"Proof" God exists article by Rabbi - Deconstruction

[airborne]

Is there absolute proof that G–d exists?

by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

No. There is no absolute proof for anything at all. One of the conditions of intellect is that anything that can be intellectually proven can also be questioned. To put it another way, if it cannot be disproved, it is not an intellectual argument.

This “Principle of Falsification” was demonstrated by the great British philosopher, Karl Popper, and is generally accepted in scientific and philosophical circles today. It is also in consonance with the Talmudic position.

Furthermore, every intellectual argument requires axioms, which themselves cannot be proven. This was demonstrated in the 19th century by Karl F. Gauss, called by some the “greatest mathematician who ever lived,” who began to question the absoluteness of Euclid’s axioms. Later, in the 20th century, American mathematician Kurt G�del demonstrated logically that no system can be proven without evidence from beyond that system. His paper was hailed universally as one of the most outstanding contributions to mathematics and philosophy in history.

In sum: Human logic cannot prove anything absolutely. For absolute knowledge, you’ll have to find some other tool.

Nevertheless, the human mind can come to some very educated conclusions. Such as concluding that it is raining outside by going outside and getting wet in the rain. The possibility remains that our senses are lying to us, but we will always need to make some assumptions, if just to survive.

Often, we can assure ourselves with almost absolute certainty without even seeing the thing for ourselves. For example, by looking out the window and seeing the trees swaying we can assume that it is windy. By observing the lights going on, we can assume there is electricity in the wires. Or by bouncing electrons off of sub-microscopic objects, we can construct a working model of their form.

So too, the fact that there is a Primal Source for all that exists is one of the most evident facts there is. So is the fact that this Primal Source generates this world with design/intelligence.

The concept of a Primal Source relies on an axiom that all of science relies upon: the Principle of Explanation. This principle simply states that all phenomena must have an explanation. Science is the endeavor of discovering those explanations. Molecules are explained by the dynamics of atoms. Atoms are explained by the dynamics of their sub-particles. The sub-particles are explained by photons. Eventually, there must be an explanation for the existence of matter and energy.

Without this principle, not only would there be no science, there would be no human endeavor whatsoever. In everything we do, we rely on the assumption that each thing has an explanation, thereby providing us with a consistent universe to deal with. Imagine the confusion if everything just appeared as though it had suddenly arrived out of nowhere.

The Primal Source, then, is nothing more than the ultimate explanation for all that exists, the end of the chain.

What then, you ask, is the explanation for this Primal Source? But that is just the concept of a Primal Source: That there is something (if it can be called a “thing”) that does not require an explanation. Because otherwise we are really stuck: Either we surrender and say that there are things that do not require an explanation. Or we just say that the explanations go on and on ad infinitum—which really is the equivalent of saying that the cosmos as a whole has no explanation.

Instead, our alternative is to say that there is a Primal State of some sort that explains everything, including itself. How does it explain itself? Because it is infinite. Meaning it has no bounds or definition, no beginning or end.

- So nothing is absolute, except it being windy outside(but this is just an assumption?)

- No proof exists but then logical proof of God exists?

- God explains itself by being infinite? Why cant the universe explain itself by being infinite?(because logic doesn't exist?)

Edited June 27, 2007 by airborne

[Robert J. Kolker]

- So nothing is absolute, except it being windy outside(but this is just an assumption?)

- No proof exists but then logical proof of God exists?

- God explains itself by being infinite? Why cant the universe explain itself by being infinite?(because logic doesn't exist?)

Rabbi Tvi said:

Is there absolute proof that G–d exists?

by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

No. There is no absolute proof for anything at all. One of the conditions of intellect is that anything that can be intellectually proven can also be questioned. To put it another way, if it cannot be disproved, it is not an intellectual argument.

===================================================================================

He should have stopped right there. The rest of what he said is embarrassing.

Bob Kolker

[AisA]

Is there absolute proof that G–d exists?

by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

There is no absolute proof for anything at all.

If there is no absoute proof of anything at all, then there is no absoute proof that the Rabbi's statement is true. Why then, dear Rabbi, do you state it with such certainty?

[RichardParker]

The essence of Rabbi Tzvi Freeman’s argument is that because he has no absolute knowledge, he can be certain that God exists. In other words, his knowledge of God’s existence rests on his claim of ignorance. A claim to some form of knowledge (such as God’s existence) that starts with an admission of ignorance and that there is no such thing as knowledge is such a monstrous absurdity that it deserves little more than to be recognized for what it is and should be dismissed.

[Robert J. Kolker]

If there is no absoute proof of anything at all, then there is no absoute proof that the Rabbi's statement is true. Why then, dear Rabbi, do you state it with such certainty?

There is no absolute empirical proof for general statements where the domain of the statement variable is infinite or indefinite. For example try proving all crows are black. Every crow that is, ever was or will be. There is no way of exhausting the domain of the statement. How would one know if the domain has been exhausted, even if finite? Fortunately falsification of a universally quantified statement -is- possible. One need only produce a single counterexample. Absolute proof is impossible, highly probable refutation is possible.

On the other hand particular statement which pertain to the world can be corroberated (or refuted) empirically. But some observations involves instruments which can have errors, so any conclusions drawn can be highly probable but not certain. Furthermore any observation involving an instrument assumes an underlying theory of the instrument (so-called theory ladeness). Let us take a simple example. Measuring the length of an object. So you apply a ruler to it. But if you move the object or the ruler, the possibility exists that applying a force has stressed either the object or the ruler and changed its length. The assumption of rigidity is precisely that, it is an assumption. Any alterations due to stresses are small. So if you bracket the measurements in an interval you can be rather confident of the measurement falling within the interval. More complicated instruments require more complicated theories and hypotheses underlying their operation. As things stand, the best instruments used in physics are fifteen orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length so there is a degree of uncertainty in the use of instruments. This is independent of quantum uncertainty which is another issue. Certain pairs of observables cannot both be resolved to arbitrary precision. For example, position and velocity. But this is a matter for another discussion.

On the other hand mathematical results are absolute, but they are abstract and have no referents in the real world. For example nowhere in the world will you find points, lines, circles etc, nor will you find numbers. These are all abstract and live strictly in the intellect. You can be absolutely certain that Euclid's postulates including the parallel postulate imply that the sum of angles in a triangle (which lives in your head) add up to pi radians.

Assertions involving G-D have the infelicitous property of being empirically meaningless. So they are neither provable nor disprovable, neither true nor false in the empirical sense. Of things which have no real referents one can say anything. One can say anything about nonsense. It won't make the nonsense any the less nonsense.

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

Robert, I don't think there is any value in arguing with you over your misunderstanding of such notions as "proof", "knowledge" and "truth", but for anyone who happens to see this particular collection of exemplars of epistemological nihilism, especially on a forum which is dedicated to Ayn Rand's philosophy, I wish to make it clear that the above statements, which really epitomise the primacy of consciousness approach, are dimetrically opposed to and show no evidence of knowledge or consideration of Objectivism.

[Capitalism Forever]

Added quotes around "Proof" in title to reflect that you don't agree with the rabbi's position. (A post that agreed with it would have to be in the Debate Forum.)

[AisA]

There is no absolute empirical proof for general statements where the domain of the statement variable is infinite or indefinite. For example try proving all crows are black. Every crow that is, ever was or will be. There is no way of exhausting the domain of the statement. How would one know if the domain has been exhausted, even if finite?

This is the synthetic part of the analytic-synthetic fallacy. It rests on the notion that the arbitrary qualifies as the possible, such that no matter what observations one makes, it can always be speculated that the next observation will contradict -- and therefore refute -- the previous observations.

Because a white crow can be asserted as a possibility, no one can be certain that all crows are black. Because a cat giving birth to puppies can be asserted as a possibility, no one can be certain that cats only give birth to kittens.

Thus, the arbitrary is used to invalidate one half of man’s reasoning ability: induction.

On the other hand mathematical results are absolute, but they are abstract and have no referents in the real world. For example nowhere in the world will you find points, lines, circles etc, nor will you find numbers. These are all abstract and live strictly in the intellect. You can be absolutely certain that Euclid's postulates including the parallel postulate imply that the sum of angles in a triangle (which lives in your head) add up to pi radians.

And here we have the analytical part of the fallacy. Absolute certainty is possible, but only when the propositions have no referents “in the real world.” We can reason from abstractions to “results”, i.e. we can reason from generalizations to specifics, but only when the entities involved “live in our head”.

So here we finish the job by arbitrarily banning from reality the other half of man's reasoning ability: deduction.

That completes our task of invalidating human cognition. Global warming and global religion, you have a go for your mission. Next stop: the destruction of man.