Originally posted by twhitehead
It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or yo ...[text shortened]... vely creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.

I am an atheist.

However, all proofs (including so-called scientific proofs) are based upon unproven premises which are assumed to be true because they are "self-evident". (If not self-evident, then they are arbitrary and/or provisional: in any case, they remain unproven.)

This is because all proofs are finite: if they weren't, the conclusion would never be reached and nothing could be proven. The proofs begin with premises, and those premises are unproven. Those premises might be provable by additional/expanded proofs, but those additional/expanded proofs would then rely on other, unproven premises.

It's important to understand the philosophical basis for (and limitations of) reason in assessing the foundations of science.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I am an atheist.

However, all proofs (including so-called scientific proofs) are based upon unproven premises which are assumed to be true because they are "self-evident". (If not self-evident, then they are arbitrary and/or provisional: in any case, they remain unproven.)

This is because all proofs are finite: if they weren't, the conclusion woul philosophical basis for (and limitations of) reason in assessing the foundations of science.

Do you mean “self-evident” in the sense of—

(a) obvious to the most casual (or even an expert) observer? or

(b) the denial of which results in a logical contradiction?

What exactly do you mean by “proof”? Upon what kind of proof does the law of gravity depend?

Originally posted by knightmeister
My view of other religions making similar claims is fair play to them. If a muslim has a strong experience of God's love and presence with them then cool.

It is not clear, but I think you are admitting that your experience does not directly imply your beliefs. In other words you realize that it is quite possible that a large percentage of your beliefs could be wrong even if your experience is valid. You say Christianity is in your view the best 'fit' but that may be simply because you haven yet heard about the correct religion.

Islam (as an example) is not a religion where God comes alongside man and dwells with him as lover and friend. Islam seems to me to be the religion where God is revered and worshipped "on high" as a remote deity , not a loving father who draws near.
I hope you realize that your understanding of Islam is almost certainly incorrect to a very high degree. If I, who grew up as a Christian in a Christian family and society can have such incorrect views of your beliefs - as you repeatedly tell me - then you, who has never been a Muslim probably know less about the faith than I do about Christianity.
I must say that the Muslims I know changed my views about Islam.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I am an atheist.

However, all proofs (including so-called scientific proofs) are based upon unproven premises which are assumed to be true because they are "self-evident". (If not self-evident, then they are arbitrary and/or provisional: in any case, they remain unproven.)

This is because all proofs are finite: if they weren't, the conclusion woul ...[text shortened]... philosophical basis for (and limitations of) reason in assessing the foundations of science.

I agree. As a mathematician I try to avoid the use of the word proof with regards to reality, and in fact have said in this thread that I am not talking about proof.
I am also not talking about the strict 'scientific method'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not clear, but I think you are admitting that your experience does not directly imply your beliefs. In other words you realize that it is quite possible that a large percentage of your beliefs could be wrong even if your experience is valid. You say Christianity is in your view the best 'fit' but that may be simply because you haven yet heard about ...[text shortened]... n I do about Christianity.
I must say that the Muslims I know changed my views about Islam.

Christianity is indeed the best fit for my experience and although my knowledge of Islam is not complete I am not aware of it teaching about the direct presence of the Holy Spirit of God with men in anything like the detail that Christianity does. I am also unaware of Mohammed preaching that he would be "with us and in us" via the Holy Spirit.

So , what am I to do to remain true to myself and congruent to my own experience if I find that what Jesus taught neatly fits my experiences and Mohammed doesn't . Maybe I should just lie to myself and pretend that Jesus is not the truth?

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you mean “self-evident” in the sense of—

(a) obvious to the most casual (or even an expert) observer? or

(b) the denial of which results in a logical contradiction?

What exactly do you mean by “proof”? Upon what kind of proof does the law of gravity depend?

In the present context:

By proof, I mean a form of reasoning through which conclusions are derived from premises, using deduction or inference.

It's immaterial whether one adopts either (or both) of the definitions (a) and (b) given by you, since in any case premises are, by definition, unproven, being the starting points of proofs.

My own tendency is to reserve the term for rather narrow epistemological categories. By way of illustration, one class of self-evident truth is what I refer to as direct apprehension. This refers to a category of knowledge which is not dependent upon assumptions or conditional truths. My own existence (i.e., the existence of my own consciousness) is such a truth.

What do you mean by "the law of gravity"? A set of uninterpreted symbols is not a proof of any sort; a set of symbols interpreted to give them mathematical and logical relations is not an empirical law; a set of symbols interpreted to do this AND to refer to so-called physical events is obviously a fairly complex philosophical construct and relies on a variety of kinds of proof, including mathematical proofs, logical proofs, many fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, the nature of measuring processes, the existence and nature of observers, and the interrelations of these things.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree. As a mathematician I try to avoid the use of the word proof with regards to reality, and in fact have said in this thread that I am not talking about proof.
I am also not talking about the strict 'scientific method'.

However , your thread and your other posts strongly imply that you believe that unless there is strong scientific evidence for something or it can be proven you think it's irrational to have faith in it. Maybe you are retracting this because you know that such a position is self contradictory anyway.

Can I take it then that it's Ok for me to believe in God even though God is not proven and He does not stand up to strict scientific investigation? I'm Ok with my faith , how ya doing with yours?

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
In the present context:

By proof, I mean a form of reasoning through which conclusions are derived from premises, using deduction or inference.

It's immaterial whether one adopts either (or both) of the definitions (a) and (b) given by you, since in any case premises are, by definition, unproven, being the starting points of proofs.

My ow ...[text shortened]... ing processes, the existence and nature of observers, and the interrelations of these things.

Thanks.