Dragaera

The Religion Debate

David Silberstein davids at kithrup.com
Wed Nov 27 20:33:15 PST 2002

On 27 Nov 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>David Silberstein <davids at kithrup.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andrew Bailey wrote:
 
>> >"If Gods existance was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt ,
>> >tomorrow, how would that affect you?" 

>> Well, I guess my response would be "What sort of god, and what sort
>> of proof?" 

>A proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt".  That is, you aren't allowed to
>argue about that part. 
>

Hey, let 'em try and stop me.  :-)  Proof is exactly what I'd want to
argue about!

In that vein, I had another thought:  Just as it impossible to prove
the negative (that God does not exist), it's also impossible to prove
God's existence *if* you define God as being the absolute infinite,
because you could always posit that there's always more levels up.

So for example, let's say that tomorrow, geneticists find that encoded
in the genes of every living thing on earth is a sequence that decodes
to "Intelligent Designer Wuz Here", thus proving that evolution had a
bit of a boost.  Theists, of course, will crow that proof of God's
existence has been found!

Not so fast, comes back the response of the militant agnostics.  All
you have is the Intelligent Designer.  You don't yet have any proof
that this entity has anything to do with the creation of the earth,
let alone the creation of the entire universe.  You certainly don't
have any proof that this being's character has anything in common with
the God of the Bible.  How do you know the I.D. isn't just an
extremely powerful alien entity? 

And so on.  For any entity that is proven to exist, there's the
counterargument, "Who created that entity?"  And I don't see how the
proof could be made that that entity existed eternally, because
eternity is a long, long time.  How can you prove that an entity is
eternal unless you are eternal as well?