Einstein Letter on God

[Codo]

So the atheists here say:

There is no logical that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

 

I really don't get it.

 

Religion is about believe. Better guys like me tried to find "facts" for gods, some of the first known was Thomas of Aquin. Some thought that they found facts, but as far as I know the modern theology denies the ability to find prooves.

 

So what are you guys talking about?

 

You simply cannot proove or disproove the absence of a supernatural being.

 

You may not like to actions of believers.

You may believe that believers are mad.

You may not like the actions of God.

You may not believe.

 

But you simply don't have the abbility to proove his absence.

(And in the same way nobody has the ability to proove his being here.)

 

So this complete discussion is getting more and more fruitless.

[helene_t]

So the atheists here say:

There is no logical that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

I have no idea whether God's existence can be proven and/or disproven since I have no idea what "God" means (and I am also not sure if I understand what "existence", "proof" and "belief" mean in this context). I call myself an atheist because there is nothing I believe in which I call "God". It may be a purely semantic thing. It may be substantial.

 

But let's assume that there is some hypothetical entity the existence of which cannot be proven nor disproven. Then I would default to whatever assumption appeals to me the most. Occam's Razor could be one criterion for my choice. There might be others. Alternatively I might stay agnostic.

 

I don't think that Occam's Razor necessarily suggest atheism, but I think that for some people it does.

[han]

So the atheists here say:

There is no logic that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

 

No atheist in this thread claimed such a thing.

 

You simply cannot prove or disprove the absence of a supernatural being.

 

We agree. Unfortunately our local preacher doesn't.

 

So this complete discussion is getting more and more fruitless.

 

Again I agree.

[han]

Very late night here but is this another thread that says?

1: Morality is whatever selfish gene can get away with:

1A replicate itself

1B protect replicated self

 

OTOH

 

supernatural being that says.....something more important than that? In fact your life OR replicated life is not top priority...but multiply and cover the universe is very very important?..Just not number one....?

No it is not one of those threads.

[onoway]

Looking for something else and found this quote from John Buchan:

an atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support. :(

[helene_t]

Yes, I have often marveled at folks' ability to have religious faith without evidence, but I simply lack that capacity (among many other lacks).

This was the subject of the 2005 Edge Question

 

Extremely interesting stuff. But admittedly, most of the examples actually had amble evidence in support of them.

 

My favorite one was this one: There is no pair of integers (p,q) such that 2^p equals (the number that consists of the digits of 5^q in reverse order). I wondered if it makes sense to "believe" in a mathematical statement that cannot be proven. I guess not, but there is the possibility that mentioned statement will be proven some day.

 

(Of course there are mathematical statements which one can define as being true (or false) by axiom but as I understand it there is a different class of statements that might be true yet cannot be proven to be so. Or something like that. I don't quite understand Goedel's theorem).

[kenberg]

So the atheists here say:

There is no logical that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

 

I really don't get it.

 

Religion is about believe. Better guys like me tried to find "facts" for gods, some of the first known was Thomas of Aquin. Some thought that they found facts, but as far as I know the modern theology denies the ability to find prooves.

 

So what are you guys talking about?

 

You simply cannot proove or disproove the absence of a supernatural being.

 

You may not like to actions of believers.

You may believe that believers are mad.

You may not like the actions of God.

You may not believe.

 

But you simply don't have the abbility to proove his absence.

(And in the same way nobody has the ability to proove his being here.)

 

So this complete discussion is getting more and more fruitless.

I don't want to jump to rash conclusions here but it is possible that you and I agree.

 

Saying that the non-existence of God follows from the fact that His existence cannot be proven goes beyond what I claim and also goes beyond what I need, but that's a small quibble. To quote Alexander Pope, who was arguing for God, "Life can little more supply than just to look about us and to die.". We get one shot at all this (unless you accept some sort of transmigration of souls) and so you look about and choose what seems right. A person would be crazy not to live his life in accordance with how he sees it. In my view most theological claims are a distraction. I mean by this that a person of faith need not oppose the advance of science, and those of us who see religious claims as false need not try all that hard to convince others. Spiritual claims are another matter. I recognize some force here, but independent of theology. As Sinatra would say, it's my way.

 

I think some religious people regard it as more or less impossible to assert spiritual claims, by which I mean acceptance of some sort of responsibility for the future of the planet, the future of humanity, and such matters, independent of asserting theological claims. I see it otherwise. There have been strong voices for responsibility from the religious side, and also from the non-religious side.

 

There are, or can be, quarrels about religion, mostly when religious people assert that God has told them what is right and so who am I to question it. But non-religious people can be equally dismissive of disagreement so I don't hold their faith responsible.

 

Finally, since I am into quotes today, there is Zorba the Greek (the movie, I never read the book). Something along the lines of "I don't ask is a man a Greek or is he a Turk. I ask is he good or is he bad. And as I get older, I swear I don't even always ask that anymore." I can buy into that.

[PassedOut]

Yes, I have often marveled at folks' ability to have religious faith without evidence, but I simply lack that capacity (among many other lacks).

This was the subject of the 2005 Edge Question

 

Extremely interesting stuff. But admittedly, most of the examples actually had amble evidence in support of them.

 

My favorite one was this one: There is no pair of integers (p,q) such that 2^p equals (the number that consists of the digits of 5^q in reverse order). I wondered if it makes sense to "believe" in a mathematical statement that cannot be proven. I guess not, but there is the possibility that mentioned statement will be proven some day.

 

(Of course there are mathematical statements which one can define as being true (or false) by axiom but as I understand it there is a different class of statements that might be true yet cannot be proven to be so. Or something like that. I don't quite understand Goedel's theorem).

Thanks for the link!

 

I don't see that the idea of proof has much utility when we get outside the realm of formal systems. My experience tells me that when I walk into a tree I'm going to bump my nose, but I can't prove that. Maybe once in awhile I could actually walk right through a tree, but I never experience that because I gave up trying.

 

In the same way, it's certainly possible that there is a god out there somewhere, but I just don't think so. And it's not worth worrying about one way or the other, except for the social ramifications of interacting with those who do believe.

 

What I find most interesting about folks who believe in a god is that they claim they can describe the properties of the god and even the form of worship necessary to appease the god.

 

When it comes to life, we each have a body and a set of sensory experiences with that body. That's it, and what each of us has to work in that respect is different. So it's not surprising that we come to different conclusions. But come on!

[luke warm]

You simply cannot prove or disprove the absence of a supernatural being.

 

We agree. Unfortunately our local preacher doesn't.

han, if that's a reference to me it only shows that you haven't been paying attention... great philosophical thinkers on both sides of this issue have been heard from, in the past and presently... i can't approach their skill and knowledge, but neither can you - or anyone else posting in a forum... even so, philosophical questions can be dismissed as useless by anyone who chooses... it's easier to dismiss them as merely semantics than argue against them

 

the fact remains, from a philosophical POV no one has yet given a convincing argument accounting for abstract entities... richard is the only one who actually took a stance when he acknowledged their existence and attributed them (or at least one of them) to 'conventions'

[Winstonm]

the fact remains, from a philosophical POV no one has yet given a convincing argument accounting for abstract entities

 

"A supernatural creature, who has no form nor substance, created man in his image, although man has form and substance, and because this supernatural creature is logical, man is logical."

 

Somehow, I don't find this argument convincing.

[luke warm]

winston, what i've said is philosophically valid, it contains no internal inconsistency, no contradiction... the point isn't to convince you (or anyone), it's to show the logical problems with other views... for example, the 'conventions' view is, i'm sure you'll agree, arbitrary in that it requires a consensus, meaning that it lacks an objective certainty (requiring a vote of sorts)

 

for example, why should "all laws of logic are conventional" be accepted as true while "some laws of logic are not conventional" is false? after all, if conventional either might be true...yet there would be a contradiction there, violating one of the laws we're speaking of

[hrothgar]

it's easier to dismiss them as merely semantics than argue against them

 

the fact remains, from a philosophical POV no one has yet given a convincing argument accounting for abstract entities... richard is the only one who actually took a stance when he acknowledged their existence and attributed them (or at least one of them) to 'conventions'

I'll note again the starting sentence of my last posting

 

"I don't accept the basic premise of the argument. "

 

I suspect the main reason that no one else is bothering to respond to this line of argument is that they don't believe that there is any special about "abstract entities".

 

I see no reason to treat the "Laws of Logic" any differently than the number four, a rock, or my pet rat Garm.

 

I readily admit, I don't know where the universe came from. I don't expect this issue to be solved in my life time. However, I don't accept that this lack of certainty requires me to believe in the supernatural.

[hrothgar]

for example, the 'conventions' view is, i'm sure you'll agree, arbitrary in that it requires a consensus, meaning that it lacks an objective certainty (requiring a vote of sorts)

 

for example, why should "all laws of logic are conventional" be accepted as true while "some laws of logic are not conventional" is false? after all, if conventional either might be true...yet there would be a contradiction there, violating one of the laws we're speaking of

Here once again you are presupposing that "objective certainty" is necessary / desirable...

 

As I noted earlier, Euclidean geometry is self consistent. However, hyperbolic geometry and elliptic geometry are equally valid system.

 

Somehow, mathematicians manage to muddle along and make use of geometry. They do so by agree amongst themselves which type of geometry that they are going to be using at a given point in time.

 

Yes, this can cause problems. If half the mathematicians are basing all their work on Euclidean geometry and the other half are basing their work on hyperbolic geometry they won't be able to communicate effectively. The proofs that they offer one another won't be accepted as valid by the other side because they lack any common frame of reference.

 

Some might claim that this hypothetical is quite applicable to the current conversation.

[Winstonm]

winston, what i've said is philosophically valid, it contains no internal inconsistency, no contradiction... the point isn't to convince you (or anyone), it's to show the logical problems with other views... for example, the 'conventions' view is, i'm sure you'll agree, arbitrary in that it requires a consensus, meaning that it lacks an objective certainty (requiring a vote of sorts)

 

for example, why should "all laws of logic are conventional" be accepted as true while "some laws of logic are not conventional" is false? after all, if conventional either might be true...yet there would be a contradiction there, violating one of the laws we're speaking of

Yes, you are closer to my view now that there are no absolutes, no objective certainty, as an objective certainty must by its nature be judged against some standard (non-objective non-certainty), and that judgement then makes it relative and if it is relative it is no longer an objective certainty but simply another convention.

 

A particularly clear example is Gilbert Harman's moral philosophy (1996), according to which moral truths result from social convention. Conventions vary among societies. One society may regard infanticide as horrific, while another may regard it as routine and necessary. Moral statements are true only relative to a conventional standard.

 

To be more precise, in my view I find no contradictions between the existence of a higher power and non-absolutism - but I am of the opinion that Christian dogma requires absolutism due to the penal nature inherent in that configuration of God.

 

I believe the logic you find in your beliefs stems from the definition applied to God, and not so much as pure logic - i.e., for the statement of God exists, and God created man's conscience, therefore yada yada yadi has to be logical, the definition of God must fall within certain parameters, but is there any logic to the establishment of those parameters?

[helene_t]

I don't see that the idea of proof has much utility when we get outside the realm of formal systems. My experience tells me that when I walk into a tree I'm going to bump my nose, but I can't prove that.

Right, in a similar wain one of the contributors wrote that he believed that Australia exists. He couldn't prove it since it's possible that all the people he knew who had been to Australia in fact were taken by a 20-hour round trip ending at the local zoo to watch kangaroos. The Apollo conspiracy theories come to mind ...

 

But most took "proof" to be meant as something weaker. Maybe "evidence" would have been a better word. Anyway, the responses to the Edge questions make fascinating reading.

[mike777]

"Yes, you are closer to my view now that there are no absolutes, no objective certainty, as an objective certainty must by its nature be judged against some standard (non-objective non-certainty), and that judgement then makes it relative and if it is relative it is no longer an objective certainty but simply another convention."

 

I always find this an interesting discussion and this has been discussed in other threads. A belief is a particular kind of Mental state. Any belief must have a propositional content; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justified or unjustified, rational or irrational.

 

Or as Kenberg put it and no doubt can explain it clearer S's belief that p is true if and only if P

 

With the left hand side of this biconditional attributing truth to a belief with a given context and the right-hand side describing the fact that would have to obtain if the attributrion is to be true.

 

I argued that facts about what belief would be justified by a given piece of evidence are facts that must be thought of as absolute, and not as varying from social context to social context.

 

An example of an absolute belief may be that "nothing comes from nothing" Even God cannot create God out of nothingness.

 

However there are arguments in favor of epistemic relativism or global relativism. One interesting book on moral relativism is by Harman and Thomson. Prominent Phiosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Richard Rorty, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary Putnam and Nelson Goodman defend relativism and constructivism.

[luke warm]

Here once again you are presupposing that "objective certainty" is necessary / desirable...

actually i'm not arguing that it's necessary and/or desirable, merely that there are logical problems when it isn't (or when abstracts don't exist)...

Yes, you are closer to my view now that there are no absolutes, no objective certainty, as an objective certainty must by its nature be judged against some standard (non-objective non-certainty), and that judgement then makes it relative and if it is relative it is no longer an objective certainty but simply another convention.

it isn't my view that there are no absolutes, no objective certainty... and i agree that if something is simply conventional, it might be otherwise - depending on the ones reaching the consensus

I always find this an interesting discussion and this has been discussed in other threads. A belief is a particular kind of Mental state. Any belief must have a propositional content; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justified or unjustified, rational or irrational.

which is exactly why a study of how we *know*, or of epistemology, is so critical

However there are arguments in favor of epistemic relativism or global relativism. One interesting book on moral relativism is by Harman and Thomson. Prominent Phiosophers such as  Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Richard Rorty, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary  Putnam and Nelson Goodman  defend relativism and constructivism.

and even though i might not be convinced by their arguments, as richard wasn't convinced by some of plantina's, it pays all of us to understand that those views can't simply be dismissed by neophytes such as us... these men have spent lifetimes studying and formulating logical arguments, few of us have the time, experience, or knowledge to examine them enough... even so, it would take a disbelief in immaterial realities to argue as they argue, and i've seen very few philosophers with that stance... read plantinga's proof re: naturalism vs. evolution

 

that's why we each take whatever authority we find palatable and go from there

[matmat]

which is exactly why a study of how we *know*, or of epistemology, is so critical

i thought we reached a consensus in this thread (we really should find a journal and publish it there) that certain beliefs are undoubtedly true, because we believe them to be so.

[hrothgar]

read plantinga's proof re: naturalism vs. evolution

I've always thought Plantinga's "proof" regarding naturalism and evolution to be laughable. There is a hole in his argument big enough to drive a truck through.

 

Simply put, its very dangerous to build a formal proof that presupposes that you're right. It becomes very easy to flip this assumption on its head and reverse all of the conclusions.

 

I'm not going to restate Plantinga's entire post. Rather, I'll point y'all at the following. http://fitelson.org/plant.pdf The article is a critique of Plantinga, however, it provides a fairly decent summary regarding his reasoning. I recommend that folks pay particular attending to the variable "R". (R can be understood as the likelihood that our "psychological mechanisms for forming beliefs [are] 'generally' reliable") More importantly, note that Plantiga argues that R should be assumed to be approximately equal to 1.

 

Pay close attention to that last statement... Plantinga's whole proof is based on an assumption that folks psychological mechanisms for forming beliefs are extremely reliable.

 

Moreover, he is using this to prove that his own psychological mechanism for forming beliefs is reliable...

 

Do you see the basic problem?

[mike777]

Here once again you are presupposing that "objective certainty" is necessary / desirable...

actually i'm not arguing that it's necessary and/or desirable, merely that there are logical problems when it isn't (or when abstracts don't exist)...

Yes, you are closer to my view now that there are no absolutes, no objective certainty, as an objective certainty must by its nature be judged against some standard (non-objective non-certainty), and that judgement then makes it relative and if it is relative it is no longer an objective certainty but simply another convention.

it isn't my view that there are no absolutes, no objective certainty... and i agree that if something is simply conventional, it might be otherwise - depending on the ones reaching the consensus

I always find this an interesting discussion and this has been discussed in other threads. A belief is a particular kind of Mental state. Any belief must have a propositional content; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justified or unjustified, rational or irrational.

which is exactly why a study of how we *know*, or of epistemology, is so critical

However there are arguments in favor of epistemic relativism or global relativism. One interesting book on moral relativism is by Harman and Thomson. Prominent Phiosophers such as  Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Richard Rorty, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary  Putnam and Nelson Goodman  defend relativism and constructivism.

and even though i might not be convinced by their arguments, as richard wasn't convinced by some of plantina's, it pays all of us to understand that those views can't simply be dismissed by neophytes such as us... these men have spent lifetimes studying and formulating logical arguments, few of us have the time, experience, or knowledge to examine them enough... even so, it would take a disbelief in immaterial realities to argue as they argue, and i've seen very few philosophers with that stance... read plantinga's proof re: naturalism vs. evolution

 

that's why we each take whatever authority we find palatable and go from there

Jimmy I may be misunderstanding your theme but it seems you are asking or stating the theory that:

 

 

There is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is ojectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the revelent evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.

 

As opposed to a competing theory that:

 

It is never possible to explain why we believe what we believe soley on the basis of our exposure to the relevant evidence: our contingent needs and interests must also be involved.

 

Or to rephrase, our exposure to the evidence is either sufficient to explain why we believe what we believe or that our contingent social interests must ALWAYS play an ineliminable role.

 

I find comparing Richard Rorty to Paul Boghossian interesting in this discussion

[sceptic]

i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

 

I agree, (should you not add, at the moment on the end of your statement?)

 

here are my four questions

 

1/. Is there a God?

 

2/. Can some one prove the existance of God? (please dont ask can I prove he does not exist as I can't prove fairies live at the bottom of my garden, either)

 

3/. Can some one tell me what happened to Odin, Thor, Zeus, Ra (the list may be almost limitless)?

 

4/. Do Gods stop existing if no one believes in them any more?

 

can some one write just one post answering just one of these questions

[blackshoe]

I'll take a shot.

 

1. Insufficient data.

2. I doubt it. I certainly can't.

3. Again, I don't know what happened to them, or whether someone else exists who can.

4. That is certainly one possible answer to your question 3. For another, read Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast.

 

Edit: one further comment: the construction "is there a God?" is flawed. When you capitalize that word, you limit its referent to one particular god - He of the "People of the Book". Properly phrased, the question would be either "Do gods exist?" or "Does God exist?" To either of those questions, the answer is the same as above.

[kenberg]

For the answer to number 3, try reading American Gods a novel by Neil Gaiman. The general story line is that various Gods were brought to this country by immigrants. These Gods have lately been neglected, they are really pissed, and they decide to do something about it.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Yet another possible answer. Gaiman is interesting, I should read that.

[Codo]

i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

 

I agree, (should you not add, at the moment on the end of your statement?)

 

here are my four questions

 

1/. Is there a God?

 

2/. Can some one prove the existance of God? (please dont ask can I prove he does not exist as I can't prove fairies live at the bottom of my garden, either)

 

3/. Can some one tell me what happened to Odin, Thor, Zeus, Ra (the list may be almost limitless)?

 

4/. Do Gods stop existing if no one believes in them any more?

 

can some one write just one post answering just one of these questions

Nice one, I give it a try.

 

1. Yes, of course. (Fully aware of the fact that the "of course not" fraction is as convinced as I am)

 

2. The concept I learned here is the following: If you can prove that there is a God, God becomes a fact. And if he is a fact, you can logically not believe any more- just because you simply know. So noway you can prove his existence with our limited minds.

 

3. Most theologies belive that these Gods had been no real gods. Just "their" God is the one and only. I really disagree with this concept. Lets say for the moment that just one church is right and only their God is the real one. Lets say the muslims got it right. I was born in Western Europe, so my chance to become a muslim are remote. Can God be so unfair? (It could be possible, but I simply do not belive it)

I belive that the evolution of most of these big religions had been the right way to worship God in the given century and regional area. So, I belive that HE does not care if you call him Jahwe, Allah, Zeus or Ra. But I do accept that this view is the view of a small minority.

 

Another idea is that we are somehow like fishs in a fish bowl. And the owner of this bowl is "God". He is able to feed us, to cure us, but he can take some of us away and kill us too. In my aquarium, my wife is "God" for the fishs. But when she is not there, I take her place. So in this time, the fish "see" another God. Same could be true for us.

 

4. Nice question, but easy yes. I will live even if all my fishs are dead.