Why There is no Empirical Proof That God Exists

Image result for stars in space




Skepie says:

- Joe, most philosophers agree that the existence of God CANNOT be proven. Did you ever ask yourself why? You can only prove God if you make certain metaphysical assumptions. If you do, then the existence of of can logically follow from them. But it is not necessary to make those assumptions. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven. This is what philosophers understand, but you completely fail to understand.


I intersected that I don;t argue for proving God, I argue for belief as rationally warranted, to which he says:

- Joe, you are a liar. You make arguments that end with "Therefore God exists." This purports to be a logical proof, and you even said it was. Have you ever once heard me make an argument that ends with "Therefore God does not exist"? No, you haven't.
Here  is part of a post from my blog on JANUARY 22, 2017

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-there-is-no-empirical-proof-that.html

the excerpt:
From time to time atheists have tried to disprove God with parsimony. Or they might at least argue that parsimony renders belief less likely. [2] If God is not given in empirical data then God is not subject to the demands of parsimony its unfair to expect it. I don't imagine that parsimony would prove anything anyway it'snot a proof. There are different kinds of parsimony and belief in God meets some of them. For example, God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism. [3] Just as the more insightful atheists, such as Keith Parsons, don't argue to disprove God but in terms of likelihood, then so to do i argue not to prove god but to warrant belief. Belief may be warranted without proving the existence of God.

To many atheists God is contrary to the rules of science because he's the product of something called "supernatural."[4] They don't have the slightest idea where the concept comes from or what it really says, but they are sure it's stupid and don't' want anything do to with it. So God can't be parsimonious because he's supernatural. These atheists are merely reacting to the modern post enlightenment concept of SN as that which stands in opposition to scientific data or modern secular thinking.It really ha nothing to do with the Christian concept of the Supernatural.[5] The so Called Rules of science are not a guide to ontology.That God is not given in empirical data is a function of God not given sense data, that is not a disproof it merely means that God represents an aspect of beyond that beyond our ability to spy on.

God could only be the subject of parsimony if he is the object of empirical investigation. I can see why atheists want this to be true, because they could pretend that they've ruled out God, with their penchant for ignoring God arguments, and their glass half empty outlook which always finds the negative, the dark, the bad, refuses proof, refuses the benefit of a doubt only the cutting edge of doubt. But God is not the object of empirical investigation, nor can he be by definition. thus he cannot be judged by parsimony. The whole idea contradicts phenomenology in the first place. So typical of atheists to cherry pick reality so they accept the schools of philosophy that help them and consign as hog wash any kind of thinking that they can't understand (which is most of it).

God cannot be empirical. There are three reasons. These reasons are deductive. The reasons themselves do not require empirical proof because they are deductive. In fact they could not be empirical and claim to  prove that God is beyond the empirical because they would have to have empirical evidence of God to say that, which would be a contradiction.

The three reasons are absolute:


God is not given in sense data.

Empirical means experienced first hand. In modern terms we speak of empirical proof in  terms of scientific observation but it's not really empirical in the traditional sense. It's really inductive reasoning, it's extrapolation from a representative sample to a generalized probability. If God was a big man in the sky with a localized existence I would say the lack of empirical proof is a good reason not believe. But God is more basic than that. God is more analogous to the laws of physics in that we know his effects but he has no localized existence that can be observed directly.



God is not a thing  in creation, 

Not a thing alongside other things  that is, but is the basis of reality: God is being itself. If we could say the universe contains trees and oranges, and mutt dogs and swizzel sticks and mud pies and jelly and fish and comic books and flt tires and roofs and taxes and stupid people, and God, then they would have a point. What's wrong with this list? God is not just another thing. God created all that stuff and everything else. Nothing would exist without God. So God is not along side jelly and swizzle sticks in creation. As St. John of Damascus said "God exists on the order of Being itself." God is not a product of things in creation, god is the basis of all reality. Thus, God may not be treated as things in creation. God is not contingent because he' snot produced by a prior thing. He's not part of creation, the basis of it, so obviously he can't be given in sense data he can't be understood in a empirical way.

God is eternal.

Because God always was, never came to be, is not dependent upon anything else for his existence, we can say that God, if there is a God, then God had to be, it's not a matter of maybe God might not have existed. God must be either necessary or impossible. This is what Harsthorne drives home in this modal argument.

Because the concept of God is that of eternal necessary being, God cannot be contingent and since empirical things can only be contingent, God cannot be the object of empirical study. These arguments prove conclusively and beyond question that God cannot be empirical. Since God cannot be empirical it makes prefect since that there is no obvious evidence for God in of the kind some atheists seek, such as  stars lining up to spell out his name or any of that nonsense. It might just be that God is parsimonious in some sense, but not in the sense of being more scientific. which is I think the way most atheists use the term "Parsimony" (because they don't know any better).

Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God. For that I recommend my book


 photo frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg 

Order from Amazon 
Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguemnts for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability. Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you. Order from Amazon 







Sources

[1] Stardusty  psyche, "Exchange with David Brightly," "comments," Dangerous Idea blog
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=5659799769651012438
(accessed 1/18/17)

there are 221 comments and still running,

[2] Stenger 2007, pp. 17–18, citing Parsons, Keith M. (1989). God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytical Defense of Theism. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-551-5.

Original Stemger is Victor J. Stenger,  (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-652-5.

[3] Joseph Hinman, "Eligance of The God Hypothesis," Doxa: Christian Thought in thei21st Century, On line Resoirce no date imndicted. URL:
http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/Elgegance.html (accessed 1/18/17)

it is not a contradiction on my part to say that my Parsimony argument might offer rational warrant to believe, but that God is not a subject of parsimony. I said there is a distinction in types. What atheists mean by it and what I mean by the term are two different things. My argument turns upon being an elegant idea, so God need not be empirical to be judged elegant; all one need know is a concept


[4] Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016).

see also Stenger, Failed hyp.... op cot

[5] Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016).

Comments

im-skeptical said…
I don;t argue for proving God, I argue for belief as rationally warranted
- We are all aware that you claim to present "rational warrant for belief" in God. I think in your mind, that sounds like a sophisticated way to get around the inconvenient fact that the existence of God cannot be proven. But you still make arguments in the form of syllogisms that purport to logically prove God's existence. You just recently presented two such arguments. When you present a syllogism that concludes with "therefore God exists", then you are attempting to prove God's existence, even if you choose to deny that and call it "warrant".

But let's look at this claim a little more closely. Let's examine your "Argument From God Corrolate [sic]", which directly claims to provide this warrant for belief. This is your argument in your own words:

(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME

It says it right there in line 8. But wait a minute. What is the basis for that warrant? That is stated in line 7. In fact, if we just consider the first seven lines, we see a complete syllogism that supposedly proves that God exists ("the divine" is a euphemism for God). The problem with all this is that your syllogism isn't valid (as I explained in my own article). As I said, philosophers don't really believe it is possible to prove the existence of God.

Please don't tell us that you don't make arguments to prove God. That is exactly what you try to do.
Joe Hinman said…

JLHI don;t argue for proving God, I argue for belief as rationally warranted


- We are all aware that you claim to present "rational warrant for belief" in God. I think in your mind, that sounds like a sophisticated way to get around the inconvenient fact that the existence of God cannot be proven.

It's a stage before proof in argumentation



But you still make arguments in the form of syllogisms that purport to logically prove God's existence.

wrong. I have never said I; proving God's existence logically.

You just recently presented two such arguments. When you present a syllogism that concludes with "therefore God exists", then you are attempting to prove God's existence, even if you choose to deny that and call it "warrant".


That's just a habit to put it that way it just means "here is reason to believe God exists"

But let's look at this claim a little more closely. Let's examine your "Argument From God Corrolate [sic]", which directly claims to provide this warrant for belief. This is your argument in your own words:

(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME

It says it right there in line 8. But wait a minute. What is the basis for that warrant? That is stated in line 7. In fact, if we just consider the first seven lines, we see a complete syllogism that supposedly proves that God exists ("the divine" is a euphemism for God). The problem with all this is that your syllogism isn't valid (as I explained in my own article). As I said, philosophers don't really believe it is possible to prove the existence of God.


the difference in proving and warranting is that the former is undeniable and the latter is just a good reason to think something. If the evidence warrants belief it's warranted it doesn't matter if you package it as proof. it still warrants belief,

Please don't tell us that you don't make arguments to prove God. That is exactly what you try to do.

Since i;ve said what my intent is that's what you go bul An attempt at proof cam still be a warrant for belief it's really just a matter of being aware.

3/11/2019 03:09:00 PM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
btw are you blind Skepie can't you see that first numbered argument ends in "(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME" It's a warrant for belief, not a claim of proof,
im-skeptical said…
the difference in proving and warranting is that the former is undeniable and the latter is just a good reason to think something.
- Logical proofs are not undeniable. They are always dependent on the acceptance of the premises and assumptions upon which the argument is built. And if one doesn't accept your logical argument, neither will he agree that you have provided any "warrant for belief".

btw are you blind Skepie can't you see that first numbered argument ends in "(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME" It's a warrant for belief, not a claim of proof,
- Joe, you didn't read what I said. Line 7 is a claim of proof. It is the conclusion of a logical syllogism, otherwise known as a deductive "proof". Line 8 accomplishes nothing but to convert that supposed logical "proof" into a claim of "warrant for belief". It is window dressing.
Joe Hinman said…
the difference in proving and warranting is that the former is undeniable and the latter is just a good reason to think something.


- Logical proofs are not undeniable. They are always dependent on the acceptance of the premises and assumptions upon which the argument is built. And if one doesn't accept your logical argument, neither will he agree that you have provided any "warrant for belief".


No. a proof proves. An argument that can be argued with and disputed is an attempted proof that has not succeeded,

btw are you blind Skepie can't you see that first numbered argument ends in "(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME" It's a warrant for belief, not a claim of proof,


- Joe, you didn't read what I said. Line 7 is a claim of proof. It is the conclusion of a logical syllogism, otherwise known as a deductive "proof". Line 8 accomplishes nothing but to convert that supposed logical "proof" into a claim of "warrant for belief". It is window dressing.


wrong.nothing in those 7 lines says proof. just something is a syllogism doens;t make it a proof

1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME



you know pragmatically nothing abouit argument
im-skeptical said…
No. a proof proves. An argument that can be argued with and disputed is an attempted proof that has not succeeded
- ALL arguments can be argued with.

wrong.nothing in those 7 lines says proof. just something is a syllogism doens;t make it a proof
- Oh, I get it. If it doesn't say "QED" then it's not a proof. Bullshit, Joe.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason