From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:42:14 GMT

In article <C17y16.Jt6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>
>Ok. Here we go. I posted to this group once with the claim that I could
>prove the existance of God. A bunch of people came clammering to my
>mailbox demanding I post this proof so here it is:
>
>1) Disclaimers. The opinions expressed within are soley mine. They come
>from no book (although based on a certain book), come from no other
>person (although based on the life of another person). I take full
>responsibility and credit for my views.

my disclaimer: i make no claims about whether or not i actually believe
in God, but rather argue from a logical point of view. and no offense
is intended to believers, nor to God, if he/she exists.

>2) Basic outline of the approach I intend to take:
>	A) The Bible is absolutely true.
>	B) The Bible claims that God exists.
>	C) God exists.
>
>3) a) Proof that the Bible is absolutely true:
>	One of human's greatest assets is the ability to see a group
>	seemingly random, unpredictable data points, and distingush
>	a pattern from this chaos. Humans can GENERALIZE. This means
>	they can infer from interelated facts. Humans can see a pattern
>	and project it into the future. 
>	Think of the Bible as being a collection of related statements
>	of fact (not facts yet, since that's what we are trying to proof)
>	Now take any abritary set of statements of fact. This second set
>	you want to discover the nature of. So you take one of the facts
>	contained in the set and test it. For our discussion, let's say
>	it turns out to be true. Now you take another statement in the set
>	and test it. It is also true. You try again. This time you pick
>	a statement that you can't prove one way or the other. You don't
>	have an instrument sensitive enough to make the require measure-
>	ment or the statement is about a rare substance you don't have,
>	let's say. You try a fourth fact; true. Fifth; true. Sixth; you
>	can't tell again. In this manner you go through the whole set and
>	always you get either true or can not be determined. 
>	Now let's look at what you know: the statements are all inter-
>	related. Some of the statement you know to be true. Some of the
>	statement you aren't sure about. NONE of the statements are false.

i dispute that nothing in the bible is false; i also dispute that nothing
in the bible is inconsistent (Cain's wife is one of my pet peeves.. :^)

but -- even if nothing were false, that does NOT constitute proof. you
said "proof" not "strong evidence" nor even "overwhelming evidence".

>	Now you notice another interesting thing. As time progresses, more
>	and more statements in the set are being proven true. Still none
>	are being proven false. Now armed with these facts you generalize;
>	you decide that from what you have found out experimentally, the
>	set of facts seems to be true. Now this is all very logical and it
>	goes on everyday, yet I think I can feel some of you screaming even
>	before I post this. Look at what is done in physics. You have a
>	particle that you test. Let's use the developement of the Periodic
>	chart. You find that the elements you have available seem to fit
>	a pattern. Every element you test fits this pattern, yet you can't
>	get a hold of every element. Still you are able to predict, through
>	generalization, the properties and configurations for elements you
>	haven't seen yet. In addition as time goes by more and more evidence
>	come to surface that supports the periodic chart. NO elements show
>	up that contradict it. Are you assumptions and predictions any
>	else valid? No. Just because you can't make the measurement doesn't
>	mean the facts aren't worth anything. you take the periodic chart
>	as true even though you haven't proven all of it yet. (Of course
>	I am speaking from the point of view of very shortly after the
>	periodic chart was released (before modern chemists (hats off)
>	made the measurements to prove the predictions)). 

this whole argument is a fallacy -- proof by lack of counter-example
is not valid. i'm sure you were expecting this response.

>	Now look at the Bible again. It is a collection of related state-
>	ments of fact.

not fact until proven so. it is mostly story and lecture.

>       Many of the things it relates are true. Many of
>	it's statements are uncertain. NONE of it has been proven false,
>	or even approached the point of being legitimately attacked. (If
>	you have one I'll be glad to fight you over it).

they can't be attacked because they are all subject to ludicrous levels
of interpretation. when someone attacks any of it, a bunch of subjective
language is used to "explain" what is happening and why it is believable.

also -- the one making the claim must prove it is so; the onus is not
on the non-believer.

>       So how is this
>	any different? It isn't. The same thought process and generaliza-
>	tion techniques that are considered valid and a mark of higher
>	intelligence in the world can be applied here as well. It makes
>	logical sence for the Bible to be true.

you may have reason to believe it may be true, but this is far from
proof. not even close.

>3b) The Bible claims that God exists. Since we have established the Bible
>	as a collection of true facts:
>3c) God exists.

the claim that because a book is true, and it claims X, that X must
be true, means that you must be able to prove that everything in that
book is true. you cannot do this. i could have a book that contains
999 "truths" (ignoring whether or not they are, let's assume they are)
and list as the 1000th "Alpha Centauri is really a large purple
vacuum cleaner". do the 999 truths make the 1000th true, given that
we cannot prove it either way? i think not.

also, your part 2A said "The Bible is absolutely true". do you really
think you have achieved this dramatically high standard? why? i don't
see it.

>Closing statements: Flame at will.

why? a decent intellectual endeavor on your part. good effort.

>Write me if you want some more particulars
>on this subject. I have another argument for the existence of God called
>God or Coinincidence. I'll post it if this one flies well.

please do. on the surface it sounds like the "God must exist because
the alternative is so improbable" argument, which also is not proof,
just a strongly argued opinion.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism