Regarding “Evidence and Proof”:
I always simply thought that, if there was ‘proof’ of God, then it would no longer be a choice of whether to follow Him or not – instead we would be compelled to follow Him, which isn’t much use in a free will world.
It’s a bit like 1+1=2. Am I ever going to believe that is wrong? No. Will I act on the fact that 1+1=2? Yes, I do so every time I pay for something with cash, every time I wait a minute for someone. So surely if God was proven then I would have to believe and I would have to act on it. Just like believing in 1+1=2 isn’t my free choice, believing in God would not be free choice but would be mandatory.
I always figured free choice is important in our relationships. The thing about people in general is that you can believe that they exist, but you don’t have to believe what they say. If God was proven then you would have to believe what he ‘said’ – because it is proven that he is God (God being the all powerful, etc. – that’s the point of the term ‘God’). If it wasn’t proven that you had to believe what he said then it wouldn’t be proven that he was God.
So I guess that’s why I think God is being perfectly reasonable in not proving his existence to us, at least scientifically! Faith, though, is an entirely different proof type of thing…
How are you so certain that 1+1=2?
On what level are you questioning 1+1=2?
Just like any belief the best test of it is whether you will stake your life on it:
If you’ve ever travelled in an aeroplane then you will be staking your life on the computer systems that run it and the air traffic control – and these all depend on the basic principle that 1+1=2. Similarly if you eat food, the systems that ensure the quality of your food depend on the fact that 1+1=2.
No, you’ve not addressed my point – you’ve just reiterated that you believe 1+1 to equal 2. How are you so sure this is correct? What is your proof?
John, Perhaps you could answer my question:
What level are you question that 1+1=2?
Then I might be able to discuss some relevant points.
Perhaps the proof you want is in this little experiment:
Re: your computer example. I’d suggest that in that instance you are staking your life that 1+1=10 rather than 1+1=2. But then I’m probably just being pedantic!
LOL! Yes, I was converting from binary to decimal for the sake of the lay reader! 🙂
(binary 10 = decimal 2)
Nice one David!
It is not my responsibility to provide proof that it is incorrect. You have stated that it is an absolute fact, one with scientific proof. I’m asking what your proof is. I don’t see why it should fall to me to disprove something you have claimed, and failed to evidence.
However, since you won’t, here is the proof that 1+1=2:
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its “successor” x’ is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x’ = 1.
P4. If x isn’t 1, then there is a y in N such that y’ = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x’ in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a’
(using P1 and P2). If b isn’t 1, then let c’ = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)’.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1′
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1′ = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn’t 0, then let c’ = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)’.
You also have to define 1 = 0′, and 2 = 1′. Then the proof of the Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)’
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)’ = 1′ = 2 Q.E.D.
Oh! I thought you were suggesting that 1+1 did not equal 2. Simple misunderstanding!
The apples were proof enough for me.
I suspect that you will find that 99.9% of ‘Sunday Papers’ readers won’t understand your proof – so for them it is not proof at all.
“I suspect that you will find that 99.9% of ‘Sunday Papers’ readers won’t understand your proof – so for them it is not proof at all.”
Which would rather be the point.
Found this today and thought it had some relevance to the post.
David, mulling over what you said/quoted it made me think, perhaps on a slightly different tack. From the simplest of scientific observations to the most complex, from the theories that have already had their day to those that still have use, I see evidence of God. Even in our inadequate ability to understand and describe our environment (and we see limitations in Einstein’s theories and expect them to be assigned to the dustbin at some point in the future) we still see sense and beauty.
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
I think that we somehow catch glimpses of God even in our foolish understanding. Now faith, well, that’s were we really begin to know God in a different way, even though our faith is tiny!
Hmm. After a couple of days offline I seem to have found myself in the company of mathmaticians scientists and computer scientists!!
Seriously though- I like the piece from Einstein- do we need scientific proof of God when our souls and spirits relate to that intrisic beauty and knowledge of the fact that he is real?
The problem is it’s a logical fallacy. To claim proof of God by the lack of proof of God only convinces those who already have a relationship with God that they find for themselves to be proof. To anyone else, it’s immediately recognised as the nonsense it patently is.
This is not to say I disagree. I have sympathy with the notion that were God to provide absolute proof of His existence, it would remove the opportunity of free will. However, two things arise from this:
1) So what? To someone who does not believe in God, I’m still saying, “You should believe God exists *because* there’s no proof he exists.”
2) If knowing God is so wonderful, then why would it matter whether we had free will about this relationship or not? To not have it would be to not care.
I want to add:
I think we get in such a muddle over what we understand by the word “proof” (as I hoped to demonstrate with the 1+1=2 argument), that we forget that the only thing that ever convinces us of anything is personal experience. It is only the personal experience of combining the oneness of one thing with the oneness of another thing creating something with an intrinsic twoness that we find ourselves believing in this simplest of sums. I want to argue that it is with the same level of conviction and personal understanding that we know God to be real. It is our experience of Godness with usness. It is not an impossible, unproveable enigma, but simply a matter of experiential conviction.
Hi John, Yes, you have good points about experience being what convinces us. It is only through our experiences (via our senses) that evidence and or ‘proof’ comes. I entirely agree that it is experiential conviction that enables us to know that God is real.
Please don’t think that I was at all trying to say that we could prove God’s existence by evidence. What I wanted to express was the difference between proof and evidence. Evidence that doesn’t prove is circumstantial evidence – which is perhaps what we see all around us.
You said “To claim proof of God by the lack of proof of God” – I don’t think that anyone was saying this in this discussion..??