replying directly to how I put it now: Lack of evidence for the existence of black swans is not proof of the non-existence of black swans. If it were, we'd have to come to the absurd conclusion that black swans did not exist until we found evidence of their existence.

OK. So we started with...

... Assumptions do not amount to proof. So I challenge you once again: prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe.

The issue rests on 'proof' and what it means to prove something - in this case a claim for a supernatural agent.

My question is: why are we entertaining the possibility of a black swan here? Why not pink or green swans, or hitherto unknown billionaire uncles who have named you as the sole beneficiary in their willw, or any other untypical thing we are capable of imagining?

To prove is to confirm with such surety and security that all doubt is banished. To dispute or deny a proof is to dispute or deny a reality. While we might imagine pink swans or wealth uncles existing what we require to validate claims for same is to secure their material existence as 'things' with some straightforward evidences. A picture might be enough, but a more direct observation might be better. Multiple observations would be better still.

What would we consider adequate proof varies with the claim. As Sagan said that time, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidences.

... The absence of material evidence in support of claims for supernatural entities justifiably supports the conclusion that supernatural entities do not exist.

Where would we observe a supernatural agent? Only down here, in the world, in the material realm of energy, atoms and forces. After all, that is where things exists. However, according to myth and legend, supernatural agents are above such mundane concerns, the kinds of ordinary things which black swans require. We know, if the black swan exists, we will encounter it in our present world of things: in nature. The supernatural agent is claimed to exist in a realm beyond or above nature, a realm we have no direct access to, a realm where, so it is said, the ordered laws governing energy, atoms, forces, time, causality etc which rule our lives hold no sway, a realm that we can only conjure in our imagination - like the characters and places of a fantastical novel.

Nonetheless, the claim is: a certain type of thing exists - a supernatural agent. Despite the best efforts of the faithful of a number of traditions, and over a considerable period of time, that which might confirm without doubt the existence of this supernatural agent - material evidences - has not, so far, been forthcoming.

Sure, we can entertain the possibility that the things that we can imagine may indeed have some form of existence somewhere in the world. Indeed, we might argue that simply to imagine a thing is to give it a kind of material existence within the meat of our brains and nervous systems, but that is not what we would generally consider material evidence proving the existence of some 'thing' is it? We don't say that we can prove our imaginable supernatural entity exists simply by reporting that we can imagine them existing somehow/where, even if we can imagine them in great detail along with all their uniquely supernatural characteristics, properties and attributes. To allow the merely imaginable exists would be to elevate a say-so to be on a par with facts; to place an unsupported opinion on the same level as verified, verifying evidence.

Likewise, we can entertain the possibility that the black swan exists in some form in some place, but how do we address the claim that a black swan is not only imaginable, not only possible, but a real, extant thing? Again, for that we require more than just an earnest report - we need material evidence. Anecdotes about black swans, wealthy uncles, or supernatural entities don't count for very much if we cannot encounter them in the world.

When I see evidence of black swans or supernatural entities, or anything else a human can imagine and then described, then I'll re-evaluate my conclusion. The standard here is not found in proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence is forthcoming.

There's a reason why challenging someone to prove a negative is fallacious. Here you have challenged me with a claim for which there is no supporting evidence. The burden of proof should rightly be placed on the claimant, but the challenge does not entail proof (securing, confirmatory evidences) of the material existence of a particular kind of thing with particular attributes and qualities. Instead the challenges is to secure with confirmatory evidences the non-existence of that thing.

The only rational thing to do here is to point out that that for which no evidence exists cannot be confirmed to exist. The longer the claim goes without confirmatory support the more untrustworthy, unsupportable, errant it appears. The only possible evidence that the thing does not exist is the absence of evidences which would otherwise support (beyond doubt) a claim that it does. The standard here is not the quality of our proof for the non-existence of the claimed-for thing but the paucity of support for the existence of the thing itself. Saying that the claimed-for thing could, possibly, imaginably exist has no material impact on the world and is indistinguishable from a fiction, and fantasy, or a falsehood.

In light of this one can justifiably conclude that black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities do not exist, because claims for them have not been supported. If evidence for their existence comes along then I'm more than happy to re-evaluate my conclusion at that time - which is just to say that I won't be worrying about being factually incorrect about the existence of supernatural agents until there's evidence that there's actually something to worry about.

[superuniverse]

This ridiculous forum...

[L'Emmerdeur]

We don't say that we can prove our imaginable supernatural entity exists simply by reporting that we can imagine them existing somehow/where, even if we can imagine them in great detail along with all their uniquely supernatural characteristics, properties and attributes.

There you go, casually dismissing the ontological argument. St Anselm would like a word with you.

[Hermit]

...one can justifiably conclude that black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities do not exist, because claims for them have not been supported. If evidence for their existence comes along then I'm more than happy to re-evaluate my conclusion at that time - which is just to say that I won't be worrying about being factually incorrect about the existence of supernatural agents until there's evidence that there's actually something to worry about.

Thanks for making the effort to clarify your stance, but your explanation amounts to no more than a verbose version of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Black swans are conclusive falsification of that.

Turning to pink swans, the same thing applies. Lack of evidence does not prove that pink swans do not exist. It just means we have no evidence that they do. The unlikely event of a swarm of pink swans being discovered will make a mockery of the claim that lack of evidence for their existence proves that they don't, for they obviously existed despite this lack of evidence. All you can justifiably conclude about the lack of evidence for the existence of black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities is that we lack evidence for their existence. As you put it yourself,

The only rational thing to do here is to point out that that for which no evidence exists cannot be confirmed to exist.

The rest of that particular paragraph is special pleading and evasion. You skip from the impossibility of proving the non-existence of something to the impossibility of proving the existence of something for which there is no evidence. The latter is not what the challenge is about.

I only made the challenge - to prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe - because it is a favourite among theists to make, and because people who accept the challenge finish up with egg on the face. You can't prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. All you can do is to argue that there is no evidence for the existence of one. And that is all one needs to do anyway. A supernatural creator of the universe adds nothing whatsoever to our knowledge and understanding of the natural world. He is utterly irrelevant. I go with the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pierre-Simon Laplace: When asked why God did not get a single mention in his five volume opus, "Treatise of celestial mechanics", Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis". So, in philosophical terms I am an agnostic. In practice I am an atheist. Until evidence for the existence of a god turns up, that is.

[JimC]

To me, there have always been 2 main strands that theists of the past used to justify the existence of a god.

One depended on a degree of reasoning, and I have respect for those in the past who used it. In the absence of detailed scientific evidence, the very existence of an ordered world seemed to presuppose a benevolent creator. The finely detailed adaptations of animals and plants to their environment echoed the functional design of clever human artificers, and so were suggestive of a divine artificer.

But Darwin, in particular, and the whole gamut of the scientific revolution showed that clear, evidence-based explanations of natural phenomena obviated the need for a supernatural explanation.

The second strand is primarily emotional in nature. Faith is a way of placing one's fears and doubts into the embrace of a larger-than-life parental figure, who will kiss and make better all the hurts of life, and gives promise of something beyond a looming end. Understandable, but in the end, a retreat to childhood dependency.

The purely logical position that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a god, however true in the abstract, has zero impact on my view of a universe, one that exists in its own right, and whose wonders can be explored by observation, experiment and reason.

[Hermit]

The purely logical position that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a god, however true in the abstract, has zero impact on my view of a universe, one that exists in its own right, and whose wonders can be explored by observation, experiment and reason.

Ditto

[Brian Peacock]

We don't say that we can prove our imaginable supernatural entity exists simply by reporting that we can imagine them existing somehow/where, even if we can imagine them in great detail along with all their uniquely supernatural characteristics, properties and attributes.

There you go, casually dismissing the ontological argument. St Anselm would like a word with you.

Anslem's reinterpretation of certain Eastern spiritual concerns amounts to little more than elevating tulpaism to the level of an institutional virtue.

[Brian Peacock]

...one can justifiably conclude that black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities do not exist, because claims for them have not been supported. If evidence for their existence comes along then I'm more than happy to re-evaluate my conclusion at that time - which is just to say that I won't be worrying about being factually incorrect about the existence of supernatural agents until there's evidence that there's actually something to worry about.

Thanks for making the effort to clarify your stance, but your explanation amounts to no more than a verbose version of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Black swans are conclusive falsification of that.

Turning to pink swans, the same thing applies. Lack of evidence does not prove that pink swans do not exist. It just means we have no evidence that they do. The unlikely event of a swarm of pink swans being discovered will make a mockery of the claim that lack of evidence for their existence proves that they don't, for they obviously existed despite this lack of evidence. All you can justifiably conclude about the lack of evidence for the existence of black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities is that we lack evidence for their existence. As you put it yourself,

The only rational thing to do here is to point out that that for which no evidence exists cannot be confirmed to exist.

The rest of that particular paragraph is special pleading and evasion. You skip from the impossibility of proving the non-existence of something to the impossibility of proving the existence of something for which there is no evidence. The latter is not what the challenge is about.

I only made the challenge - to prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe - because it is a favourite among theists to make, and because people who accept the challenge finish up with egg on the face. You can't prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. All you can do is to argue that there is no evidence for the existence of one. And that is all one needs to do anyway. A supernatural creator of the universe adds nothing whatsoever to our knowledge and understanding of the natural world. He is utterly irrelevant. I go with the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pierre-Simon Laplace: When asked why God did not get a single mention in his five volume opus, "Treatise of celestial mechanics", Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis". So, in philosophical terms I am an agnostic. In practice I am an atheist. Until evidence for the existence of a god turns up, that is.

You'll note that my position doesn't entail a claim to the non-existence of an unevidenced thing, but a justifiable conclusion about the validity or utility of unevidenced claims for the existence of a thing.

By invoking 'proof' you create a context in which we're supposed to ruminate and decide upon the factuality of a thing's existence: does this thing exist or doesn't it?

You consider it illogical to draw a conclusion about that one way or another: unless or until we have some evidence to examine we must suspend all judgement on that question. That's fine as far as it goes, but if we have no basis upon which to assess the factual truth of a claim then we cannot grant that claim, even provisionally - we cannot validate it or justify it etc.

That which which cannot be said to be true must be false, or at best unproven. In the context of issuing a challenge to prove "Does this thing exist or doesn't it?" then, as the challenger, to say that we cannot come to a conclusion one way or another is just erecting a double-standard in order to shift the burden and dodge the question.

I know, I know. You're just asking questions, right?

[NineBerry]

We know that consciousness and intention are by-products of biological evolution. Therefore, the claim that a prime mover exists that has consciousness and intentions is out of the question.

[LucidFlight]

It's not that I necessarily have a problem with teacups, supervenient realities, or omnipotent rainbow-coloured swans; it's just that I don't have the time right now to disprove their existence.

[pErvinalia]

What's going on here? Has superuniverse gone, and reasoned discussion taken his place?

[Hermit]

...one can justifiably conclude that black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities do not exist, because claims for them have not been supported. If evidence for their existence comes along then I'm more than happy to re-evaluate my conclusion at that time - which is just to say that I won't be worrying about being factually incorrect about the existence of supernatural agents until there's evidence that there's actually something to worry about.

Thanks for making the effort to clarify your stance, but your explanation amounts to no more than a verbose version of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Black swans are conclusive falsification of that.

Turning to pink swans, the same thing applies. Lack of evidence does not prove that pink swans do not exist. It just means we have no evidence that they do. The unlikely event of a swarm of pink swans being discovered will make a mockery of the claim that lack of evidence for their existence proves that they don't, for they obviously existed despite this lack of evidence. All you can justifiably conclude about the lack of evidence for the existence of black swans, secretly benevolent unknown uncles, and supernatural entities is that we lack evidence for their existence. As you put it yourself,

The only rational thing to do here is to point out that that for which no evidence exists cannot be confirmed to exist.

The rest of that particular paragraph is special pleading and evasion. You skip from the impossibility of proving the non-existence of something to the impossibility of proving the existence of something for which there is no evidence. The latter is not what the challenge is about.

I only made the challenge - to prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe - because it is a favourite among theists to make, and because people who accept the challenge finish up with egg on the face. You can't prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. All you can do is to argue that there is no evidence for the existence of one. And that is all one needs to do anyway. A supernatural creator of the universe adds nothing whatsoever to our knowledge and understanding of the natural world. He is utterly irrelevant. I go with the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pierre-Simon Laplace: When asked why God did not get a single mention in his five volume opus, "Treatise of celestial mechanics", Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis". So, in philosophical terms I am an agnostic. In practice I am an atheist. Until evidence for the existence of a god turns up, that is.

You'll note that my position doesn't entail a claim to the non-existence of an unevidenced thing, but a justifiable conclusion about the validity or utility of unevidenced claims for the existence of a thing.

By invoking 'proof' you create a context in which we're supposed to ruminate and decide upon the factuality of a thing's existence: does this thing exist or doesn't it?

You consider it illogical to draw a conclusion about that one way or another: unless or until we have some evidence to examine we must suspend all judgement on that question. That's fine as far as it goes, but if we have no basis upon which to assess the factual truth of a claim then we cannot grant that claim, even provisionally - we cannot validate it or justify it etc.

That which which cannot be said to be true must be false, or at best unproven. In the context of issuing a challenge to prove "Does this thing exist or doesn't it?" then, as the challenger, to say that we cannot come to a conclusion one way or another is just erecting a double-standard in order to shift the burden and dodge the question.

I know, I know. You're just asking questions, right?

Brian, posing the challenge to "prove the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe" is about nothing more - nor less - than if the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. I posed it because JimC's "fix" of Svartalf's comment looked very much in the affirmative, and because it is a challenge atheists love to pose because the answer to this particular question is a categorical "no". That is the conclusion. The option "we cannot come to a conclusion one way or another" does not exist. There is no space for it, and the black swans analogy has demolished the "yes" option. It's as simple as that. There is no double-standard.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

Essentially the problem falls to the claimant for super-nature. What is super-nature, what is a super-natural thing, what is a super-natural agent, what is the relationship and/or intersection between super-nature and nature proper? I would suggest that, regardless of what the faithful may declare, super-nature is not a profound idea with any explanatory power. Super-nature is invoked to protect god-claims from rational scrutiny in the material realm of the everyday world: a special plead all the way down. As such any claims for super-natural whatevers are incoherent, and thus ignorable.

If the faithful want us to disprove the existence of their tulpas then they must first tell us how their imaginings can be given substance in the real world - the world of things with properties and attributes.

[Hermit]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

[Brian Peacock]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

I don't think we can "prove" the non-existence of the un-evidenced claimed-for thing (and who are we supposed to be proving this to if not those who already believe?), particularly when raising the spectre of super-nature denudes considerations of any and all rational content. But we can justifiably conclude that the un-evidenced claimed-for thing does not exist on the basis of the absence of rational evidence for the existence of that thing - just like we can justifiably conclude that the Loch Ness monster and Harry Potter don't exist.