What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books — FLUX23

My position, repeating for the nth time, is that my reasoning is based firmly on the scientific principle that existence is a function of observable effects.

Therefore, if you find fault with my argument then, inevitably, there is a flaw in scientific thinking.

If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless — FLUX23

I think you're viewing the issue from a narrow perspective. Scientific principles are rational first and foremost and rationality is a universal requirement. Therefore i object to your stand that science is so blinkered in its application.

Thanks for your informative post.

But how do you explain the move away from the principle an eye for an eye (as modern justice has)?

Is there something immoral/whatever about the principle an eye for an eye that's made it lose its appeal to the modern psyche? Gandhi once said that ''an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind''.

We're not talking about proof. We're talking about evidence. Not all evidence is proof — Michael

Find replace all instances of ''proof'' with ''evidence''. My post still makes sense.

A single or even many, excepting ALL, cannot provide evidence (your preferred term) for a UNIVERSAL statement.

My humble opinion on the matter. My logic is a bit rusty so bear with me

These two logically equivalent statements are UNIVERSAL statements meaning they are both an ALL statement, one positive and the other negative.

This understanding is key to solving the paradox.

''ALL ravens are black'' is TRUE iff every raven you see is black. Observing a few ravens, so far as it's not ALL ravens, cannot PROVE this sratement.

''Everything that is not black is not a raven'' is TRUE iff every non-black thing is not a raven. Mind the word ''everything''. We must observe ALL non-black things in the universe.

One green apple will NOT suffice to prove either of these statements.

Paradox solved.

If the lack of God affects the non-believers does that mean the lack of God exists? — John

Ask this question to science. I'm simply following the scientific principle that for something to exist it must have observable effects.

In addition the lack of existence is a default or initial position. In this case we've clearly gone past that.

I don't get it. "God" is not automatically seen as the cause of these effects on people. Rather, a belief in God is what should be (naturalistically) seen as the cause of these behaviors — darthbarracuda

Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs

Thank you very much for the clear response. I guess I've been sloppy with my terms. However, it's not a fatal flaw in my argument.

please read my reply to Chany

How are the effects different from people believing in god, even though god does not exist? In other words, what testable and observable difference is there between people practicing Christianity when Christianity is true and people practicing Christianity when Christianity is false and the practicioners of Christianity are simply wrong about their beliefs? — Chany

I'm simply adhering to a scientific principle viz. existence is a function of observable effects. To repeat, a stone exists by virtue of its effects on measuring instruments. Ditto god - His effects are observable in human behavior. Therefore god must exist from a scientific point of view.

Again, in science, you start from observations, go to testable hypothesis then go to experiments to eliminate those hypotheses that are false. You are beginning with the hypothesis being true and then are looking for ovservations that would be there if the hypothesis is true. You are assuming the conclusion — Chany

Kindly tell me what other hypothesis there exists to explain this wonderful universe of ours. Let me take a guess - chance. Given so how do you test the chance hypothesis? I won't hold my breath.

Briefly, my point is the application of the scientific principle on existence when applied to god leads us, clearly, to affirm god's existence. We can very very easily observe the effects of god on people. Therefore, scientifically, god exists

You're apparently claiming that those two are the same thing. What is the basis of that claim? — Terrapin Station

I'm not claiming anything. Science makes the claim that for something to exist its effects must be detectable, measurable and clearly god(s) does have easily observable effects.

What do you want to do with them? You can do all sorts of things with them. You just can't prove them. At best you provisionally verify them in lieu of falsification. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between ''prove'' and ''verify''.

Science is empirical. Empirical claims are not provable — Terrapin Station

What do you do with empirical claims?

I don't agree with that requirement — Terrapin Station

Ether or better I declare the existence of a particle ''foolon'' that has no mass, no charge and cannot be detected by any known scientific instrument.

you can't conflate epistemology (re how you know something) with ontology (re what there is). — Terrapin Station

I'm not conflating anything. I'm actually staying true to the scientific principle of verifiability of a hypothesis. In other words you detect the effect of x and then infer the existence of x.

Where's the error?

:) Where's the error in my reasoning?

You have not yet defined the god you are trying to prove exists, however it appears to be monotheistic... So which "god" are you trying to prove? One of the Greek gods? One of the Viking gods? All have given their followers art, music and military succes — Accursius

All of them.

I once wrote a poem about a storm because of the sheer ferocity. So this must prove the existence of the storm? I have also read books that involved elves, goblins, dwarves, magicians and demons. Does this mean that all these things also exist? If so, I am excited. Bring it on. — Accursius

I'm not a mathematician but to speak mathematically if there's no problem with the soundness of the main theorem I care not for the corollaries.

Let me try to explain. I can't do it better than this so please try to understand my point of view.


People observed the universe and all its wonders. All types of people - idiots, average joes and very intelligent people. Having made their observations they came up with two hypothesis:

1. The universe and all it wonders arose by chance

2. God created this universe

These are the competing hypotheses you both are referring to.

I choose to test the hypothesis that god exists by searching for the effects of god. I find plenty as mentioned above. Now am I not right in concluding that god exists for I find many many effects?

Of course there is the competing hypothesis that everything arose by chance. How do you test that? Beats me. And being untestable the chance-hypothesis (if I may call it that) is actually unscientific.

I hope you understood now?

Your argument sounds very similar to Chany's. However, as I presented my argument we've already moved beyond the hypotheses construction phase.

To clarify this a little more let me take the example of the ether hypothesis of science. Its existence was suspected/hypothesized just as god's existence was. Then we move to the second stage. In the case of ether scientists tried to detect the effects of ether on their instruments. They didn't find any but had they found some they would have concluded ''ether exists''. Now use the same logic for god. We look for the effects of god in our world. I see plenty - prayer, temples, festivals, marriage ceremonies, burial rituals, etc. It's quite obvious now that I must conclude that god exists.

How does it matter?

I take a stone, weigh it and measure its dimensions or throw it at a window. There is an effect - the scale moves, the window shatters. I don't need a competing hypothesis because I now have measurable, detectable proof that the stone exists.
Likewise Ican see people avoiding pork, going to church, praying, doing charity, all of which are detectable, measurable effects of God. Therefore, god exists

I'm giving you all scientific proof of God(s) existence.

What's important is not that we see the precise same thing, but simply that we can discern it. We can continually reference, and consistently discern it independently. — Wosret

Can you explain yourself? Your last post seems to suggest that there's no hope for us and we'redoomed toconfusion. Yet in the quote above you say we only need to ''discern'' as in a silver lining of a cloud.

I think that is why science has become 'the arbiter of reality' for us; real things are nowadays supposedly 'objective'. — Wayfarer

I may be wrong but it appears to me that scientific objectivity rests on multiple experiments showing the same result. This is puzzling. Each experiment is subjective - why else would science require multiple measurements? I fail to understand how a bunch of experiments, each individually subjective, add up to objectivity.

The above point I'm making is just another variation of my original question - how do we know we're same or different in our thoughts?

Thanks. I had a good laugh.

However, despite how funny the cartoon is I couldn't help but feel both sad and scared at

1. The obvious cruelty of god in making us kill and hurt each other

AND

2. The obvious folly of human stupidity

I agree. Justice makes no sense outside of a social context.



However...a teleological question arises.

What difference (teleologically) is there between vengeance and justice?

As far as I know justice is about
1. Redressal
2. Rehabilitation
3. Deterrence

Vengeance achieves objectives 1 and 3. However it generally fails in objective 2. Justice on the other hand achieves objective 2 and 3 while sometimes failing objective 1 (we don't rape a rapist).

It appears to me that justice is more about

1. Maintaining social stability
2. Some degree of forgiveness (which has a very important role for 1 above)

Vengeance on the other hand is more about achieving an equivlence of injury (eye for an eye). Added is the danger of chaos , disruption of social harmony.

In that case, we could all be living in our idiosynratic private ''worlds'' - completely different from each other. In this case how do we find common ground? I know that logic appears to be universal in that it applies consistently to all people however could this not also be an illusion - a far far more sophisticated one?

In your example, cognition isn't operating any differently, it's just that the results of said cognition are not the same. — Thorongil

How do you know this?

...it's just that the results of said cognition are not the same. — Thorongil

Is this difference consequential or not?

Please read my reply to Chany

We know that people do not think the same way, as we can have two people who are epistemic peers (have same evidence and same rational ability about a given subject) can reach two radically different conclusions on a problem. — Chany

That I'm afraid is impossible. The same evidence AND the same rational ability should take everyone to the same conlusion. That however, is beside the point I'm making.

I'll try and give you an analogy. Imagine two people A and B. A is wearing red filter glasses (i.e. allows only red light to pass through) and B is wearing blue filter glasses. Both of them are now shown a white object. As is expected A would see the object as red but would call this white while B would see it as blue and would only know it as white. In this case A's white is different from B's white and yet they'd both agree that the object is white.

Can you now extrapolate that to mental functions too?

But how do we know that that is the case? I don't have access to your mind and vice versa. Limited as such how do we know we're thinking the ''same'' thing or for that matter, ''differently''?

So you're saying ''vengeance'' is a disproportionate response to an offense. However eye for an eye is evidently proportionate to an offense, thus according to you, it falls under justice. Yet, generally speaking, this philosophy of justice is considered immoral.

Having thought about it a little more I think justice differs from vengeance in that justice involves some degree of compassion and forgiveness on the part of the victim and the law which is not the case with vengeance. Perhaps the feeling is that one should not stoop as low as the offender. To add such an approach makes justice disproportionate to the crime, the victim suffering more than the offender. Be the bigger person, so to speak. I think we can interpret this at a social level but I shall not go into that here.

I would say that the two are about the same but the words themselves are imbued with meaning in order to arouse different feelings. Was Edmund Dantes seeking vengeance or justice? It all depends upon one's point of view — Rich

So, are you closing the discussion by alleging the issue is too subjective to deserve further analysis?

I don't get it

Symbolically yes, but literarily no. — Agustino

Please clarify.

I think I should disagree. Modern law considers an eye for an eye (or vengeance) as primitive. ??

Well, isn't an eye for an eye ''deserved and proportional''? Yet the law seems to disregard/condemn such a philosophy.

In your case if I were to agree with you wouldn't it be considered ''same'' thinking?

You're right, in a way? I was going to ask ''do you think it's that simple?'' But realized the counter-question ''do you think it's that complex?''

:) ok