What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

The cambrian explosion showed some pretty drastic leaps in the fossil record. These aren't just "gaps" but accelerated evolutionary change. Finding rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata has nothing to do with the initial premise I made.

Comprehensively.

Explain.

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.

I never said I could prove the "Theory of evolution", I said I could prove "Evolution". You can't prove theories in science, that's not how it works. However you can prove facts.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"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.

Well what a waste of time that was. How isn't it 'useful'?

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

Premise is factual. Logic is valid. Conclusion is "True".

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.

But you can make logical arguments to show that the facts science has found are...factual.

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.

I never claimed that. I just said I can demonstrate a fact through syllogistic logic using the facts of science as a premise.

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.

You're missing something. Science forms hypothesis through observable facts and THEN tests them through the scientific method and puts the facts together in a consistent framework that predicts future phenomena.

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?"

Or maybe your first premise is too faulty and uncertain ever to be a valid proof of anything. No one but a dolt doubts that since we see evolution in the fossil record, evolution occurs. However anyone can see that prayer restoring amputated limbs doesn't necessarily equal "God".

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.

No, I never used such wording.

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.

Or maybe you are. Please re-read my question.

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get any real answers. Here's the question: 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]What would you accept as absolute proof of a God? Proof that can not be explained in any other way but through "God" as I defined him. Miracles, Magic, Prophecies, Visions can all be explained through other means which exclude a "God". So I'm curious what proof any of you who do not believe in a God would accept as proof of a God.


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

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.

Scientific theories aren't supposed to be "irrefutable", though many theories are indeed 'irrefutable' in the sense they are absolutely true.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Oh, sure you did:

(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.

How is not including details the same as "Misstating it"? If I say "Evolution is true because we observe the evidence in the fossil record", Is it misstating it because I don't include DNA as evidence? Of course not. The point Goedel was his theorems don't mean that 1+1 doesn't = 2.

I think it's about time you admit you were wrong.

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

A single quantity (one)
and a single quantity (one)
added together (added)
makes a double quantity (equals two)
never a triple quantity. (never three)

 

[PixyMisa]

The cambrian explosion showed some pretty drastic leaps in the fossil record.

No. What it showed was the second evolution of large multicellular animals (that we know of).

These aren't just "gaps" but accelerated evolutionary change.

Accelerated in what aspects and with respect to what?

Finding rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata has nothing to do with the initial premise I made.

It does, because it shows one example (out of an infinite number of examples) of how your premise can be proven false.

Explain.

Why? You can't even construct a valid syllogism; you've proven that you don't understand the basic rules of logic, or how science works. And it has already been explained, several times.

I never said I could prove the "Theory of evolution", I said I could prove "Evolution". You can't prove theories in science, that's not how it works. However you can prove facts.

If that is all you are trying to do, then your syllogism is tautological. Evolution is gradual phylogenetic change. If you observe gradual phylogenetic change, you have observed evolution, leaving nothing to prove.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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?

Because that's what fits with the other observable evidence we see in the world.

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.

Now give me 1 reason why these are more likely than the one I provided. I clearly stated that assuming specific axioms, the logic is valid. If we believe that we could be in a coma in a hospital bed somewhere and no scientific evidence at all exists then science has no value and we're left with nothing.

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.

You believe we only "Probably" see transitional fossils? Want me to show you some pictures of some so you can change you wording to "Definitely"?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I would accept any proof at all for the existence of any god.

Be specific and give an example then.

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.

Except I made no such claims.

Is that single and specific enough for you?

Nope. You can't give an example of what would prove the God I defined only ones YOU define? hmm

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. What it showed was the second evolution of large multicellular animals (that we know of).

Accelerated in what aspects and with respect to what?

The Cambrian explosion is the geologically sudden appearance in the fossil record of the ancestors of familiar animals, estimated to take around 10 million years from 530 to 520 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

It does, because it shows one example (out of an infinite number of examples) of how your premise can be proven false.

How would it prove any one of my premises false?

Why? You can't even construct a valid syllogism; you've proven that you don't understand the basic rules of logic, or how science works. And it has already been explained, several times.

Tell me how my logic is invalid. Tell me how I don't understand how science works. Your explanations have been refuted. Now please explain what I asked you to explain.

If that is all you are trying to do, then your syllogism is tautological. Evolution is gradual phylogenetic change. If you observe gradual phylogenetic change, you have observed evolution, leaving nothing to prove.

Except Evolution!

 

[PixyMisa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Yes, Dustin, I know what the Cambrian Explosion was.

Now, contrast "sudden" with "10 million years".

How would it prove any one of my premises false?

Your first premise is a conditional. Such an observation would falsify it.

Tell me how my logic is invalid.

If you are simply referring to the fact of evolution, it's tautological.

If you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, you are affirming the consequent, as has been explained.

Tell me how I don't understand how science works. Your explanations have been refuted. Now please explain what I asked you to explain.

Already done, Dustin.

Except Evolution!

You already observed evolution, Dustin. There was nothing for you to prove.

Premise: All cats are cats.
Premise: This is a cat.
Conclusion: This cat is a cat.

That is your achievement, Dustin my lad. Be proud.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, Dustin, I know what the Cambrian Explosion was.

Now, contrast "sudden" with "10 million years".

Ha, 10 million years is quite sudden from a geological or evolutionary standpoint. Nice try.

Your first premise is a conditional. Such an observation would falsify it.

How so?

If you are simply referring to the fact of evolution, it's tautological.

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.

It's true that seeing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species would make evolution true, however this isn't the argument. The argument is that IF we see them then evolution is true. Premise 1 is stating a fact and isn't the argument itself therefore isn't tautological. The second premise states that it's true that we see it therefore evolution is true.

If you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, you are affirming the consequent, as has been explained.

Even if I was referring to the theory of evolution, I wouldn't be affirming the consequent.

Already done, Dustin.

Point out the exact post and section of post where this has 'already been done'.

You already observed evolution, Dustin. There was nothing for you to prove.

Premise: All cats are cats.
Premise: This is a cat.
Conclusion: This cat is a cat.

That is your achievement, Dustin my lad. Be proud.

No. It would be more like this...

Premise 1: If I see a [SIZE=-1]feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar then I would see a "Cat".

Premise 2: [/SIZE]I see a [SIZE=-1]feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar.

Conclusion: I see a cat.


Your argument:
[/SIZE] Premise: All cats are cats.
Premise: This is a cat.
Conclusion: This cat is a cat.

Your arguments is basically "All A's are A's", "This is an A", "This is an A".
The second premise and the conclusion are the effectively same. In order for it to be a syllogism it must draw the two premises together to make a conclusion separate from each premise. Yours doesn't do that. Mine does. My first premise says that if we see A then B is true. My second premise states that we see A. My conclusion states that since we see A, B is true.

 

[qayak]

Ha, 10 million years is quite sudden from a geological or evolutionary standpoint. Nice try.

Isn't that why they call it an "explosion?"

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Isn't that why they call it an "explosion?"

Yes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ha, 10 million years is quite sudden from a geological or evolutionary standpoint. Nice try.

And can be a considerable time in evolution.

How so?

Like this:

If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species except for these damn rabbits then we don't know what the hell is going on.

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.

You can't see premise 1 as being true. Premise 1 is a conditional statement, not something you can observe. All you can do is assert it.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This form of your syllogism says:

Premise: If P then Q. Premise: If P then Q. Conclusion: Q

That makes no sense.

It's true that seeing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species would make evolution true, however this isn't the argument. The argument is that IF we see them then evolution is true. Premise 1 is stating a fact and isn't the argument itself therefore isn't tautological.

If premise 1 is stating a fact, why do you phrase it as an argument? Phrase it as a statement of fact.

The second premise states that it's true that we see it therefore evolution is true.

The second statement is merely an assertion of the validity of the earlier conditional.

Even if I was referring to the theory of evolution, I wouldn't be affirming the consequent.

Yes, you would.

Point out the exact post and section of post where this has 'already been done'.

Last two pages, every reply except your own. And this reply, again.

No. It would be more like this...

Premise 1: If I see a [SIZE=-1]feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar then I would see a "Cat".

Premise 2: [/SIZE]I see a [SIZE=-1]feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

This premise 2 bears no relation to your premise 2 earlier in your post. It's more like:

P1: If I see a feline mammal blah blah then it is a cat.
P2: We observe P1 as true.

Since P1 is a conditional, and all you have done is assert P1, the only thing you can get out of it is P1 - the same conditional claim you started with.

C: If I see a feline mammal blah blah then it is a cat.

Not a lot of progress there.[/SIZE]

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And can be a considerable time in evolution.

Yes, However still sudden considering the amount of time life existed but didn't start rapidly evolving.

Like this:

If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species except for these damn rabbits then we don't know what the hell is going on.

Our finding a rabbit fossil (of the age) in pre-Cambrian strata then that would just pull rabbit evolution all of the way back to that time and would not negate evolution itself. Moreover, No rabbits exist in Pre-Cambrian strata. My premise isn't invalid.

You can't see premise 1 as being true. Premise 1 is a conditional statement, not something you can observe. All you can do is assert it.

Premise 2 states that the condition in premise 1 is true. We do observe it. Or are you claiming that we don't see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species? Seems you need to do some research into the fossil record.

This form of your syllogism says:

Premise: If P then Q. Premise: If P then Q. Conclusion: Q

That makes no sense.

Nope.

Premise 1: If P then Q.

Premise 2: P

Conclusion: Therefore Q.

This is how many, many syllogisms work. See...

Premise 1: If a dog then a mammal.

Premise 2: A dog.

Conclusion: A mammal.

If premise 1 is stating a fact, why do you phrase it as an argument? Phrase it as a statement of fact.

Premise 1 doesn't equal evolution. It's an "IF". If we observe N then evolution is true. Premise 2 says we observe N.

The second statement is merely an assertion of the validity of the earlier conditional.

No. The initial premise is a conditional statement. As you said yourself just 1 post ago!

Yes, you would.

HOW?

Last two pages, every reply except your own. And this reply, again.

I looked and can find no such thing. Please paste it.
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1] This premise 2 bears no relation to your premise 2 earlier in your post. It's more like:

P1: If I see a feline mammal blah blah then it is a cat.
P2: We observe P1 as true.

Since P1 is a conditional, and all you have done is assert P1, the only thing you can get out of it is P1 - the same conditional claim you started with.

C: If I see a feline mammal blah blah then it is a cat.

Not a lot of progress there.[/SIZE]

Since you have a difficult time comprehending basic explanations let me make the argument EVEN CLEARER...


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 transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.


Now that it fits with D'rok's change, explain the problem here.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, However still sudden considering the amount of time life existed but didn't start rapidly evolving.

So, "sudden" is relative, and for it to have any particular meaning you have to carefully define where and what and why, and so forth.

So the assertion that the Cambrian Explosion was in some sense "sudden" doesn't really get you anywhere.

And take a chance to read up on the Ediacaran fauna, which came out of a sort of pre-Cambrian explosion. An extensive fauna of large soft-bodied animals that pre-dated the Cambrian Explosion. Life was indeed evolving rapidly prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

Our finding a rabbit fossil (of the age) in pre-Cambrian strata then that would just pull rabbit evolution all of the way back to that time and would not negate evolution itself.

Uh, no. There are no rabbit precursors in the pre-Cambrian. There is nothing for rabbits to eat; there is no terrestrial life at all.

If there were in fact pre-Cambrian rabbits, the whole thing goes out the window.

Moreover, No rabbits exist in Pre-Cambrian strata.

Proof, please?

Premise 2 states that the condition in premise 1 is true.

That might be what you mean. That's not what it says.

Premise 1: If P then Q.

Premise 2: P

This does not map onto your previous syllogism.

Premise 1 doesn't equal evolution. It's an "IF". If we observe N then evolution is true. Premise 2 says we observe N.

No it doesn't. Premise 2 says we observe Premise 1, an impossibility, since you can't observe a conditional.

No. The initial premise is a conditional statement. As you said yourself just 1 post ago!

Yes.

And premise 2 asserts its validity. Since premise 1 asserts its own validity, this gets you nowhere.

HOW?

As explained earlier.

I looked and can find no such thing. Please paste it.

You did see it, because you replied to it. You disagreed. You are wrong. The reasons you are wrong have also been supplied. You disagree with those. You are wrong again, for reasons that have also been supplied.

Since you have a difficult time comprehending basic explanations let me make the argument EVEN CLEARER...

Feel free.

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 transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

Not that this is NOT what you wrote earlier.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

That follows; i.e. the syllogism is internally valid. Sort of. The wording is poor; for example, what do you mean when you say "Evolution is true"?

Now that it fits with D'rok's change, explain the problem here.

The syllogism is valid, this time. None of its previous forms were valid.

But what you are stating is this: We observe evolution.

Evolution is gradual phylogenetic change. You get transitional forms from that.

So your syllogism translates to:

Premise 1: If we see that evolution happened, then evolution happened.
Premise 2: We see that evolution happened.
Conclusion: Evolution happened.

So... Why did you bother? And why did you insist on presenting so many invalid variants?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, "sudden" is relative, and for it to have any particular meaning you have to carefully define where and what and why, and so forth.

So the assertion that the Cambrian Explosion was in some sense "sudden" doesn't really get you anywhere.

And take a chance to read up on the Ediacaran fauna, which came out of a sort of pre-Cambrian explosion. An extensive fauna of large soft-bodied animals that pre-dated the Cambrian Explosion. Life was indeed evolving rapidly prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

It was sudden in relation to evolutionary and geological time periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota

Proof, please?

Proof that rabbits don't exist in pre-Cambrian fauna? You prove they do. You're making the positive assertion. Do you believe rabbits exist in pre-Cambrian fauna? You've already said yourself that they couldn't survive.

Not that this is NOT what you wrote earlier.

Well it's what I'm writing now.

That follows; i.e. the syllogism is internally valid. Sort of. The wording is poor; for example, what do you mean when you say "Evolution is true"?

You don't know the definition of Evolution?

The syllogism is valid, this time. None of its previous forms were valid.

But what you are stating is this: We observe evolution.

Evolution is gradual phylogenetic change. You get transitional forms from that.

What I'm stating is that IF we see A then B is true. We see A therefore B is true. What my syllogism proves is that evolution is true.

So your syllogism translates to:

Premise 1: If we see that evolution happened, then evolution happened.
Premise 2: We see that evolution happened.
Conclusion: Evolution happened.

So... Why did you bother? And why did you insist on presenting so many invalid variants?

No. It doesn't. The syllogism doesn't define 'transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species' as evolution but rather simply states that the fact that we see this means evolution is true.

 

[PixyMisa]

It was sudden in relation to evolutionary and geological time periods.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Try rephrasing it.

Meanwhile, what about the Ediacaran fauna? Did they also appear suddenly? Was the Cambrian Explosion sudden when compared to the evolution of the Ediacaran fauna, or vice versa?

Proof that rabbits don't exist in pre-Cambrian fauna? You prove they do. You're making the positive assertion.

And what might this positive assertion be, Dustin?

Do you believe rabbits exist in pre-Cambrian fauna?

We have no evidence at all of any such thing.

You've already said yourself that they couldn't survive.

Of course they couldn't. That's why it would be something of a surprise to find that they did.

Well it's what I'm writing now.

Okey-dokey. So your previous formation was ... flawed, shall we say, but you've fixed that, sort of. Now it's merely ill-defined.

You don't know the definition of Evolution?

Which evolution? Theory or fact?

What I'm stating is that IF we see A then B is true. We see A therefore B is true. What my syllogism proves is that evolution is true.

It only does this if your first conditional is also valid. You also need to define what you mean when you say "evolution", and what you mean when you assign a truth value to that term.

No. It doesn't. The syllogism doesn't define 'transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species' as evolution but rather simply states that the fact that we see this means evolution is true.

Define evolution, Dustin. Your definition. And define what you mean when you say evolution is "true". Then we may be able to make some progress.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Try rephrasing it.

Meanwhile, what about the Ediacaran fauna? Did they also appear suddenly? Was the Cambrian Explosion sudden when compared to the evolution of the Ediacaran fauna, or vice versa?

Forget it. I'm tired of discussing that. If you don't want to believe the Cambrian explosion was a sudden then go right ahead.

And what might this positive assertion be, Dustin?

That rabbits existed in pre-Cambrian strata.

We have no evidence at all of any such thing.

Do you believe rabbits exist in pre-Cambrian fauna?

Of course they couldn't. That's why it would be something of a surprise to find that they did.

Otherwise known as an "impossibility".

Which evolution? Theory or fact?

Just "Evolution".

It only does this if your first conditional is also valid. You also need to define what you mean when you say "evolution", and what you mean when you assign a truth value to that term.

The change in the traits of a population from generation to generation resulting in speciation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Define evolution, Dustin. Your definition. And define what you mean when you say evolution is "true". Then we may be able to make some progress.

Evolution-The change in the traits of a population from generation to generation resulting in speciation.


True-[SIZE=-1]consistent with fact or reality; not false.[/SIZE]

 

[jsfisher]

How is not including details the same as "Misstating it"?

Had you only omitted some minor detail, it would not have been worth noting, but you omitted half of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem's consequence. Gödel offered a choice: If X then either A or B. You elided that "or B" part (and you mis-characterized X).

If I say "Evolution is true because we observe the evidence in the fossil record", Is it misstating it because I don't include DNA as evidence?

Your analogy is defective on several counts.

First, you have jumped from the purity of formal Mathematics into the ambiguity of Science.

Second, your proposition contains a semantic error. Evolution being true is independent of what we observe, yet you present it as a consequence ("because") of observation.

Third, the proposition itself is false. The evidence of evolution found in the fossil record is just that, evidence. The evidence certainly supports the notion of evolution as a valid scientific law, but it is not proof of fact.

Fourth, as for the inclusion or exclusion of DNA evidence in your proposition, that is on the wrong side of conditional to be comparable to your misstatement of Gödel.

The point Goedel was his theorems don't mean that 1+1 doesn't = 2.

You misstated Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in a significant way. That's the point.

As for the rest, I never claimed otherwise. Why do you keep muddying the discussion with irrelevant side issues or bogus analogies?

 

[D'rok]

Well what a waste of time that was. How isn't it 'useful'?

You consider this to be a useful argument?

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q.

Or put into your words.

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-Evolution is true

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This statement:
We see Premise 1 as being true.

Is an assertion that this conditional statement is true:
If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species then Evolution would be true.

A conditional is only false if its premises are true and conclusion false together. This is a basic rule of logic. Therefore your second premise says:
Evolution is true.

This is a logically valid argument, but it is completely useless because you have simply asserted the conclusion to be true and then concluded that it is true. Many of us have tried to show you this, but you seem oblivious to the most fundamental rules of formal logic. Simply change your second premise to this:
We see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

If you are going to use formal logic to make some kind of point, you have to know how to use it properly.

Premise is factual. Logic is valid. Conclusion is "True".

Well now...that is improvement. Congratulations. Compare that with this statement:

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.

The truth of the first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument.

But you can make logical arguments to show that the facts science has found are...factual.

No. Facts are not determined by argument.

I never claimed that. I just said I can demonstrate a fact through syllogistic logic using the facts of science as a premise.

Science uses inductive and deductive reasoning to come to proofs all of the time. Given a specific set of axioms about our basic existence we can 'prove' given a set of factual premises that something is true. Let's try it here:

-- snipped evolution argument --

Oops. Yes you did. Regardless, facts cannot be determined through argument.

You're missing something. Science forms hypothesis through observable facts and THEN tests them through the scientific method and puts the facts together in a consistent framework that predicts future phenomena.

Sure. But these facts are not determined through argument...they are determined through observation. The hypothesis is the bit that can be stated syllogistically, not the facts.

Or maybe your first premise is too faulty and uncertain ever to be a valid proof of anything.

Dustin....TRUTH HAS NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON VALIDITY! How many times must it be said?

Not only that, but I said in my very first reply to you in this thread that it is not possible to prove god's existence deductively. THEREFORE ANYTHING PRESENTED WILL BE EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF.

No one but a dolt doubts that since we see evolution in the fossil record, evolution occurs. However anyone can see that prayer restoring amputated limbs doesn't necessarily equal "God".

Boy I love repeating myself. PRAYER RESTORING AMPUTATED LIMBS IS NOT PROOF OF GOD. IT IS EVIDENCE THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE WOULD FIND COMPELLING ENOUGH TO ASSUME THAT GOD EXISTS. THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ME!

...and so the Sophoclean tragedy is replayed.

Not only that, but the observable facts of the fossil record are not proof; they are evidence. Why couldn't one of your magic aliens have put them there? Maybe it's the same magic alien that regrows amputated limbs. Capricious bastard isn't he?

In fact, I think you've convinced me. There is no proof for evolution that can't be negated by saying a magic alien did it. Only credulous fools believe in fossils as evidence for evolution.

No, I never used such wording.

Perhaps I should cut you some slack, as you have to juggle multiple responses while I only have to deal with you. So here is a recap of what you asked me:

What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

From deductive logic? Nothing. No such proof is possible.

How about inductive?

Then that wouldn't be a proof - it would be at best a probability.

Well what 'evidence' would you accept for a God where the probability that "God" is the only explanation is so vast that any reasonable person would believe in it?

And then things just went downhill from there.

Or maybe you are. Please re-read my question.

See above.

Scientific theories aren't supposed to be "irrefutable", though many theories are indeed 'irrefutable' in the sense they are absolutely true.

No scientific theory is an explanation for phenomena that is absolutely true. Go back and read what I said about Hegel and Absolute Truth in your other thread. You are Hegelian to the core and don't even know it.




(Sorry about the shouting)

 

[Loss Leader]

Boy, Dustin, you're a real jerk.

I said evolution might not be true because the fossil records could have been planted by aliens or a trickster god or maybe you're dreaming it in a coma. You called that nonsense, stating:

Now give me 1 reason why these are more likely than the one I provided. I clearly stated that assuming specific axioms, the logic is valid. If we believe that we could be in a coma in a hospital bed somewhere and no scientific evidence at all exists then science has no value and we're left with nothing.

But that's not what you said earlier when someone stated what would be acceptable as "proof" of God. To that person you replied:

Well you'd have to be very credulous to believe "God" was responsible for such a thing considering the number of alternative explanations just as feasible as "God" including extraterrestrials who have been getting our airwaves for years and have become Christians, Some powerful deity attempting to trick people, Etc.

So, you've applied one rule to everybody else but refused to apply it to yourself. And you called it logic.

It is not. It is just one more example of your mandacity.

If we're not allowed to assert a proof of god because of alternative explanations like "some powerful deity attempting to trick people," then you're not allowed to assert a proof of evolution for the same reason.

You believe we only "Probably" see transitional fossils? Want me to show you some pictures of some so you can change you wording to "Definitely"?

I will never change my wording to "definitely." So long as there is any possibility, however remote, that I am being tricked by aliens or god, the thing is not proven.

In any case, no matter how much of the fossil record you show me, it would prove nothing about the fossil record because YOU DON'T HAVE THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. The entire fossil record is still mostly burried underground. We could find anything in there. We regularly do and are required to completely rejigger our theories to make room for new discoveries.

Your logic is just ... terrible. You absolutely suck at this.