"I know" and "I can prove it"

[El Greco]

Several people seem to think that it is not correct to refer to the nonexistence of God in an absolute way. If I say "God does not exist" someone will chime in and ask me to prove it. I am not talking about when God's existence is the main topic of discussion; any tangential reference to this subject will raise complaints if one is not careful enough to prefix said phrase with "I believe that..." or "In my opinion...".

Yet, we daily refer to things we "know" as if they were facts, though we cannot prove them. We say that we love people. We say that tomorrow the sun will rise. We say that elves don't exist. And we accept a lot of other things as given though we cannot prove or disprove them beyond doubt.

It seems to me that the only thing that dictates a modification in the way we express ourselves when it comes to God, is the fact that a large percentage of the population believes in him. Yet, should the expression of my "belief" in God's nonexistence in an outright way be perceived as a disrespect to other people's beliefs ? Don't I have the right to express myself in a categorical way ?

Tersely put, do you think it is "politically correct" to say "God doesn't exist" without any prefixes ?

Likewise, isn't it correct to say "I know that God does not exist" ? Why does the "I know" prefix have to mean that I have to prove my assertion ? As far as I am concerned it may just mean that I live my life as if I could prove it.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

Academician Prokhor Zakharov
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

 

[Humphreys]

I think it's reasonable to say we "know" something is true if we can argue why it's extremely likely the thing is true. We can't do this with god. We just can't know with any certainty whether or not he exists.

You are wrong to say you know there is no god, but it's reasonable and you wouldn't find many objections to your claim that elves don't exist, I think.

Elves are totally unnecessary for one thing, and we'd at least expect there to be evidence for their existence.

We can make a decent argument that the same can't be said for god.

 

[Quixote]

Unless you are in a theocracy, it is not politically incorrect, in any reasonable sense of that phrase, to say "God does not exist".

However, given the emotional investment that most theists have in their belief, it would be rude to just drop "God does not exist" into casual conversation. If you need to counter an assertion that God does exist, wouldn't it be enough to just point out that there is no proof of the existence of God and that any conclusion based on God's existence is suspect?

 

[Keneke]

I think it's reasonable to say we "know" something is true if we can argue why it's extremely likely the thing is true. We can't do this with god. We just can't know with any certainty whether or not he exists.

I disagree. The only way we know elves do not exist is from leaping the intuitive gap. You just can't prove a negative. The only differences between elves and God is that religion is intellectually protected by man's shared psychological defenses, such as fear of death or a need for authority.

Elves are so much easier to dismiss because they no longer serve to fill in our gaps. Nowadays, God does that. However, such dependency upon the concept of God has no relevancy upon the likelihood of his existence.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Please stop saying that it's impossible to prove a negative!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is it okay to say that you can't prove a negative in the general case?

I think we can all assume that every remark anyone ever makes is implicitly prefixed with "I think ..." or "In my opinion ...". What else could the person possibly mean?

~~ Paul

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, because it's still not true! Proving a universal negative existent is virtually impossible, and that's the closest that particular phrase can come to being correct.

 

[Humphreys]

I disagree. The only way we know elves do not exist is from leaping the intuitive gap.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Elves are a human idea; there is no evidence for their existence and no reason to believe they exist.

The same can't be said for god, in my opinion.

You just can't prove a negative. The only differences between elves and God is that religion is intellectually protected by man's shared psychological defenses, such as fear of death or a need for authority.

Elves are so much easier to dismiss because they no longer serve to fill in our gaps.

You said the only difference is psychological, but in the next sentence you give another difference. Elves don't fill in any gaps; the idea serves no purpose.

Yes, it's an argument from ignorance, but it's still reasonable to say the gaps in our knowledge might not be filled without throwing god into the equation.

Nowadays, God does that. However, such dependency upon the concept of God has no relevancy upon the likelihood of his existence.

If god fills gaps which seem impossible to bridge otherwise, it has a big advantage over elves which offer nothing.

 

[Humphreys]

I'd just like to add that I don't actually believe a god exists, in case you got the wrong idea.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wrath said:
No, because it's still not true! Proving a universal negative existent is virtually impossible, and that's the closest that particular phrase can come to being correct.

I think we agree. By "general case" I meant "universal." But what do you mean by "negative exitent"? Maybe that's what I don't understand.

~~ Paul

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It's not practically possible to experimentally demonstrate that a thing doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. We can do so logically, of course.

I've noticed when people say "you can't prove a negative", the idea they're trying to express is "ruling out the existence of something by failing to find it is extremely difficult".

 

[Quixote]

Elves are a human idea; there is no evidence for their existence and no reason to believe they exist.

The same can't be said for god, in my opinion.

How is your statement less true about gods than it is about elves?

 

[Keneke]

Elves are a human idea; there is no evidence for their existence and no reason to believe they exist

The same can't be said for god, in my opinion.

Nah, gods are a human invention as well. And perhaps elves are a bad example. Think gremlins! Or whatever fantastical creature may explain something in the world.

 

[Humphreys]

How is your statement less true about gods than it is about elves?

Many people claim to have communicated with god and believe he has had an impact on their lives. There's reason to believe there might be a creator because there is a creation (the Universe). Elves are entirely a human idea whereas many people instinctively or naturally feel that a god exists (not sure I've used the best choice of words there).

Not at all compelling reasons to believe god exists, but at least there is something; not so with elves.

Nah, gods are a human invention as well. And perhaps elves are a bad example. Think gremlins! Or whatever fantastical creature may explain something in the world.

I don't think gremlins fill in any gaps and are obviously unnecessary.

Got a better example?

I know it's a bit cliche, but try to think outside the box more. Gremlins and dragons and elves and pixies and Santa Claus are all supposed to exist within our Universe; we'd expect to be able to understand them, and we'd expect them to obey our laws and leave a trail of evidence to show they exist. It's entirely reasonable to say they almost certainly don't.

But god is supposed to be the creator of everything you see; creator of the gremlins, creator of time, our laws, everything. He would exist outside our Universe and all we know and see.

How anyone can say with any confidence he doesn't exist, or that the Universe wasn't created, is beyond me.

And I'm an Atheist.

 

[Powa]

How anyone can say with any confidence he doesn't exist, or that the Universe wasn't created, is beyond me.

[BS]In my opinion, God was tinkering with something when Universe blew in his face, killing him. So he existed at one time but is now dead.[/BS]

 

[Powa]

Originally said by Verbal/Keyser Soze
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Substitute "devil" with "God". Food for thought


I'm an atheist, btw.

 

[epepke]

When people say "I know," I think it refers to the state of an idea in a person's brain. I can't define this, as I don't even know how ideas are represented in brains. However, we all know what it means to know something and can pretty much agree on that.

Something someone knows might not even be true, let alone provable. It's still knowledge.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

A person can be convinced of anything. Claiming knowledge requires higher evaluative standards.

 

[Powa]

Something someone knows might not even be true, let alone provable. It's still knowledge.

So, by this standard even astrology is knowledge?