Proof of G-d

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
Harry33Truman's picture
A technicality,

A technicality,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's picture
Come on, stop being

Come on, stop being mealymouthed, what gas is evaporating? Alcohol! If we were to be really picky then we could say that alcohol gas is not flammable UNLESS oxygen is present and there is a heat source.
**First post so sorry it`s confrontational**

Harry33Truman's picture
A fact that cannot be true in

A fact that cannot be true in any other circumstance than that the conclusion is true. For example; I say that alcohol is flammable, you say it isn't, so I throw a match into a bottle of alcohol and it lights on fire. Alcohol cannot light on fire unless it is flammable, therefor this is proof that alcohol is flammable.
Likewise; the Torah makes claims of mass revelation, so I set about proving that these claims could not have came into existence other than that they are true. Which would constitute proof.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Harry Truman

@ Harry Truman

But there is a major difference in the definition of proof that you just gave, and how you use the word in previous claims.

For example where you said that 3 million people heard god speak at the sermon on the mount, and you gave a video of a rabbi arguing for this as "proof".

The definition you just gave is testable, repeatable and can be used to predict what will happen. An argument based on texts that describe supernatural events that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, is very far from that level of proof.

Are you using different meanings for the word "proof" in different contexts?

Nyarlathotep's picture
There is actually a

There is actually a difference in the way he uses proof inside the same post!

He describes a logical/mathematical proof (a formal proof), then proceeds to give an example that is not a formal proof. You might notice his example does not remove all possibilities that the matter in question is false.

Harry33Truman's picture
"He describes a logical

"He describes a logical/mathematical proof (a formal proof), then proceeds to give an example that is not a formal proof. You might notice his example does not remove all possibilities that the matter in question is false."

Unless you can either provide a different way that the mass revelation could have been introduced or prove that one of the others is possible, my point still stands

mykcob4's picture

He says that 3 million people were present at the time of the sermon on the mount? Impossible. At the supposed time no civilization was concentrated enough to even reach 1 million, let alone 3. The biggest civilization in the world at the time was probably an Aztec city or Inca city and they didn't even approach 1 million. Bagdad was the earliest known super sized city that only reached about 700,000 in 73 AD. If there even was a sermon on the mount it could not have reached anywhere close to 3 million, not even 30,000. More like 10 or 12 people, possibly triple digits at most, but that is doubtful.

Harry33Truman's picture
The argument deals with

The argument deals with deductive reasoning, so the texts don't have to be assumed true for the argument to work. You can disprove it by providing a way that the belief in a mass revelation could have been introduced other than that it really happened.

Nyarlathotep's picture
First off, you can't disprove

First off, you can't disprove proofs (the kind you discussed earlier); once something is proved, it can NEVER be false. You can however attack proposed proofs. (show how it is not a proof).
How to account for a mass revelation? Easy: the possibility it never happened.

Dave Matson's picture
Mr. Truman,

Mr. Truman,

The burden of proof is on your shoulders, Harry. You haven't ruled out folklore, and you can't begin to rule it out until you actually discus evidence relating to it. It takes but a few strokes of a pen for an author to claim that millions of people witnessed some event. The account might be some version of folklore or it might just be made up from whole cloth. It could be an enhanced version of some myth. Since you haven't ruled any of these alternatives out, you have no proof.

You give us this convoluted, incomplete, cryptic "definition" of a proof. Are you talking about...

1) A purely deductive argument whose axioms are givens (neither true nor false)? If so, you can say nothing about the real world. The only thing you can do is tease out consequences of those axioms, meaning that you cannot escape from that system of logic.

2) A deductive argument based on axioms that supposedly hold in the real world? If so, you have to prove that those axioms do, in fact, constitute a good model for reality. Then, you have to show that your argument is valid.

3) An inductive argument along the lines of scientific reasoning? If so, where is your evidence? Convince us that your conclusion based on that evidence is the best conclusion presently available.

If you haven't followed one of these routes, then you haven't proven anything! Don't give us some bastardized form of "proof."

ThePragmatic's picture
No reply?

No reply, Mr Truman?

Harry33Truman's picture
To what?

To what?

ThePragmatic's picture
To my previous post, above.
Dave Matson's picture
Mr. Truman,

Mr. Truman,

Your definition is very confusing. You seem to be saying that a conclusion is a fact if all other reasonable explanations can be ruled out. But that is not a good definition in that the conclusion itself may still be false. (The actual explanation might be something unexpected.) Consider rewriting "A fact that cannot be true..." to make it less confusing. (Facts are always assumed to be true in that they have passed reasonable tests.) Define "other circumstance" which is not clearly spelled out. As it stands, your definition is too cryptic.

Yes, your test would show that alcohol is flammable if it ignited, but the test is not definitive in that the match might just fizzle out under various circumstances. I.e., if the alcohol does not ignite then that doesn't mean it is not alcohol.

Harry33Truman's picture
The fact and conclusion are

The fact and conclusion are two different things. Like my analogy of alcohol, you would conclude that alcohol is flammable since the other option (not flammable) can be ruled out. This is normally how doctors diagnose illness and how scientists make conclusions about data.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's picture
Perhaps you should post some

Perhaps you should post some proof to this then?

"Read the tenets on their site. They are far more like Jesus than 98% of Christianity."

ThePragmatic's picture
Hmm, that was in the thread

Hmm, that was in the thread about The Satanic Temple. Did you manage to make some sort of cross post?
I'll write an answer in that topic.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's picture
No really a cross post, just

No really a cross post, just trying to find common ground on proof, you asked the OP about proof but in another thread said "..98% of christians." level playing field and all that my friend.

ThePragmatic's picture
Ah, I see. I like that!

Ah, I see. I like that! Thanks for clarifying.
When I catch myself making claims that I can't substantiate, I find it infuriating. So I like that I get challenged, so to speak.

I'm guilty of making a claim that is largely based on subjective interpretation (Bad Pragmatic! Bad! - I will try to better myself). But it is subjective interpretation from the collective impression of the commonly portrayed image of Jesus, in a way: What most people wishes that Christians would be like, including Christians themselves.
And subjective interpretation from the collective impression of The Satanic Temple, from those who don't dismiss them because of their provocative name but instead see what they do.

As for the available proof:

I'm talking about what TST stands for and their actions, as such there is available proof mainly from news. By doing a google search for "The Satanic Temple news" and scrolling through the articles, a lot of news stories can be found. They have headquarters in several different cities in the US now and it's fully possible to go and check them out.

I'm also talking about what Christians often claim to stand for and their actions. Sure, some are good, tolerant, kind, people. But many threaten, mistreat, repress or discriminate others. They claim to want to protect life by making abortion illegal, while ignoring the 25,000 children under five that die each day (non-Christian children of course). And they can do this while proselytizing for "coming to Jesus". They also collectively ignore the atrocities of their own clergy, in the form of doctrines against homosexuals, contraceptives, etc. But even worse, they ignore the massive sexual abuse of children happening in all over the world that clergy and practitioners are guilty of.
(Note: I'm not saying that only Christianity and Christians does this. Other religions are just as bad.)

There is a constant flood of news showing both what I've mentioned about TST and Christianity (as long as you don't just watch Fox News).

Mr Truman on the other hand, is making claims of the kind that 3 million people heard god speak at the sermon on the mount. And for this he gives a video, of a person making an argument for that this actually happened.

It's a ridiculous claim on so many levels, but it is also a supernatural claim. As such the evidence required is even higher than to show that there where actually 3 million people gathered in a tight enough space to be able to be there, 2000 years ago.

That one guy's picture
So I had this friend in high

So I had this friend in high school, he said he went out to the desert with his Lamborghini (which I've never seen yet he maintained he was a secret millionaire un-ironically) and totaled it in a street race because the wheels caught fire and he spun out after wining the race. He said this was a big street racing event where hundreds of people saw. Apparently they were mostly in college so none of the people went to our high school so I couldn't ask them about it. By your logic just cause he said people saw it that means he really did do all that. There is no way he could have made that up because some people he said were there that saw it. Well shit. Maybe I should give him a call and keep in touch cause if he really is secretly super rich he'll buy me car just cause. On top of that he is a bad ass street racer and all that.
P.S. He said he's bought cars for people before too.

Dave Matson's picture
The notion that 3 million

The notion that 3 million people (Truman's estimate based on 600,000 fighting men) lived in the Sinai at Kadesh-Barnea for nearly 38 years is patently absurd. Respectable archaeologists laugh at the thought; today the evidence is such that serious archaeologists view the whole Exodus thing--along with Moses--as folklore.

One reason for rejecting the Exodus is the dramatic lack of evidence. Three million people would have matched the population of Los Angeles in the mid-1980s! Imagine the Los Angeles of the mid-1980s transported to Kadesh-Barnea in the Sinai, carrying on daily life there for nearly 38 years. It doesn't take a degree in archaeology to realize that huge trash dumps filled with animal bones and broken pottery, a million or more graves of those who were not permitted to enter the promised land, the foundations of thousands of mud and brick houses, a persistent scattering of lost metal items, and other debris would have been left behind. Yet, a determined search by Israeli archaeologists has turned up NOTHING. How can you lose a "Los Angeles?"

A second reason for rejecting the Sinai adventure is a total lack of resources. Again, imagine Los Angeles in the Sinai without its modern infrastructure, a place where nothing will grow (Numbers 20:5). The biblical wildernesses (read "deserts") of Shur, Paran, Sin, and Zin constitute most of the Sinai. There are no pastures for the herds of sheep, goats, and cattle that the Israelites brought with them. Except for an occasional oasis, hardly enough for 3 million people plus their herds, there was no water. Los Angeles survives in a much wetter (but still dry) environment by extending aqueducts all the way to the Colorado River and more distant places in Northern California. But food was no problem; God supposedly sent down manna every morning except on the Sabbath. (Scholars know that the Sabbath was not a big deal back then, so this account reflects a later view of the Sabbath.) Where did they get all that wood over the years to perform the millions of sacrifices so necessary for personal sins and other reasons? Care to calculate how many sacrifices per hour was needed to service 3 million people? They probably couldn't throw the meat on the altar fast enough!

A third reason for rejecting the Sinai adventure (with its ensuing conquest) is that archaeologists have turned up stunning evidence to show that the Israelites originated in situ as scattered villages in the highlands of Canaan. Apparently, they diverged peacefully from the general Canaanite population and took up a new identity in the highlands. No conquest, no Exodus!

A fourth reason for rejecting the idea that 3 million people were involved in the Exodus is that, in other passages, those numbers are plainly absurd. Exodus 24:14 has Moses informing his people that, while he was on the mountain, all disputes should be handled by Aaron and Hur. Shall we do a few calculations, assuming that 800,000 of the 3 million had the legal standing to make a dispute? If an Israelite had only one dispute each year, and if Aaron and Hur spent 16 hours a day doing nothing but hearing these cases, those two guys would each be handling something like 68 cases per hour! Then there is Exodus 32:26 which has Moses at the gate of the camp yelling at the people, saying that everyone on the LORD's side should come over to where he was. Try yelling instructions at the people of Los Angeles from the steps of city hall, even on a quiet holiday! Obviously, we are dealing with a small tribe where a good shout could reach all. Leviticus 8:3 is another winner. The whole community is called together at the entrance of the tent of God's presence! In Numbers 20:10 the whole community is assembled in front of a rock! If we assume that each person on the average took up 4 square feet, standing room only, then a hemi-spherical gathering would put those guys in the rear a HALF MILE AWAY!

Edward T. Babinski ("Leaving The Fold") estimated that a camp holding 1.4 million people would be 12 miles in diameter. For 3 million people that would bring the diameter to 17.5 miles. Now, in Deuteronomy 23:12-14, the Israelites are instructed to set up their potty outside of the camp. So, if your tent is near the center of the camp, and if you have to poop one night, it's a 17.5 mile round trip to that designated potty area! That goes for women and children too, so if two of mommy's kids need to take a poop at different times one night, that means a 35 mile hike! Obviously, this rule was not made for 3 million Israelites! In all these examples we are dealing with a small tribe a few thousand strong at best.

curtisabass's picture
Excellent summation.

Excellent summation.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.