Can you prove water exists?

[AquinasForGod]

The question for debate: Can you prove water exists?

You might say, we cannot prove anything absolutely. I agree. Then you might say, we can show evidence for things to justify our beliefs. Right, we can show evidence that water is a composite of hydrogen and oxygen.

But do you have evidence water exists outside our minds? What is that evidence?

Showing what water seems to be made of is not evidence it exists outside our minds. You might say, why not stick your head underwater and see if you drown? How would that be evidence that water exists outside our minds?

It could be that we are all living in some very long shared dream or something like the Matrix. In that case, we would all mentally see me drown. I would experience drowning. I have drowned in a dream. The fact I drowned sure doesn't show that the dream water existed outside my mind.

This question of course extends to everything. Do we have evidence that trees exist outside our minds?

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

Now if we cannot show evidence that water exists outside our minds, does that mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? If we cannot give evidence that water exists outside our minds does that mean it is unreasonable to believe that water exists outside our minds? i.e. is it unreasonable to believe water exists as a physical object even if we cannot give evidence it is indeed a physical object that exists outside our minds?

[William]

Not sure if your reply was re my post JK, but if so, the point I was making doesn't infer that one cannot drown or experience any other situation [such as going to prison] because the focus is on the argument that in all cases, for something to be experienced as real, mind is required and that making positive claims either way, is fallacy.

[boatsnguitars]

The question for debate: Can you prove water exists?

You might say, we cannot prove anything absolutely. I agree. Then you might say, we can show evidence for things to justify our beliefs. Right, we can show evidence that water is a composite of hydrogen and oxygen.

But do you have evidence water exists outside our minds? What is that evidence?

Showing what water seems to be made of is not evidence it exists outside our minds. You might say, why not stick your head underwater and see if you drown? How would that be evidence that water exists outside our minds?

It could be that we are all living in some very long shared dream or something like the Matrix. In that case, we would all mentally see me drown. I would experience drowning. I have drowned in a dream. The fact I drowned sure doesn't show that the dream water existed outside my mind.

This question of course extends to everything. Do we have evidence that trees exist outside our minds?

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

Now if we cannot show evidence that water exists outside our minds, does that mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? If we cannot give evidence that water exists outside our minds does that mean it is unreasonable to believe that water exists outside our minds? i.e. is it unreasonable to believe water exists as a physical object even if we cannot give evidence it is indeed a physical object that exists outside our minds?

Seems like an excellent argument against God.

If we can't prove either, but have ample evidence and reason to believe water exists, but God - the alleged source of everything, who wants everyone to know and love him, but has only been a character in ancient religions - has not even a shred of the same kind of evidence, or reason to believe in.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #27]

That is incorrect. I never set an unreasonable standard for proof in anything I said. I pointed out that we cannot prove anything absolutely. I did not say we must prove things absolutely.

[Bust Nak]

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

I wouldn't expect you to be able to do something that we can't even do with water. So all I am expecting is for you to demonstrate God exists exists beyond our minds in the same sense that we demonstrate water exists beyond our minds: with empirical evidence.

[boatsnguitars]

The question for debate: Can you prove water exists?

You might say, we cannot prove anything absolutely. I agree. Then you might say, we can show evidence for things to justify our beliefs. Right, we can show evidence that water is a composite of hydrogen and oxygen.

But do you have evidence water exists outside our minds? What is that evidence?

Showing what water seems to be made of is not evidence it exists outside our minds. You might say, why not stick your head underwater and see if you drown? How would that be evidence that water exists outside our minds?

It could be that we are all living in some very long shared dream or something like the Matrix. In that case, we would all mentally see me drown. I would experience drowning. I have drowned in a dream. The fact I drowned sure doesn't show that the dream water existed outside my mind.

This question of course extends to everything. Do we have evidence that trees exist outside our minds?

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

Now if we cannot show evidence that water exists outside our minds, does that mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? If we cannot give evidence that water exists outside our minds does that mean it is unreasonable to believe that water exists outside our minds? i.e. is it unreasonable to believe water exists as a physical object even if we cannot give evidence it is indeed a physical object that exists outside our minds?

Water is a chemical compound made up of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The chemical formula for water is H2O, which means that each water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. These molecules are held together by covalent bonds, which are strong bonds that form when atoms share electrons.

When two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom come together and form a covalent bond, they create a water molecule. This bond is polar, meaning that the electrons are not evenly shared between the atoms, causing one end of the molecule to have a slightly positive charge (the hydrogen end) and the other end to have a slightly negative charge (the oxygen end). This polarity makes water a unique substance with many of its characteristic properties, such as its ability to dissolve many substances and its high surface tension.

Water is essential for life on Earth, and it exists in many different forms, such as liquid, solid (ice), and gas (water vapor). Water can be found in oceans, lakes, rivers, and even in the air we breathe. The accumulation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules into water is a natural process that occurs through the bonding of atoms, and it is crucial for sustaining life as we know it.

The existence of water, like the existence of many things, can be proven through empirical evidence. We can observe, touch, and drink water, and we can see the effects it has on our surroundings. The fact that water is a composite of hydrogen and oxygen is not the only evidence for its existence outside of our minds.

The argument that we could be living in a shared dream or a simulated reality is a philosophical one, but it is not a scientific one. It is a thought experiment that cannot be proven or disproven with empirical evidence. However, in our day-to-day lives, we assume that the physical world we interact with is real and exists outside of our minds, including the water we drink and interact with.

The same can be said for trees and other physical objects. We have empirical evidence for their existence, and we interact with them in our daily lives. While there are philosophical arguments that question the nature of reality, in practice, we assume that the physical world we interact with is real and exists outside of our minds. I would remind Christians, that if they choose to deny the reality of the physical world, then they literally deny the bodily death and resurrection of Jesus.******

Therefore, the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of a deity is a valid point to consider when discussing the belief in a god. If we cannot provide empirical evidence for something, it becomes more difficult to prove its existence outside of our minds. The belief in a deity is unreasonable, as belief is often based on faith and personal experience rather than empirical evidence.


*****This is a critical point. Christians struggle to explain God, and the Supernatural, and in their struggle they often try to undermine the physical world. They won't deny it, per se, but from this post (and many others) they try to question it - because it's about causing confusion and inserting all kinds of contradictory ideas. They aren't trying to find the truth, they are trying to keep their Faith alive through horrible logic and worse science.

Deny the physical world and you have no dying and rising savior. You have no suffering on the cross, you have no incarnate God. However, the apologetics they learn encourages them to attack Materialism in any way they can - because they need to infect the conversation with some Idealistic, or Dualist concepts in order to make God seem possible. It's a horrible, twisted logic that their pastors or Apologetic heros have given them and they suffer for it. It's truly pitiful.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...They aren't trying to find the truth, they are trying to keep their Faith alive through horrible logic and worse science.

They are too trying to find the truth, only using faulty logic, or faulty faith, to do it.

Your comment here is not much better than the theist calling the atheist a "fool".

Deny the physical world and you have no dying and rising savior. You have no suffering on the cross, you have no incarnate God. However, the apologetics they learn encourages them to attack Materialism in any way they can - because they need to infect the conversation with some Idealistic, or Dualist concepts in order to make God seem possible. It's a horrible, twisted logic that their pastors or Apologetic heros have given them and they suffer for it. It's truly pitiful.

Now I'm with you. Religion arises to offer some means to explain the unexplainable (and often used to fleece the flock). Then science comes along, and folks learn Dayton, Tennessee is a place. Or Dover, Pennsylvania.

We can see examples of this rejecting of science, rejecting of the material world in the current fuss over some trans chick drinking a beer. Where the world goes against theist ideals, demons and evil forces are accused of it, never the theist's doctrines or bigotries.

Stand on a stage lit partly in red, and the President becomes demonic. It's an infuriating ignorance I fear even the most rational theists can't correct.

That said, we must remember there's good, right, and scientifically studious theists around. They do the best they can with the evidence they have, running it through the concluder they have. Sure, they still think there's a god, but I keep thinking the pretty thing won't notice if I put my feet up on the coffee table.

[boatsnguitars]

They are too trying to find the truth, only using faulty logic, or faulty faith, to do it.
Your comment here is not much better than the theist calling the atheist a "fool".

Perhaps, but after years of this, have you seen Religious Apology, in general, change in any way to support your idea that they are trying to find the truth, rather than support their Faith in the face of what science has found true?

Deny the physical world and you have no dying and rising savior. You have no suffering on the cross, you have no incarnate God. However, the apologetics they learn encourages them to attack Materialism in any way they can - because they need to infect the conversation with some Idealistic, or Dualist concepts in order to make God seem possible. It's a horrible, twisted logic that their pastors or Apologetic heros have given them and they suffer for it. It's truly pitiful.

Now I'm with you. Religion arises to offer some means to explain the unexplainable (and often used to fleece the flock). Then science comes along, and folks learn Dayton, Tennessee is a place. Or Dover, Pennsylvania.

We can see examples of this rejecting of science, rejecting of the material world in the current fuss over some trans chick drinking a beer. Where the world goes against theist ideals, demons and evil forces are accused of it, never the theist's doctrines or bigotries.

Stand on a stage lit partly in red, and the President becomes demonic. It's an infuriating ignorance I fear even the most rational theists can't correct.

That said, we must remember there's good, right, and scientifically studious theists around. They do the best they can with the evidence they have, running it through the concluder they have. Sure, they still think there's a god, but I keep thinking the pretty thing won't notice if I put my feet up on the coffee table.

“I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.”
Francis Collins

Obviously, this shows how far apart science and religion are. The feeling of God is an aesthetic, a subjective feeling on the experience one has of themselves. There have been studies that suggest that when people think about God or religious beliefs, they may activate similar brain regions to those involved in self-referential thinking or social cognition. For example, a study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience in 2010 found that when religious participants thought about God, they showed activation in the medial prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with self-referential thinking.

Another study published in 2018 in the journal Neuropsychologia found that when religious participants were asked to think about God's beliefs compared to their own beliefs, they showed similar activation in the medial prefrontal cortex, suggesting that they were processing information about God's beliefs in a similar way to how they process information about their own beliefs.

But my real beef is with Apologetics. I get that some people don't know enough to question why they experience the feeling of God, what I object to are the people who constantly come up with ridiculous ideas to support their feeling in the hypocampus and try to pawn it off to others for money - especially peopel like William Lane Craig, who has made a career convincing people he's trying to be logical, etc.

For example, when have you ever heard an apologist refer to the studies I just mentioned, and talk about how the brain alone is the most probable candidate to explain why we believe in God?

If Apologists were more honest, and had better methodologies (and, like scientists, dropped unsuccessful inquiries) and showed some progress over the last 30,000 years or whatever, it would be better, but in reality, we still see the same old arguments, re-hashed.

Check this out. I asked "What are recent discoveries in Apologetics that argue for the existence of God" - here's what I found:

Christian apologetics is a field of study that aims to provide a rational defense of Christian beliefs. In recent years, there have been several significant discoveries and arguments in Christian apologetics that have been used to support the existence of God. Here are a few examples:

1. Fine-Tuning of the Universe: This argument states that the universe is finely tuned to support life, and that the odds of this happening by chance are infinitesimally small. The fine-tuning argument has been supported by recent scientific discoveries that suggest that even small changes in the fundamental constants of nature would render the universe uninhabitable.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: This argument states that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have been caused by something external to itself. Recent discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology have supported the Kalam cosmological argument by showing that the universe had a definite beginning in time.

3. The Moral Argument: This argument states that objective moral values and duties exist, and that they require a foundation in God. Recent philosophical work on the nature of morality and ethics has provided support for the moral argument.

4. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: This argument states that the historical evidence supports the claim that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, which is evidence for the existence of God. Recent scholarship on the reliability of the New Testament documents and the historical evidence for the Resurrection has provided support for this argument.

IN RECENT YEARS?!?!?!?!?!?! They are trying to suggest these ancient arguments are revitalized by new information. That's simply not true. For example, the "recent" discovery of the Big Bang is not proof that the Universe had a beginning in the way they mean. They are liars. I can't see it any other way until I see them, en masse, acknowledge that many of their arguments are stupid and address the studies on the brain, and from psychology.

We aren't even seeing them agree on basic doctrine, let alone, define God the same way. If they can't do that, I have no faith or trust in their ability to understand things that require rigorous methodology and an acceptance of the material world as Materialists describe.

[JoeyKnothead]

Perhaps, but after years of this, have you seen Religious Apology, in general, change in any way to support your idea that they are trying to find the truth, rather than support their Faith in the face of what science has found true?

I lack sufficient data to support a conclusion that theists don't seek the truth. If you can provide some means to confirm you know the minds and motives of these theists, I'm certain I can be convinced otherwise.

I can only conclude theists are not unlike me, a seeker of truth in all its forms.

My main notion in all this is that if we're gonna fuss at the theists for their errant conclusions, we shouldn't be using our own errant conclusions to do it.

...
...For example, a study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience in 2010 found that when religious participants thought about God, they showed activation in the medial prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with self-referential thinking.

Another study published in 2018 in the journal Neuropsychologia found that when religious participants were asked to think about God's beliefs compared to their own beliefs, they showed similar activation in the medial prefrontal cortex, suggesting that they were processing information about God's beliefs in a similar way to how they process information about their own beliefs.

Agreed. It's my position religious belief concerns the believer, not their God.

But my real beef is with Apologetics. I get that some people don't know enough to question why they experience the feeling of God, what I object to are the people who constantly come up with ridiculous ideas to support their feeling in the hypocampus and try to pawn it off to others for money - especially peopel like William Lane Craig, who has made a career convincing people he's trying to be logical, etc.

Plenty fair.

For example, when have you ever heard an apologist refer to the studies I just mentioned, and talk about how the brain alone is the most probable candidate to explain why we believe in God?

We all gather our data, we gnaw on it, and we do our best to fit that data with our observations. Of course, some are better at this than others.

If Apologists were more honest, and had better methodologies (and, like scientists, dropped unsuccessful inquiries) and showed some progress over the last 30,000 years or whatever, it would be better, but in reality, we still see the same old arguments, re-hashed.

This, if only for me, points to their faulty reasoning much less than to real or imagined motives.

Most every theist I know is pretty much on a mission to save my soul. I don't wish to fault em too much about that motive, but on how they go about it. Why the need to accuse all or some of them of dishonesty, when dooficity fits em every one of em?

Check this out. I asked "What are recent discoveries in Apologetics that argue for the existence of God" - here's what I found:

Christian apologetics is a field of study that aims to provide a rational defense of Christian beliefs. In recent years, there have been several significant discoveries and arguments in Christian apologetics that have been used to support the existence of God. Here are a few examples:

1. Fine-Tuning of the Universe: This argument states that the universe is finely tuned to support life, and that the odds of this happening by chance are infinitesimally small. The fine-tuning argument has been supported by recent scientific discoveries that suggest that even small changes in the fundamental constants of nature would render the universe uninhabitable.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: This argument states that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have been caused by something external to itself. Recent discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology have supported the Kalam cosmological argument by showing that the universe had a definite beginning in time.

3. The Moral Argument: This argument states that objective moral values and duties exist, and that they require a foundation in God. Recent philosophical work on the nature of morality and ethics has provided support for the moral argument.

4. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: This argument states that the historical evidence supports the claim that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, which is evidence for the existence of God. Recent scholarship on the reliability of the New Testament documents and the historical evidence for the Resurrection has provided support for this argument.

IN RECENT YEARS?!?!?!?!?!?! They are trying to suggest these ancient arguments are revitalized by new information. That's simply not true. For example, the "recent" discovery of the Big Bang is not proof that the Universe had a beginning in the way they mean. They are liars. I can't see it any other way until I see them, en masse, acknowledge that many of their arguments are stupid and address the studies on the brain, and from psychology.

I only learned about argumentum ad hominem after I joined this site.

We aren't even seeing them agree on basic doctrine, let alone, define God the same way. If they can't do that, I have no faith or trust in their ability to understand things that require rigorous methodology and an acceptance of the material world as Materialists describe.

Cause it's religion. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone but the particular believer.

I see on this site quite a few hateful gods, with hateful promoters.

I also see quite a few loving gods, with loving promoters.

Or, to tell it, I see hateful folks, and loving folks.

Our challenge is try to be us on the same side as the loving folks, even if we don't believe their god's the reason for it.

[boatsnguitars]

Cause it's religion. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone but the particular believer.

I see on this site quite a few hateful gods, with hateful promoters.

I also see quite a few loving gods, with loving promoters.

Or, to tell it, I see hateful folks, and loving folks.

Our challenge is try to be us on the same side as the loving folks, even if we don't believe their god's the reason for it.

I agree many religious people are very nice people. I think there are a few people here who make honest attempts at reconciling their faith with the facts. However, most of the time I see people regurgitating Apologetics, then hiding behind some Apologetic excuse, e.g., "It's an APPARENT contradiction, and while I don't underteand it now, God will reveal it to me at some point."

They wouldn't be saying these things if Apologists were feeding their heads with such nonsense. My anger is directed at the Church as an institution, my digust at Apologists, and my pity towards the honest seekers allowing the Church and Apologists form the framework for their beliefs.

[Purple Knight]

I only learned about argumentum ad hominem after I joined this site.

I don't think it's a true fallacy.

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=37986