Posted by Heisenberg on March 04, 1999 at 01:36:12:
In Reply to: Another response posted by Carlos on March 03, 1999 at 11:18:45:
: Wrong, wrong, wrong - the burden of proof is on you, the believer, since you are the one asserting the existence of God. See the link below. Atheism/agnosticism doesn't purport to "prove" that God doesn't exist - it is merely a lack of belief in deity.
Fortunately for Carlos' sake, he's right on this point; by the rules of science or jurisprudence, the burden of proof would be on us, "the believers." I say "fortunately" because I think it is a truism that "you can't prove a negative," so he'd be hard pressed to prove that there is no God. It truly is the ultimate null hypothesis, isn't it? "God does not exist." But on the other hand, could we, believers, PROVE that there is a God? I shudder to think what kind of sample one would need to get a sufficiently small "p" on that one! However, I think our challenge is equally daunting. Personally, I don't think it is possible to prove that God exists with the tools that we have now. But at the same time I don't think it is necessary. I know it may sound trite to the former believers, but part of the purpose in life is to exercise faith in God even though we have no proof, "for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."
I think there are many evidences of God; for me, the most persuasive is that the evolution of ever more sophisticated and intelligent life forms seems to run counter to the second law of thermodynamics. Why is there more "order" when in fact, without external influence, there should be more chaos. But is that hard "proof?" No, just an intuitive feeling on my part.
If you'll pardon a rather poor analogy: Can you prove that love exists? You can only show the effects of love, which could readily be attributed to other emotions. And yet, we all "know" what love is, because we have felt its influence. You can choose to believe in love or not; personally, I choose to believe. I know that many would argue that my "feelings" are less valid than those concepts I can grasp by my powers of reason and logic. But I beg to differ. Is my grasp of calculus more valid than the feelings I have when I hold my wife or children in my arms? I can prove the limit theorem, but I cannot "prove" that I love my wife or my children. But is my knowledge or conviction of that love less than my conviction that Messrs. Newton and Leibnitz were right? I think not.
I can't prove there is a God, but I know that He exists because I feel His influence. Call me sentimental, "hokey," or naive if you wish.
- Heisenberg