6 ms·

Yes, in my experience, the religious are fond of saying, "You atheists can't prove God does not exist." Yet it's quite simple to prove that a particular God wit

Yes, in my experience, the religious are fond of saying, "You atheists can't prove God does not exist." Yet it's quite simple to prove that a particular God with a particular set of attributes [edit: does or] doesn't exist.

3pt14159 11y ago
How can you?
- amalcon 11y ago
  What he's getting at is probably along these lines: I define the "God" I'm looking for as an invisible green humanoid. Because something cannot be invisible and green at the same time, this "God" cannot exist. It's naturally much harder to do this with Gods that correspond to particular religions, but from time to time it is possible. E.g. a jealous God that will destroy civilization if we don't offer it human sacrifices has not done this, so it can't exist.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    Well, what do you mean by "green"? Do you mean "which reflects or emits light of these particular wavelengths", or do you mean something about human perception? Also, similar questions apply wrt "invisible". If "green" is based on human perception, why would not an entity which, when a person looks in their direction, does not really see them like any shape, but rather, perceives some greenness in that General direction? Why would this entity not be considered both green and invisible? Alternative, does "invisible" mean to the naked human eye? What if the entity is microscopic?
    - amalcon 11y ago
      I define "green" and "invisible" however you like so long as they are contradictory, since it is only a thought exercise.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You can determine if those attributes are consistent with each other. Also, if they have observable properties, you have an angle of attack - whether to prove or disprove (or rather, to ascertain likelihood of) the existence of a being with such attributes.
rawnlq 11y ago
Interestingly many people (including Gödel) have made logically sound proofs that a particular God with a particular set of attributes do exist. But the way they end up defining the god usually don't fit any religion's god. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Kurt_G.C3.B6del https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Kurt_G.C3...
- ChrisGranger 11y ago
  Yes, indeed, it's all about defining the attributes. It seems to me that the gods believed in by proponents of extant religions were "created by committee" and don't have completely coherent, logically-consistent, non-contradictory properties.
  - gbog 11y ago
    Except for a few mathematical concepts I don't see any thing that would have such property, e.g. Art, Good, Justice, Culture, etc.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      Luckily, unlike deities, Art, Good, Justice, and Culture are all fairly easy to examine empirically.
- gjm11 11y ago
  Gödel's ontological proof certainly derives its conclusion correctly from its axioms. But the problem isn't only that the conclusion isn't really "God exists" if you want that to match the god of any actually existing religion; it's also that the axioms are ... well, let's just say "not obviously true". In particular, he relies on this notion of "positive properties". It is not at all clear that there is any notion of "positive properties" that satisfies his axioms, still less one for which "positive" is actually a good name. (The axioms are certainly false if, e.g., we take "positive" to mean something like "regarded as good by some particular person" or "regarded as good by a majority of intelligent and thoughtful people". Gödel wants the conjunction of all positive properties to be positive, which in particular implies that it isn't outright impossible. But it's easy to find properties generally regarded as good that are not mutually compatible.)

3pt14159 11y ago

How can you?

amalcon 11y ago
What he's getting at is probably along these lines: I define the "God" I'm looking for as an invisible green humanoid. Because something cannot be invisible and green at the same time, this "God" cannot exist. It's naturally much harder to do this with Gods that correspond to particular religions, but from time to time it is possible. E.g. a jealous God that will destroy civilization if we don't offer it human sacrifices has not done this, so it can't exist.
- drdeca 11y ago
  Well, what do you mean by "green"? Do you mean "which reflects or emits light of these particular wavelengths", or do you mean something about human perception? Also, similar questions apply wrt "invisible". If "green" is based on human perception, why would not an entity which, when a person looks in their direction, does not really see them like any shape, but rather, perceives some greenness in that General direction? Why would this entity not be considered both green and invisible? Alternative, does "invisible" mean to the naked human eye? What if the entity is microscopic?
  - amalcon 11y ago
    I define "green" and "invisible" however you like so long as they are contradictory, since it is only a thought exercise.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
You can determine if those attributes are consistent with each other. Also, if they have observable properties, you have an angle of attack - whether to prove or disprove (or rather, to ascertain likelihood of) the existence of a being with such attributes.

rawnlq 11y ago

Interestingly many people (including Gödel) have made logically sound proofs that a particular God with a particular set of attributes do exist. But the way they end up defining the god usually don't fit any religion's god. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Kurt_G.C3.B6del https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Kurt_G.C3...

ChrisGranger 11y ago
Yes, indeed, it's all about defining the attributes. It seems to me that the gods believed in by proponents of extant religions were "created by committee" and don't have completely coherent, logically-consistent, non-contradictory properties.
- gbog 11y ago
  Except for a few mathematical concepts I don't see any thing that would have such property, e.g. Art, Good, Justice, Culture, etc.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Luckily, unlike deities, Art, Good, Justice, and Culture are all fairly easy to examine empirically.
gjm11 11y ago
Gödel's ontological proof certainly derives its conclusion correctly from its axioms. But the problem isn't only that the conclusion isn't really "God exists" if you want that to match the god of any actually existing religion; it's also that the axioms are ... well, let's just say "not obviously true". In particular, he relies on this notion of "positive properties". It is not at all clear that there is any notion of "positive properties" that satisfies his axioms, still less one for which "positive" is actually a good name. (The axioms are certainly false if, e.g., we take "positive" to mean something like "regarded as good by some particular person" or "regarded as good by a majority of intelligent and thoughtful people". Gödel wants the conjunction of all positive properties to be positive, which in particular implies that it isn't outright impossible. But it's easy to find properties generally regarded as good that are not mutually compatible.)