From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:09:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

This thread has taken an interesting and characteristic turn.  We
started out talking about whether there was any evidence of the
existence of God.  I said there was none, meaning that there was not
any good evidence in the conventional sense.  Gregg Skinner objected
to that equation, as the latter can be said to be somewhat subjective,
offering the analogy of someone claiming that the evidence for the
earth being round was not good, and from that saying that there is no
evidence for a round earth.  On that point I am willing t try to be
more precise in my usage.

Scott Gibson followed up the round-earth point moving back toward the
God-evidence argument:

>In that case, with a little research I could pose to you an experiment
>to test your hypothesis.  The experiment was actually performed by
>[Aritosthenes?], and involves the use of a straight stick, a ruler,
>a reliable timepiece, and the ability to travel.  The experiment can
>be reliably performed by just about anyone, and the results seem to
>be predictable and consistent.  The experiment serves to demonstrate
>that the world is, indeed, a curved surface along its north-south
>axis.  
>
>I challenge you to describe an experiment similar in its simplicity
>and reliability, which serves to show that the Christian God exists.

Charley Wingate responds:

>Of course, to perform this experiment you need to make a LOT of assumptions
>(or prove them....) if you want to prove the assrtion you want.

and again:

>Challenges to "prove" things, in this group, are almost inevitably rather
>loaded.  The exchange takes a familiar pattern: Some sucker presents a
>"proof" which is then shot up all over the place on the basis of what is
>claimed to be scientific reasoning.  The challenger (IMHO) almost never has
>any intent other than destroying whatever "proof" is presented (and indeed,
>my "challenge" here is patently a trap).
>
>I've been around on this subject many times before with Mr. Gibson.  I
>don't think that the standards that he brings to this dicussion are
>realistic.  Proofs require a shared proof method, and this is lacking here.

Don Ward takes up the same banner:

>Do you only use 'proven' evidence to make decisions?? [and goes on to
>use "prove" or "proven" a further 8 times in one paragraph]

Once again the discussion takes the turn from "there is no good
common-sense evidence" to "you can't prove much of anything with
certainty".  But, this agnosticism is uncalled for: nobody's
requiring a "proof" here, just evidence, evidence of the same sort as
we generally consider acceptable for other decisions.  

The assumptions called for in the round-earth experiment are common
ones that reasonable people could generally agree are acceptable: that
light moves in relatively straight lines, that rules of geometry work
more or less the same on a planetary scale as on a human one, and so
forth.  There is then agreement upon an experiment, which should turn
out one way if a round-earth hypothesis is true, and another if it is
not.  This would not "prove" that the earth is round, but would
constitute evidence, to be combined with other evidence (such as the
behavior of the earth's shadow on the moon).  This is much the same
way we generally make decisions on other things.

As to the nature of the "challenge" and the pattern of discussion on
the topic: frankly, the "proofs" are more often offered freely, rather
than in response to challenges.  Yes, they are then shot to pieces on
the basis of what is generally agreed to be scientific, or at least
logical, common-sense reasoning.  The motivation for engaging in
shooting down the arguments probably varies.  In many cases the
proponent of the argument, if they are Christian, is maintaining that
other people should be persuaded to believe as they do based on their
argument, the consequences of the alternative often being presented as
rather dire.  (When one is threatened with a lake of fire, the
supporting arguments for that position should be examined closely.)
Others are simply genuinely interested in exploring what and why
others believe.

It would be one thing if the general response were that faith is not
based on evidence, or that the evidence is of a personal and
subjective kind, or any of a number of different answers (that are
indeed occasionally discussed here).  Then you might well say that it
is futile to speak of evidence or experiments or proof concerning God.
However, we see a large number of people who claim to have concrete
evidence and/or proofs, which are shown to be unsound, often
incredibly so.

As for Mr. Wingate's counterchallenge:

>Perhaps we should challenge YOU to demonstrate that the proton exists....

It seems things are getting repetitive:

A: Demonstrate that God exists!

B: Demonstrate that the world is round!

A: The following sort of common-sense experiment will demonstrate
   that.  What about God, then?

B: Demonstrate that the proton exists!

It would seem that you should be able to make your point either by
reference to the round-earth argument or by reference to God, without
dragging in protons.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.