Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Can It Be Shown That God

    Uploaded by

    michaelsifeldeen
    The document discusses whether the existence of God or an ultimate reality can be proven. It argues that [1] science and religion are mutually exclusive when it comes to proving or disproving the existence of God, as religion relies on faith which is impervious to scientific evidence. It also argues that [2] specific religious claims like those of Christianity cannot be proven as they rely on circular reasoning and lack independent evidence. Finally, it argues that [3] the general concept of "God" is an arbitrary assertion that is neither provable nor falsifiable based on available evidence and logic, so the question of whether an ultimate reality exists cannot be definitively answered yes or no.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Can It Be Shown That God

    Uploaded by

    michaelsifeldeen
    50 views5 pages
    The document discusses whether the existence of God or an ultimate reality can be proven. It argues that [1] science and religion are mutually exclusive when it comes to proving or disproving the existence of God, as religion relies on faith which is impervious to scientific evidence. It also argues that [2] specific religious claims like those of Christianity cannot be proven as they rely on circular reasoning and lack independent evidence. Finally, it argues that [3] the general concept of "God" is an arbitrary assertion that is neither provable nor falsifiable based on available evidence and logic, so the question of whether an ultimate reality exists cannot be definitively answered yes or no.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses whether the existence of God or an ultimate reality can be proven. It argues that [1] science and religion are mutually exclusive when it comes to proving or disproving the existence of God, as religion relies on faith which is impervious to scientific evidence. It also argues that [2] specific religious claims like those of Christianity cannot be proven as they rely on circular reasoning and lack independent evidence. Finally, it argues that [3] the general concept of "God" is an arbitrary assertion that is neither provable nor falsifiable based on available evidence and logic, so the question of whether an ultimate reality exists cannot be definitively answered yes or no.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views5 pages

    Can It Be Shown That God

    Uploaded by

    michaelsifeldeen
    The document discusses whether the existence of God or an ultimate reality can be proven. It argues that [1] science and religion are mutually exclusive when it comes to proving or disproving the existence of God, as religion relies on faith which is impervious to scientific evidence. It also argues that [2] specific religious claims like those of Christianity cannot be proven as they rely on circular reasoning and lack independent evidence. Finally, it argues that [3] the general concept of "God" is an arbitrary assertion that is neither provable nor falsifiable based on available evidence and logic, so the question of whether an ultimate reality exists cannot be definitively answered yes or no.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Can it be shown that God (or some ultimate reality)

    exists?

    Mike Sifeldeen (I.D. #1187816)

    The one universal of every human culture throughout history is a

    concern with the existence or nonexistence of the Ultimate. As per the

    guidelines of the paper, I would like to focus this essay on what is

    undoubtedly the religion most well-known and understood to most

    Canadians: Christianity. I will attempt to outline the difficulty in

    combating religious argumentation with scientific rebuttal, and then

    attempt to provide a common logical groundwork on which to decide if

    the question of a god or god’s existence is actually reducible to a

    ‘yes/no’ statement. Specifically, I will start out by describing how

    science and faith are seemingly mutually exclusive realms in the

    matter, and using either framework to attempt to prove or disprove the

    premise of the existence of a god or ultimate reality is an ultimately

    fruitless endeavor. Then we will look at the very root logic of the

    matter and I will show how, depending on the definition of ‘god’ that

    we are using, the question of whether or not an ultimate reality exists

    yields two disparate answers.


    As any good scientist knows, it is impossible to prove, only to

    disprove. For example, it has always been that water freezes at 0°

    Celsius. To say “Water freezes at 0°” is a fact or a ‘scientific theory’,

    and means that it has withstood repeated, rigorous testing and has

    always shown itself to be true. One day, however, if water does not

    freeze at the predicted temperature of 0°, but instead at 1°, that theory

    would be disproven and science will happily take itself back to the

    drawing board to develop a more accurate theory. Science can always

    change or alter its views on a particular phenomena based on newly

    acquired evidence. That said, religion has at its disposal a trump card

    of sorts against science: faith. Faith has the unique property of being

    impervious to reason, and this is where the quandary of Science vs.

    Religion begins. Science stays firmly on its side of the fence dealing

    exclusively with the natural world. Conflict only ensues when religion,

    not satisfied with the color of the grass on its side of the fence

    (namely, the side of the supernatural), tries to overstep its boundaries

    and dabble in the attempted explanation of natural phenomena. A

    scientist would ask that religion and faith remain in the supernatural

    world and leave the natural world to the experts. A person of faith

    would then reply that the very properties of nature that the scientist is

    able to quantify and describe are the properties put in place by God. It

    becomes easy then – just as the scientist can alter their views based
    on new evidence – for the person of faith to backtrack from science

    and claim that “God did it”.

    In regards to the logical problems of the existence of an ultimate

    reality, we must first define whether we are talking about an

    established religion like Christianity’s “God”, or simply the premise of

    “god”. Let us discuss the former first, as it is the easiest to dispute.

    There literally is no evidence for the existence of Yahweh, YHWH, G-d,

    etc. at all. Using the Christian and/or Hebrew bible to verify the claims

    made by the Christian and/or Hebrew bible is not verifying anything at

    all, and is simply engaging in circular reasoning to try and validate an

    opinion when no other evidence exist. Additionally, when the Christian

    claims that his god is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,

    etc., this can be refuted plainly based on the lack of a common ground

    of comparison for such claims, as “Comparisons presuppose

    standards… and just as there is no significant class of comparison that

    includes [for example] ball-point pens and tennis players, there is no

    significant class of comparison that includes everything.” (Kessler 90)

    A proponent of the Christian religion gives no credence to the truth-

    value of the claims that Thor, or Allah, or Gilgamesh is the one “true”

    God, despite the “evidence” each has in their own holy books. The

    Christian will respond with “Well, prove that my God doesn’t exist”, but

    this too is a copout of sorts. It ignores the Burden of Proof, which


    states that the person making the assertion must prove his claim, not

    the other way around. But this argument should be no surprise to the

    Christian, because he engages in its very reasoning when he claims

    that his Christian god is the “God.” As Stephen Roberts famously put

    it, “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god

    than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other

    possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    As for the general premise of “god”, the logical point here is that

    the claim that a god exists is arbitrary. Arbitrary statements are

    neither true nor false; they are like the division by zero error of logic.

    They hold no logical basis and therefore are less than false, but rather

    inherently improvable on their face. They are referred to in logic as

    the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium, or the appeal to ignorance.

    For example, take the statement “There exists an invisible pink unicorn

    on the dark side of the moon. Disprove this.” Proof is a logical concept

    and logic requires valid deductions from valid generalizations and

    observations. When there is no generalization or observation, and no

    deduction to be had, the concepts of proof or logic do not apply. There

    is no evidence to support the invisible pink unicorn claim, the assertion

    it makes is arbitrary, and it is neither supported nor contradicted by

    any evidence because it states nothing. It is therefore meaningless to

    debate such an assertion. The point of this analysis is that, if it is


    reasonable to dismiss certain assumptions like the existence of pink

    unicorns on the moon, and to deny the validity of any supernatural

    being besides your own, it is therefore unreasonable to hold belief in

    any deity which follows the same theme of being untestable and

    therefore unfalsifiable.

    It is clear, then, that while science and religion will eternally be

    at odds with each other about the validity of their respective belief

    systems, logically-speaking, the question of whether it can be shown

    that God or some ultimate reality exists can at best be answered with

    “it is impossible to know”, or when speaking of culturally-specific

    “Gods”, rightfully “no”.

    (1081 words)

    You might also like