What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Taffer]

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

Actually, Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy, and renders the argument invalid.

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.

These are the exact same argument. The latter commits Affirming the Consequent just as the former does.

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

I'm afraid science does not agree with you.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I knew something else about your argument was bothering me. You argued that certain things in science have been proven. You said:




But earlier in the thread you argued that NOTHING can be known with certainty:

So, you've answered your own question. Why can't we say gravity is 100$ true for all humans as experienced on earth? Because everything about your experience with gravity might be a dream or illusion. The earth may not even exist. You can't prove to me that your reality is not an illusion, so you can't prove to me that your experience of gravity is not an illusion.

See, Dustin, the mistake you're making is that you think you're smarter than you are. I promise you are actually quite dull witted. In every case where you believe you've trumped someone, you've done so by equivocating - you've changed your definitions or you've changed the rules. In the example above, you've flat out contradicted yourself.

The absolute best course of action for you at this point is to stop. Step two would be to see a therapist to find out why it is so important to you that you be disliked.

The only dull one here is you. Firstly, The first quotes you quoted me on were both questions. As were the last three. All of them were questions opposed to statements. Given a set of axioms (Our universe exists basically as we all see it) we can prove various things in science. The fact that we can't (according to you, not to me) prove they aren't illusions doesn't mean they aren't proven given a specific set of axions 99.9999% of us accept about our universe. That it's essentially as we view it and is fairly consistent at least in our perception.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

I didn't misstate it.

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).

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html

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.

A single quantity and a single quantity added together makes a double quantity never a triple quantity.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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




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

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.

Let me rephrase it...


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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

Not in this context.

In the context I'm using it, it is.

Do you know what a posteriori means, Dustin?

Yes

 

[D'rok]

Let me rephrase it...


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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

Change your second premise to: "we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species" and you will have a deductively valid argument.

Unfortunately, that's still not the way scientific arguments work. You were actually closer with your fallacious example. It goes like this:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
C (observations that confirm predictions).
Therefore H.


Which is an example of affirming the consequent and is therefore the reason that multiple experimental confirmations of the hypotheses must be obtained.

In addition, competing hypotheses must be disconfirmed like so:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
not-C. (observations that disconfirm predictions)
Therefore not-H.


This is the principle of falsifiability and is the logically valid form of modus tollens, or denying the consequent.


Evolution is the hypothesis, the fossil record contains the observations. Does this make it clear why scientific conclusions deal in probabilities based on preponderance of evidence rather than proof?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Change your second premise to: "we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species" and you will have a deductively valid argument.

That's what it currently says by saying "We see Premise 1 as being true."

Unfortunately, that's still not the way scientific arguments work. You were actually closer with your fallacious example. It goes like this:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
C (observations that confirm predictions).
Therefore H.


Which is an example of affirming the consequent and is therefore the reason that multiple experimental confirmations of the hypotheses must be obtained.

In addition, competing hypotheses must be disconfirmed like so:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
not-C. (observations that disconfirm predictions)
Therefore not-H.

This is the principle of falsifiability and is the logically valid form of modus tollens, or denying the consequent.

Evolution is the hypothesis, the fossil record contains the observations. Does this make it clear why scientific conclusions deal in probabilities based on preponderance of evidence rather than proof?

The only way the argument itself could be invalid is if the initial premise is false. Premise 1 is true therefore the argument is valid and it proves evolution to be true. This isn't the way most science works because most of the time either the experiments or the hypothesis aren't valid and must be reworked. Evolution isn't currently a hypothesis but a cold hard fact.

 

[Taffer]

Yes

Then if you have done any epistemology, you already know what I mean.

 

[Beleth]

Dustin -

How many lunchtimes watching God create a universe would it take before you would categorize it as something you do "often" and therefore would assume it was real?

 

[Taffer]

Let me rephrase it...


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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

P1: If F then E
P2: F
C: Therefore, E.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then if you have done any epistemology, you already know what I mean.

Except I don't. Explain.

Dustin -

How many lunchtimes watching God create a universe would it take before you would categorize it as something you do "often" and therefore would assume it was real?

I don't know.

P1: If F then E
P2: F
C: Therefore, E.

This is logically valid.



Let "F" be Dog and "E" be mammal.

P1: If Dog then mammal.
P2: Dog.
C: Therefore, Mammal.

 

[Taffer]

Except I don't. Explain.

Start here.

This is logically valid.

Let "F" be Dog and "E" be mammal.

P1: If Dog then mammal.
P2: Dog.
C: Therefore, Mammal.

Er, yes Dustin, I know. I was posting your argument in a more exact format.

 

[PixyMisa]

The only way the argument itself could be invalid is if the initial premise is false.

The initial premise is false. It's an unsound conditional statement.

Premise: If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species then Evolution would be true.

The problem is that this is not proof, but merely supporting evidence.

Premise 1A: If we later find an example where there are radical leaps in phylogeny, with no possible precursor, then Evolution would be false.

Conclusion: Evolution is true unless it's false.

Well, that sure is useful.

Premise 1 is true therefore the argument is valid and it proves evolution to be true. This isn't the way most science works because most of the time either the experiments or the hypothesis aren't valid and must be reworked.

No.

Start again from the beginning. Everything in that paragraph is wrong.

Evolution isn't currently a hypothesis but a cold hard fact.

You have to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution happened, and continues to happen; that is the fact. The Theory of Evolution tells us how it happens. That is, after all, what theories do.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The initial premise is false. It's an unsound conditional statement.

Premise: If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species then Evolution would be true.

The problem is that this is not proof, but merely supporting evidence.

Premise 1A: If we later find an example where there are radical leaps in phylogeny, with no possible precursor, then Evolution would be false.

Conclusion: Evolution is true unless it's false.

Well, that sure is useful.

Except your Premise 1A wouldn't refute evolution. There are a lot of leaps in phylogeny in the fossil record, this doesn't refute evolution.

No.

Start again from the beginning. Everything in that paragraph is wrong.

How?

You have to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution happened, and continues to happen; that is the fact. The Theory of Evolution tells us how it happens. That is, after all, what theories do.

That's true. Evolution happened. That's a fact. Thanks for making my point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Except your Premise 1A wouldn't refute evolution. There are a lot of leaps in phylogeny in the fossil record, this doesn't refute evolution.

No, Dustin, there aren't leaps, there are gaps. There's a huge gap in the evolutionary record for bats, for example, but given observed rates of evolutionary change, it is perfectly possible for bats to have evolved, and just our misfortune that we haven't found some pretty fossils to demonstrate this directly.

But if we find rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata (anomolobunnis antecambriensis), the Theory is stuffed.

How?

Comprehensively.

That's true. Evolution happened. That's a fact. Thanks for making my point.

No.

We have actually observed evolution happening. It's a fact the same way it's a fact that the sun gives out heat and light.

The Theory of Evolution explains how it happens. You can't prove it right, because a single counter-example will prove it wrong. You'd have to first prove that it is impossible for a counter-example to exist, and the nature of the universe precludes any such thing.

 

[D'rok]

Dustin, you continue to demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings of logic, philosophy, and science. I don't know what you expect to get from this thread if you continue to cling to your misunderstandings.

That's what it currently says by saying "We see Premise 1 as being true."

"We see Premise 1 as being true" means "It is the case that, if we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species then Evolution would be true." Asserting the truth of a conditional is not a valid premise. For a conditional to be true, its consequent must be true. Your second premise is asserting that the consequent of your first premise is true. Your argument looks like this:

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q

This is invalid.

ETA: Oops. I made an error here. This is actually a valid argument. The conclusion does follow the premises, because the conclusion is a premise and can therefore be shown. Sorry. It's just not a useful argument.

The only way the argument itself could be invalid is if the initial premise is false. Premise 1 is true therefore the argument is valid and it proves evolution to be true.

You are demonstrating yet again your misunderstanding of logic. Truth or falsity have nothing whatsoever to do with validity. This is really basic stuff.

This isn't the way most science works because most of the time either the experiments or the hypothesis aren't valid and must be reworked. Evolution isn't currently a hypothesis but a cold hard fact.

The scientific method takes the logical form that I have described. Your argument is not the way science works. You are attempting (but not quite succeeding) to demonstrate how syllogistic logic works. Logic is not science.

You are correct that evolution is an observable fact. The testable hypothesis is Evolution via Natural Selection and I should have clarified that in my example. Sorry about that. But you are incorrect that science demonstrates facts through syllogistic logic. Science tests hypotheses through the scientific method, and when the scientific method is stated deductively, it is both formally invalid and effective (when properly applied). The conclusions are not facts, but confirmations of hypotheses with varying degrees of probability.



Relating all this back to the OP...you are asking us to declare what evidence would serve as confirmation for the god hypothesis. You are asking us to use this form:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
C (observations that confirm predictions).
Therefore H.

Using Lisa's example:

If god exists, then prayer would restore amputated limbs.
Prayer has been observed to restore amputated limbs.
Therefore god exists.

This is a confirmation of the god hypothesis and it suffers from the same logical fallacy as does the scientific method. In other words, it can never be "proof" because the very nature of the proposition precludes certainty. You point this out after we give our answers, and we say..."well D'UH!, but so what?"

A deductively valid argument is not relevant to the truth of the existence of god; a testable hypotheses confirmed by evidence is. You've asked us what evidence would confirm the god hypothesis to a degree of probability that we would consider to be subjectively certain. You will always be able to throw counter-hypotheses at us and say "falsify this!", but you are only demonstrating your misunderstanding of your own question.

Also, you are employing the same tactic that ID proponents favour. You are sticking a wedge into the logical gap that we are all aware exists in observational "proofs", and then treating this as if it were meaningful. We can never give you an answer that is irrefutable just as science can never develop theories that are irrefutable. Get over it.

 

[jsfisher]

I didn't misstate it.

Oh, sure you did:

Gödel doesn't prove that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. His incompleteness theorems simply say that given a set of axioms any system of knowledge can never be totally complete.

(Emphasis added.)

Your statement captures neither the requirement the system be large enough to include elementary arithmetic nor does it state consistency as an alternate to completeness. Ergo, you did mistate it.

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

A single quantity and a single quantity added together makes a double quantity never a triple quantity.

I have not idea what meaning this was intended to convey.

 

[D'rok]

Since this thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere, I offer this summary:



DUSTINUS TYRANNUS


Dustin:
What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

Chorus:
It is not possible to deductively prove god's existence.

Dustin:
Fine. What would you accept as evidence for god?

Chorus:
Well, that would only make god probable...but very well. If prayer restores amputated limbs, we would consider that very compelling evidence for the existence of god.

Dustin:
Hah! That is not proof! You are credulous and gullible! Honour me!

Chorus:
But...we..you...ARGHH!!!!

Amazing horror!
Nothing worse can come upon a man.
Was it madness that struck your mind?
Or was it a god great bounds away,
Who leapt upon your life,
Bringing disaster?
Cry, cry misfortune! I cannot bear to look.
Many things I wish to ask.
I wish to learn, I wish to see.
But you are blinding me with horror.

Ah, what a dreadful thing you've done! How could you bear
To put out your sight? Which god spurred you on?

-END-

 

[Loss Leader]

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

You've stated a logically sound argument. Now, all you need is for your two premises to be true or your argument has no validity. What reason do you have to believe that seeing transitional fossils is sufficient to assure us of the truth of evolution?

I will give you five reasons why it might not be true:
1, God could have made some animals whole but allowed some to develop over time.
2. God could have made some animals, decided they sucked, killed them and started over with some similar but slightly different animals.
3. The aliens that planted us here first had to genetically modify some species so that we would fit into the environment.
4. God is a trickster and the entire evolutionary record is a test to see if we will continue to have faith in him even with no evidence.
5. You are in a coma in a hospital bed in Newark and everything you think you know about the fossil record is a halucinatory dream that bears no resemblence to reality.

If any of those five things are true, your "demonstration" argument is invalid even though it's logically sound.

So what logically necessary reasons do you have for rejecting each and every one of the statements above? I'll give you a hint: you don't have any.

Here is the actually valid way of phrasing your "test" argument.

1. If we see transitional fossils, then we would have some evidence which tends to make the theory of evolution more true.
2. We probably see some transitional fossils.
3. Thus - We have probably gained some evidence which tends to make the theory of evolution more true.

And that is the absolute most that can be said about that. If it's important to you that people here agree that transitional fossils prove evolution, you might as well just go away right now.

And take that time to ask a therapist to help you figure out why you have a psychological need to alienate people.

 

[Beleth]

For those of you playing at home, here's a summary of my discussion with Dustin:

What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

God being defined as [SIZE=-1]the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Or do you simply "not know" what is proof but know what isn't?[/SIZE]

[An] obvious proof of an "originator and ruler of the universe" is to have Him originate and rule a universe. I'm free tomorrow at lunchtime to observe this, if that works for Him.

How would you prove such an observation wasn't a hallucination?

Is there any evidence of anything that the "hallucination hypothesis" can't lay low?

I have enough evidence to convince me that I am sitting in front of a computer screen right now, typing away at a keyboard. Should the possibility that I am hallucinating this be strong enough to make me doubt that that is what I am, in fact, doing? If so, doesn't that strip any possible meaning from the word "evidence"?

You're dealing with two different circumstances. One which is (from your perspective) very common and everyday and another which would be so uncommon the only reasonable explanation would be hallucination. I COULD be hallucinating as we speak and could be sitting outside in a stupor but what I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor. If I were witnessing a universe being created I would realize that this goes against everything I know to be possible and anything I've ever experienced and thus could conclude it to be a hallucination and with Occam's razor that would be the most reasonable conclusion.

How many lunchtimes watching God create a universe would it take before you would categorize it as something you do "often" and therefore would assume it was real?

I don't know.

I have made allowances for everything Dustin has said. I have turned his definition directly into a test, and he said that it wasn't valid because it could be an hallucination. I then got him to expand on how one can differentiate between an hallucination and reality, and he told me what he considers the differentiation to be. I then expanded the test so that it could fall on the reality side of the hallucination/reality test.

I have worked with what he has given me. In this half of our conversation, I questioned neither his definition of God nor his use of Occam's Razor to explain away hallucinations.

His final response is as you see above.


Dustin, I put it to you that your position is intellectually incomplete.

 

[strathmeyer]

What proof? Give me an example. God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe, what proof would you accept for such a being? Please provide a single example of the specific proof that you would require. Can you do that?

I would accept any proof at all for the existence of any god. If you claimed that we could pray to your god and get our way, we could set up an experiment. We could get people to pray that they will make a coin toss come up a certain way. We could have a group that just flips coins, a group that hopes the coin toss will come up a certain way, a group that prays to a random god to make the coin toss come up a certain way, and a group that prays to your god to make the coin toss come up a certain way. If praying to your god had any effect on the coin toss, we would expect to notice it with a large enough sample size.

Is that single and specific enough for you?