From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Reality- What's Probable?   
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:08:23 GMT

(Written for Alt.Atheism, cross posted to t.r.m)

An interesting question:
Can non-existence of a god be proven?

Absolute proof is almost impossible to come up with in any situation. By 
absolute proof I mean proof based upon incontivertible observations and
facts, that fully imply the conclusion presented.  Assumed here is that the
rules of evidence, and other presuppositions are accepted by all parties.
This is epecially true for religious debate, where fact is sparse.

However, if we accept probable proof, as well as absolute proofs, then it is
pretty easy to "prove" the non-existence of a particular entity.  By
probable proof, I mean qualititative probability.  Observation and knowledge 
shows us that certain things are probably not true.  We can't assign a number,
but we know qualitatively that something is very unlikely to be true. Example,
when someone tells you they have talked to a god, and this god wants you to
give this person all your money, you expect this is probably not true,
based on your knowledge of the world.  For example, how many doomsday prophets
who have convinced their followers to sell all there goods and donate the 
proceeds to their cause, have proven correct? ( Examples are a recent situation
case in S. Korea, where when the world didn't end, the good reverend said 
something like "Sorry, I was wrong, lets all go home now".  There was also
a woman, Mrs. Price (?) who did a similar thing in CA, also giving the date for
our doomsday.  She was obviously mistaken as well. ) Thus when we encounter
a doomsday prophet, history, sociology, and psychology are our "proof" that
this prophet is wrong.   Yet, many people still believe these crackpots. 
Similar type "proof" tells be Jimmy Swaggart and his ilk are deplorable,
and misguided.  Yet, people still went to see Swaggart after his bust.
Now, the accuracy of this type of proof is dependent on the person who
is considering it's common sense and intelligence.  Thus, this is not really
much of a proof alone.  However, this type of proof can be quantitatively
substantiated through documents, case studies, psychological profiles, 
histories, etc. which are logically analyzed and linked until they imply that
something is true ( or not ) to a very high probability.  This type of proof
is what most often goes on in a.a.  It is usually very accurate, but since it
relies initially on common sense, people argue it.  After a while, they get
bombarded with the facts that back up that which should have been obvious from
general knowledge or common sense.  Then, usually, the thread dies as the  
religious side shuts up, and promptly forgets the argument which has become to
accurate for them to deal with.  Now this not true of all X posters- some are
very reasonable on the threads they are arguing on.  However, when the big
picture is considered, they are to a very high degree probably wrong.  Why,
for one the multiplicity of religions in the world and the so blatantly obvious
primitive ethnocentricity of each one.  Others are contidictions with science,
and most damagingly, themselves.  Christianity can't be correct, because 
there is no such thing as it.  There are so many fundamentally different sects
of Christianity, it sort of dissipates in a puff of contridiction.  Anyway, for
further points, read the newsgroup.  For understanding, do the following:
    1) write down all the main arguments on cue cards.
    2) have a drink.
    3) calm the mind, open your mind by thinking of vast things, such as the
       depth of the oceans, etc.  Expand outwards.
    4) read the cue cards.
    5) calmly let the thoughts flow through your mind in contemplation.
    6) consider what is probable and what is not.
    7) do this over several weeks to allow for different states of mind.  These
       should hopefully balance out and remove some bias.
    8) write an essay based on the cue cards on what you personally think of
       all the points.  Now what seem reasonable?
    9) if this doesn't work go to india and seek out buddha.
There you have it, Nick's guide to Enlightenment.    

Actually, while this may be sort of weak in areas, I think this would be a 
good topic to look into on this group- practical, active ways to seek/ convey
truth, as opposed to traditional simply trying to prove something is wrong or
right.  Typically this has been unsuccessful in history.  Whats the science
to hammering something home?  I bring this up because this newsgroup is very
combat oriented.  Side thought, maybe two groups would be good: a.a and
a.a.combat.  That way people with a.a considerations who don't want to debate
religious people ( ie. considerations beyond basic whats correct argument )
can just avoid .combat, and they won't have to wade through 190 posts a day (
it probably would drop to 40 or 50 ).

Anyway, in summary, I propose the non-existence of any god is very likely, and
thus mostly proven.


-- 


------------------------------------------------------
Nick Vanweerdenburg