What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Darth Rotor]

Every instance listed in this thread of 'this proves god exists' has a better explanation: aliens.

We know sentient life exists. In this universe. We know technology exists. We know of past examples of high technology societies meeting low technology societies.

Aliens could reproduce just about all of the above, although "pi's secret message" would be tough.

Well spank my bottom and call me Cheeky, you lead one to believe that God is the Last of the Xel Naga!

Never considered that.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Did you miss my post, Dustin?

I'd say me missed a bit more than that.

DR

 

[jsfisher]

If A then B

B is true

therefore A is true.

Now look what you've done!!! You've distilled the discussion down to basic facts and logic. How is Dustin supposed to redefine things or move the goals if you render it so simply?

 

[jsfisher]

Be a doll and point it out for me.

Sweety, with regard to your faulty logic from Premises 1 and 2 to Conclusion, it has already been explained by others.

This doesn't mean it's all wrong or false. It just means that somewhere there will be incomplete or contradictory aspects of it. This definitely doesn't mean that 1+1 doesn't =2.

I made no such statement regarding the sum of 1 and 1. Why are you responding thusly? I merely pointed out to you that you had falsely stated Gödel's famous theorem.

"Is it that hard to admit you're wrong? It's not that big of a deal."

I think someone very self-important once said that.


By the way, in the purity of Mathematics, 1+1=2 is a provable consequence of the standard fundamental axioms of Arithmetic (a 121 page proof, if memory serves). That makes it a result of definition more than any sort of absolute fact. Under a different set of axioms, different results are possible -- perhaps with less association with the world we perceive -- hey, but that's how this wacky math thing works.

 

[andyandy]

This definitely doesn't mean that 1+1 doesn't =2.
.

1+1=10

 

[jsfisher]

That's already been said numerous times in this thread.

That just underscores how smart many of the folks here really are.

 

[jsfisher]

1+1=10

Enough of this binary thinking!!!

 

[andyandy]

Enough of this binary thinking!!!

There are only 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary, and those that don't

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I mean, Dustin, that you cannot prove any a posteriori knowledge.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

*Sigh*

Never studied science, did you Dustin?

Sure I have.

Read:
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

You never addressed the link I posted.

Those people are using it in different contexts. They're using "proof" in the purely logical context which isn't the same way I'm using it. I already explained this and showed that "Proof" can mean the same thing as evidence both from a scientific lexicon site and the dictionary and you post links from a Canadian High school and a roman catholic college?

This should help you understand.

I already understand quite clearly. You're grasping at straws.

Game over. Your score is: Zero.

Elaborate.

Seems pretty clear to me.

So explain it to me.

No, he is right.

How? The sources disagree.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because it is deductively invalid. This is not a valid argument. You have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent, therefore your conclusion is at best suggestive.

No. Affirming the consequent means having an insufficient reason to come to the conclusion. An example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The conclusion doesn't connect the two premises. Bill Gates simply being rich doesn't mean he owns fort Knox even if owning fort Knox means he's rich. My argument:

Premise 1- If evolution were true we would see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This doesn't make the same mistake.

This argument does not rule out any other causes of what we see in the fossil record. Science encounters this problem all of the time, which is why multiple confirmations of a hypothesis and multiple disconfirmations of competing hypothesis by way of empirical experimentation are necessary before any confidence (not proof) in a conclusion can be achieved.

Science rules them out making the premise 1 true.

And this is yet another illustration of the difference between proof and evidence. I hope you are not planning on offering a similar "proof" for god. Glaucon would be very disappointed.

In many contexts there's no difference between "Proof" or "Evidence" as I pointed out in the dictionary.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I do not know how it prove such a thing. Which is why I asked such a thing.

Neither do I.

Besides, it would be the responsibility of the being who is claiming to be the ruler and creator of the universe to provide proof of that it is actually the ruler and creator of the universe.

What would you accept as proof from him though?

Yes, impossible. I expect that it would be impossible to prove what happened before the universe came into existence, how things can live for 13.7 billion years, how it could create an entire universe, and so on because such things are so far removed from all human experience and knowledge.

You simply 'expect' it would be impossible? An argument from incredulity?

Umm, your original question did not have any stipulations on the what people believe prior to the proof being offered so I did not include anything about these stipulations in my response.

If you now wish to change your question now, then that is fine by me, but I think that it would be better to start a new thread as opposed to changing your OP in the middle of the thread you started.

I'm just furthering the discussion from that original question.

 

[D'rok]

No. Affirming the consequent means having an insufficient reason to come to the conclusion. An example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The conclusion doesn't connect the two premises. Bill Gates simply being rich doesn't mean he owns fort Knox even if owning fort Knox means he's rich. My argument:

Premise 1- If evolution were true we would see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This doesn't make the same mistake.

I'm afraid it does.

P: Evolution is true
Q: The fossil record contains transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny from earlier species to later species.

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

Science rules them out making the premise 1 true.

No it doesn't. It rules them out by the process I described.

In many contexts there's no difference between "Proof" or "Evidence" as I pointed out in the dictionary.

Not in this context.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This sentence makes no sense. Evidence is not actual evidence? You appear to not understand the definition or function of evidence.

Let me rephrase to make it clear.

I have however been pointing out that the purported evidence they presented wouldn't meet the criteria for actual evidence.

Oh, but you have. You have set out a standard of proof: evidence "that would convince you." Any honest answer, therefore, is correct. If I said that I would be convinced of the existence of God by finding a restaurant under the Restaurants listing in the yellow pages, that's all the evidence it would take. It is irrelevant that you disagree with the standard of evidence that I have adopted.

Just because they answer the question correctly doesn't mean I can't criticize their answers.

That is utterly and completely incorrect in each and every respect. You have demonstrated an absolute lack of comprehension of the concepts of evidence, proof, sufficiency, logic, science, philosophy and law.

Well stop telling me I demonstrate "an absolute lack of comprehension" and tell me how I'm wrong!

You're a moron.

Ouch!

You are wrong. The very dictionary definitions you quote demonstrate that you are wrong. They do not say that proof and evidence are synonymous. The definition you quoted is: "That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment."

If proof is synonymous with evidence, the definition would just say "evidence." It does not. It says that proof is whatever degree of evidence that, for whatever reason, one decides is convincing.

This is basically the same thing. "Proof" in this context is the amount of EVIDENCE needed to convince someone.

Let's take a look at two actual synonyms to see the difference: automobile and car. Would one say that automobile is a degree of car? No, one would not. They are the same thing.

How about happiness and ecstasy? Is ecstasy a degree of happiness? Yes, it is. It is a tremendous amount of happiness.

By conflating "evidence" and "proof," you have colapsed the entire system of logical thought. It's a common mistake among children like yourself. They are constantly arguing that a bloody knife doesn't "prove" someone is a murderer. Of course it does not. It's just a piece of evidence that tends to make it more true that the defendant is the murderer.

Main Entry: proof Part of Speech: noun 1 Definition: evidence

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/Proof

Main Entry: evidence Part of Speech: noun Definition: proof

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/Evidence

No, it is not. You do not understand the concept of proof.

Sure I do. I posted the definition.

Can you design an experiment that demonstrates that an object is pulled to earth at 32 feet per second squared? Of course, you can. But can you design an experiment that demonstrates that this will be true tomorrow? Can you show today that gravity will operate as expected next week? You cannot.

Our being unable to predict it in the future isn't relevant. Answer the initial question. How isn't gravity as experienced by humans on earth 100% true for humans as experienced on earth?

In science, the best we can say is: "This is how a thing has operated in the past. This is why it has done so. Every time we test it, it operates the same way. We have no idea if it will continue tomorrow."

Except we base all of our technology on it continuing tomorrow. All of our lives.

That is not 100%.

What is it? 98%? 95%? If we do 100 tests where we drop a bowling ball from a roof of a building how many times will it go down opposed to straight up? 1? 5? The answer is 100 times. It will drop 100 times out of 100 times and that makes 100%.

Nope. No one can. No one can show the chance is zero, no one can show the chance is 100%. That's why nothing in science is ever "proven" to a logical certainty.

Statistically if we do a test we can show that there is a 100% statistical agreement that whenever an object is dropped, if nothing is in the way, it falls.

Oh, but it is. Your definition is wrong. The dictionary says so.

Oh, The dictionary and thesaurus agrees. See above.

 

[Loss Leader]

No. Affirming the consequent means having an insufficient reason to come to the conclusion. An example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The conclusion doesn't connect the two premises. Bill Gates simply being rich doesn't mean he owns fort Knox even if owning fort Knox means he's rich. My argument:

Premise 1- If evolution were true we would see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This doesn't make the same mistake.

But it is the say mistake. I'll show you step by step.

If Gates own Fort Knox then he is rich.
If X then Y.
He is rich.
Y.
Thus, he owns Fort Knox.
Thus, X

Your example is the same thing:

If evolution were true
If X
we would see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.
Then Y
Premise 2- We see this inthe fossil record very clearly.
Y
Thus evolution is true.
Thus X

The mistake you're making is one of equivocation again. "We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly" really only means that we see transitional fossils very clearly. You, however, have phrased it in such a way that you've affirmed X without any logical reason. "We see Premise 1 as being true" is a lie. You are lying when you write that. All that you SEE is transitional fossils in the fossil record. You then conflate that with the fact that evolution is true.

You're not allowed. The fact that Y (there are transitional fossils) is true does NOT mean that X (evolution) is true.

Once again, the very example you give demonstrates how very wrong you are. You really need to stop and get some therapy.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Proof?

A 9" penis

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's just begging the question.

What question am I begging?

But you're postulating God as the creator of everything--the entire universe. That's where you run into the problem of set membership.
By the way, now you are using "originate" in an entirely different way--originating a prosthetic limb means moving and altering bits of stuff that already exist. You cannot "originate" one from nothing, which is the way you are using that word with God.

Not necessarily. Maybe put the universe together from raw material that already existed previously.

Yes, I am arguing an issue that has to do with semantics--the meaning of the words. Just saying it is "semantics" in no way dismisses the issue.

I pointed out it was semantics and then explained the confusion and clarified what I was asserting.

In fact, I prefer using "universe" in its ordinary meaning of everything, and not the special one used by physicists or cosmologists. They actually can speak of more than one universe. Their definition is more like "everything in this contiguous chunk of spacetime" or some such. Some even use the term "multiverse" when talking about everything. Or Douglas Adams' term, "the whole general sort of mish-mash."

If universe does not mean everything, then how are you using it? In other words, if you're talking about more than one universe, are you saying that God created them all, or just this one?

Maybe he made them all, maybe he made just this one. Let's for arguments sake say he made them all.

There's a pretty good explanation on wikipedia.
Here's a shorter definition:
"An exact description of how to derive a value for a characteristic you are measuring. It includes a precise definition of the characteristic and how, specifically, data collectors are to measure the characteristic.

Used to remove ambiguity and ensure all data collectors have the same understanding. Reduces chances of disparate results between collectors after Measurement System Analysis." From this source.

I'm not clear on how such a term relates to my definition of "God" or even needs to.

One example: years ago, I did some observational studies with some White-faced Sakis. In order to count occurrences of behaviors, those behaviors had to be operationally defined, such that ANY observer could determine when it occurs. For instance, I couldn't say that the female is pouting, unless "pouting" is operationally defined (maybe it means the arms have to be crossed in front of the chest, while sitting facing a wall and not vocalizing). (I did not use "pouting" in any of my studies!)

So you want me to define the words I used in my definition of "God"?

For most people, belief in God is a matter of faith. Most atheists don't claim proof that God isn't, but find a lack of any reason to believe. Others on this thread have pointed out the difference between evidence and proof. For me, the reason not to believe in God is lack of evidence.

Well that doesn't really answer my question.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And what have you accepted as proof of that?

Well by definition in order to hallucinate you must have a brain. Rocks don't have brains. Rocks can't hallucinate.

It's your question. Look at the title you put on the thread- it's on every page.

I'm not asking you to prove something to me. I'm just asking you what you would accept as proof then I'm attacking it as being insufficient.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm not talking about just transmitting a number from point A to point B by radio or something. I'm talking about fixed mathematical constants which are an inherent part of our reality. The example Sagan used was pi (ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). Pi has endless, non-repeating decimal expansion, which you can compute to as many decimal places as you want to by a variety of formulae.

In Sagan's example, the digits in the decimal expansion of pi appeared to be more or less random for billions and billions of digits...and then they stop, and a long sequence of only 0's and 1's begins. A message in binary, written right into a fundamental mathematical constant. The only way such a message could exist is if it were actually encoded into the fabric of reality. It would be the same everywhere; mathematicians all over the universe could see it. Everybody would agree on what it said, and in fact anybody with a decently fast computer could see it for themselves. I would find that very convincing.

So you're asking for such an entity to morph reality? This doesn't necessarily imply a "God" either. Or even someone who had a hand in making the universe.

It couldn't be inside the universe. It would have to be something external to us, something which had some control over the shape our reality would take; specifically, our laws of mathematics.

Why must something that can control reality exist outside of reality?

*shrug* It's trivially easy to find alternative explanations for anything. As you yourself have sophomorically pointed out in this very thread, you can invoke hallucinations to explain away pretty much anything you want. But that doesn't mean it's the most reasonable explanation.

Except using Occam's razor we rule them out.

 

[Taffer]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Do you know what a posteriori means, Dustin?

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm just asking you what you would accept as proof then I'm attacking it as being insufficient.

... based on an utterly arbitrary standard that changes according to your needs at the moment.