phil

My post was not biased towards a theist or atheist position. It was an honest challange. So far, no one has been able to put forth a method to prove their chair exists.

A 'proof' is: the cogency of evidence that compels aceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary

By 'undeniable proof' I mean a proof that would convince even the most skeptical of minds.

If you think about it, you will find that 'undeniable proof' is impossible, even for an inanimate object such as a chair. There are people who don't believe in corporeal existence and that everything is in the mind. If you tell them to touch the chair they will say that is not proof because it is just a figment of their conscieousness.

SRB put it well when he said:
I think we can all agree that 'proof' from the 5 senses we have would be reasonable. I also think we would agree that one more 'sense' should be added to the list as well (the sixth sense? )

Everyone here has probably 'felt' love, hate etc. It is obvious that people cannot literally feel hate with their hands, but they can 'sense' it with their mind.

We must include this sense of the mind (does anyone have a nice term for this?) as part of the senses we can use to put forth 'reasonable proof' for the existence of things.

Now, the point is we cannot demand absolute proof for something when absolute proof is impossible. Just as we settle for reasonable proof for the existence of the chair, we must accept reasonable proof for God, or pink unicorns (what is is with pink unicorns in this forum?!) or whatever.

If someone gives unreasonable proof for the existence of God, they should be showed the error of their ways. However, we must also realize that someone may give reasonable proof for the existence of God. I haven't read everything in this forum, but I suppose such proof has not been presented yet.

Both sides should be careful as to what they accept or reject as proof. Science almost exclusively uses personal experience with the senses as reasonable proof (the scientific method relies heavily on repeated personal experience), so that type of proof should be accepted.

-phil

Quantum Ninja

But even if the chair is a figment of the observer's consciousness, it still exists in some sense. The thought, the visual perception of a chair, exists.

Just by admitting that you perceive a chair, you are acknowledging its (subjective) existence.

It's more a question of how the chair exists, not whether or not it exists at all. You know for a fact that it exists subjectively, but it is impossible to undeniably prove that the chair exists independently from your perception of it (i.e. it exists objectively).

Family Man

No kidding. So who's asking for absolute proof of anything?

Bill Snedden

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion (regarding reasonable vs. absolute proof), but the above seems to me to be an equivocation on the meaning of "sense".

When speaking of "sensory perception", we're talking about touch, taste, sight, hearing, and smell.

But to speak of "sensing" love or hate is a metaphorical or at least non-specific use of the word. In actuality, one doesn't "sense" love or hate in the same way that one "senses" heat, light, or sound. Someone kisses us (touch/taste/sight/smell) or flirts with us (touch/smell/sight/hearing) and we "sense" love. They snarl at us (sight/hearing) or strike us (sight/hearing/touch) and we "sense" hate.

In other words, love or hate are subjective reactions to sensory experiences, not sensory experiences in and of themselves and shouldn't be properly categorized as such.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

joedad

I'm left with:

• You cannot prove your chair exists.
  
  Therefore my god exists.

This would be The argument from_____________.

Could someone fill in the blank?

Mageth

You might call it the Divan argument.

Or simply the Argument from Furniture.

Jinto

Technically, it should be the argument from solipism.

But argument from furniture sounds so much funnier! :notworthy

joedad

Yes, I guess you could.

But I think phil's challenge sits on a false premise, namely the assumption that absolutes exist, a god being an example.

But if absolutism does exist, where does this following statement come from?That appears to be a statement embracing absolutism and refuting it at the same time. Perhaps therein lies the confusion.

Also, one could exchange a couple words in our Argument from Furniture and state:

• You cannot prove your god exists.
  
  Therefore my chair exists.

and it is equally nonsensical.

Mageth

You could go even further and say:

You cannot prove my chair exists.

Therefore, my chair exists.

joedad

Why stop there?

• You cannot prove my god exists.
  
  Therefore my god exists.