Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44:00
> e>And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesi
> e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.
> He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It
> multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand t
> It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.
You're absolutely right and I agree with you completely.
If you define God as a metaphysical thing, then his existence can neither be
proven nor disproven by science. My mistake was in assuming that, by testing
the existence of God with this scientific process, he was keeping the
experiment fair by allowing for the possibility of physical proof, defining God
as a being with physical properties. Looking back it seems he was not defining
God in this way, as many of his other statements would fail to make sense if he
defined God as anything but a metaphysical concept.
In fact, looking back upon it, it seems that a lot of what he said is very
confusing. He describes a paradox in which God can only be God if he is a
metaphysical, faith-only, unprovable being, so if you set out to prove God's
existence and *found* physical proof, you would unseat God from the realm of
metaphysics therefore proving him not to be God. Then he turns around and says
that a lack of physical proof is somehow a disproof of a metaphysical God, when
if God was metaphysical there couldn't possibly be physical proof.
> It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.
This would only be true if we all agreed to define "God" as a wholly
metaphysical thing. One possible source of confusion here is that we don't all
believe, or disbelieve, in the same concept of God.
echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230
---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
|
