What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Jekyll]

BTW, Who says my context is mathematical or philosophical logic when I say "proof of God"? I didn't.

No, you did. You soooooo, totally, did.

Proof of God

..... God is illustrated. This bears out in the following modal logical equation:

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

Where N is an entity, G is Godlike, and P are inherent properties. Excuse my logical syntax If it has some mistakes, the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.

 

[bignickel]

Creating all sorts of ad hoc excuses (such as aliens or collective hallucinations) is the major characteristic of pseudo-science AND irrational beliefs, disguised as reasonable skepticism. I´m glad to know that´s the kind of game you play.

Excuses? Hmm, that gives us a clue where you're coming from.

Such explanations as 'aliens' or 'insanity' (who said it has to be collective) will ALWAYS trump 'omnipotent super-being outside all reality'. Occam's Razor cuts deep.

Tell me this Caius: how can you, Caius Textor, tell the difference between Loki and God? How can you tell the difference between a being of half-omnipotent power who did NOT create the universe, and God?

 

[Wheezebucket]

If I woke up in the middle of the night to get something to drink and found Zeus eating my leftover raviolli (homemade, suckas!), then I'd believe in him. Especially if we startled eachother there in the dark and he hit me with a lightning bolt as a reflex, then resurrected me and apologized. I'd believe then for sure.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, you did. You soooooo, totally, did.

You're kidding right? That's a totally different thread. In that thread and in that specific argument I did mean "logical proof" however in this thread I didn't necessarily mean it. I meant any proof, logical or non-logical.

 

[Caius Textor]

Excuses? Hmm, that gives us a clue where you're coming from.

Don´t jump to conclusions. It´s uncalled for. I´m a full fledged skeptic, I have scientific training and I have no anti-science agenda. Quite to the contrary. I would ask, for the sake of normality, that my arguments be adressed. In return I promise to be a good boy, is that OK with you?

Such explanations as 'aliens' or 'insanity' (who said it has to be collective) will ALWAYS trump 'omnipotent super-being outside all reality'. Occam's Razor cuts deep.

Occam´s Razor is no substitute for objective, observable phenomena. Reality takes precedence over Middle-Ages epistemological principles.
We find explanations by testing and observing reality, not by sitting in our tables and elocubrating over what we think it´s simpler or more complex than... than whatever.

And you haven´t quite got what I´m trying to get across. I NEVER said anything about "yadda yadda yadda OUTSIDE ALL REALITY". It´s the very, exact and complete opposite. Only reality is observable. If there is a god, it must necessarily be within this very same reality. A reality to which we have objetive access through science.

Tell me this Caius: how can you, Caius Textor, tell the difference between Loki and God? How can you tell the difference between a being of half-omnipotent power who did NOT create the universe, and God?

I have no idea. But how mankind can tell the difference?

 

[D'rok]

You're kidding right? That's a totally different thread. In that thread and in that specific argument I did mean "logical proof" however in this thread I didn't necessarily mean it. I meant any proof, logical or non-logical.

Well, thank you for being honest about that finally. Your challenge now is to figure out how to convert your logical proof into evidence. And you cannot do that by redefining the conclusion of your logical proof using the prosaic definition of "proof" or by conflating logical proof with evidence. (At least, not if you want to have any credibility).

Here are examples where you have done just that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683191#post2683191
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683329#post2683329
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683540#post2683540
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683569#post2683569
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683603#post2683603
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683633#post2683633
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683809#post2683809
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683864#post2683864

Would you like to head back over to the other thread and clear that up?

If you are truly convinced of the validity and soundness of your formal arguments, then you may wish to consider using the conclusion of those arguments as the basis for an experimental hypothesis that will produce evidence. Unfortunately, I don't think this is realistically possible, which ultimately leaves the basis for your belief in the realm of the abstract rather than the concrete. But this is what faith is for - belief without evidence.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, thank you for being honest about that finally. Your challenge now is to figure out how to convert your logical proof into evidence. And you cannot do that by redefining the conclusion of your logical proof using the prosaic definition of "proof" or by conflating logical proof with evidence. (At least, not if you want to have any credibility).

Here are examples where you have done just that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683191#post2683191
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683329#post2683329
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683540#post2683540
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683569#post2683569
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683603#post2683603
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683633#post2683633
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683809#post2683809
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683864#post2683864

Would you like to head back over to the other thread and clear that up?

If you are truly convinced of the validity and soundness of your formal arguments, then you may wish to consider using the conclusion of those arguments as the basis for an experimental hypothesis that will produce evidence. Unfortunately, I don't think this is realistically possible, which ultimately leaves the basis for your belief in the realm of the abstract rather than the concrete. But this is what faith is for - belief without evidence.

The argument I made, The alternative Godel argument in the "Proof of God" thread was a form of "logical proof" which would make it factual and true since it's a sound argument.

 

[D'rok]

The argument I made, The alternative Godel argument in the "Proof of God" thread was a form of "logical proof" which would make it factual and true since it's a sound argument.

There are two problems with this:

1. There is no way to evaluate the soundness of your argument because the assumptions cannot be tested. Particularly, this is the case with the assumption of God-like properties. These are concepts the truth values of which are beyond our current ability to evaluate. If you can't evaluate the truth of your premises, you can't claim to have a true conclusion. At best, you have a valid argument.

2. Even if your argument is valid and sound, it is true only the abstract realm of formal logic. It is not "real" or "factual". To claim that, you need evidence. Once again, you cannot claim that you have evidence by simply redefining your logical proof using the prosaic definition of "proof".

You have what appears to be an insoluble problem.

 

[Loss Leader]

Creating all sorts of ad hoc excuses (such as aliens or collective hallucinations) is the major characteristic of pseudo-science AND irrational beliefs, disguised as reasonable skepticism. I´m glad to know that´s the kind of game you play.

I didn't realize that an equally reasonable alternative hypothesis that fits all of the known facts was, in fact, an "ad hoc excuse."

When you get a working time machine together, I will travel back in time and tell Joseph Priestley that he can stuff his "oxygen" in a sack because we're not accepting ad hoc excuses for why nobody can isolate phlogiston. Then I'm going to give Einstein a piece of my mind for his ad hoc excuses as to why Newtonian physics isn't fitting the bill.

If "advanced aliens" is an ad hoc excuse, please answer this: What test will you design to separate the effects of advanced alien technologies from the hand of God?

Bear in mind before you start that you have no idea what these advanced alien technologies are, how they work, how to detect them or how to sheild against them.

Go.

 

[Loss Leader]

There are two problems with this:

1. There is no way to evaluate the soundness of your argument because the assumptions cannot be tested. Particularly, the assumptions of God-like properties. These are concepts the truth value of which is beyond our current ability to evaluate. If you can't evaluate the truth of your premises, you can't claim to have a true conclusion. At best, you have a valid argument.

2. Even if your argument is valid and sound, it is true only the abstract realm of formal logic. It is not "real" or "factual". To claim that, you need evidence. Once again, you cannot claim that you have evidence by simply redefining your logical proof using the prosaic definition of "proof".

You have what appears to be an insoluble problem.

Yeah! What he said!

Also, your arguments aren't valid. They assume the conclusion as one of their premises. Or, possibly, premisses. At one point, you shifted the entire burden of proof onto some poor blind guy. It was all a big mess, really.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Nutty definition: God is an almighty being able of interfering with the world (which it created) the way it pleases.

There you have it. What kind of (set of) evidence would we accept as "proof" of such a being?

My answer: repeatedly and objectively (meaning, everybody would notice the same thing and not only those with "faith") violating stablished natural laws in a very basic level.

Very basically - magic should work. Maybe not quite like this: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/magicOverview.htm
but something along those lines.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[D'rok]

Very basically - magic should work. Maybe not quite like this: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/magicOverview.htm
but something along those lines.

Cheers,
TGHO

That site rocks! I wonder what WOtC thinks about it?

 

[The Great Hairy One]

That site rocks! I wonder what WOtC thinks about it?

It's perfectly legal and, in fact, encouraged. The SRD is open source roleplaying material. There's a bunch of monsters which are closed source (Mind Flayers for one), which you won't find there, but otherwise, it's pretty comprehensive.

Pardon the derail chaps.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[jsfisher]

The argument I made, The alternative Godel argument in the "Proof of God" thread was a form of "logical proof" which would make it factual and true since it's a sound argument.

Even Gödel, himself, never considered it a "logical proof" of anything. It was meant as a formalization of a philosophic point of view, nothing more.

So, if Gödel didn't consider it a proof, why should you?

 

[Bob Klase]

Once again, you cannot claim that you have evidence by simply redefining your logical proof using the prosaic definition of "proof".

Actually he can claim that, and he has.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There are two problems with this:

1. There is no way to evaluate the soundness of your argument because the assumptions cannot be tested. Particularly, this is the case with the assumption of God-like properties. These are concepts the truth values of which are beyond our current ability to evaluate. If you can't evaluate the truth of your premises, you can't claim to have a true conclusion. At best, you have a valid argument.

2. Even if your argument is valid and sound, it is true only the abstract realm of formal logic. It is not "real" or "factual". To claim that, you need evidence. Once again, you cannot claim that you have evidence by simply redefining your logical proof using the prosaic definition of "proof".

You have what appears to be an insoluble problem.

You're assuming empiricism is the only way to come to truth. My argument makes no assumptions that are kept throughout the argument. If you're contending that only truth can be discovered via empirical and material evidence, explain to me how the Cartesian self can be discovered without such.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah! What he said!

Also, your arguments aren't valid. They assume the conclusion as one of their premises. Or, possibly, premisses. At one point, you shifted the entire burden of proof onto some poor blind guy. It was all a big mess, really.

You clearly didn't read my original post in that thread. Making assumptions about things in order to prove that their contradictions are impossible is a common form of argumentation.

Even Gödel, himself, never considered it a "logical proof" of anything. It was meant as a formalization of a philosophic point of view, nothing more.

So, if Gödel didn't consider it a proof, why should you?

A "formalization of a philosophic point of view"?

My argument isn't Gödel argument. I made many changes to it correcting it's mistakes.

 

[Caius Textor]

One more time:

"Extremelly advanced aliens" must work within the boundaries of reality and actual physical law. A god, by hypotheses, should be able to manipulate this reality at will (something that it ALONE can do).

You can´t glimpse a phenomenon and dictate right away "this is alien work", "this is god work". Science does not work that way. It requires extensive research and numberless tests. You can easily rule out hypotheses once you have that kind of result. That is why we have, so far, ruled out any god-like "explanation" and thats how we are going to determine IF aliens are playing tricks on us or not.

Now, Loss Leader, it´s really funny how you compare your couple-minute considerations in a bloody internet forum with years of research by acomplished scientists published (in Einstein´s case) in renowned, peer-reviewed journals. May I remind you that even he had to change, debate and better his theories?
Could we, please, leave this pointless bickering aside and at least try to get to a common ground?

 

[D'rok]

You're assuming empiricism is the only way to come to truth.

Empiricism is the only way to come to concrete truth. Your method is an attempt to come to abstract truth.

My argument makes no assumptions that are kept throughout the argument. If you're contending that only truth can be discovered via empirical and material evidence, explain to me how the Cartesian self can be discovered without such.

That's not a truth; that's an axiom. Here's another one: The universe operates according to physical laws which can be deduced and exploited through observation and experimentation.

Like it or not, we live in the age of empiricism. The ideal is no longer real. It is no longer considered legitimate to leap directly from the subjective to the objective. In our age, truth is concrete, not abstract.

You desperately want your abstract truth (assuming for the sake of argument that you have achieved abstract truth) to become concrete. You are unlikely to succeed in convincing anyone of this through assertion or argumentation. You must do it through experimentation and observation. If the abstract convinces you, then fine. It is not evidence and it is not convincing to us.

The intellectually honest option is to give in to the mystery and accept your leap of faith.

 

[Complexity]

You're kidding right? That's a totally different thread. In that thread and in that specific argument I did mean "logical proof" however in this thread I didn't necessarily mean it. I meant any proof, logical or non-logical.

You know, Dusty - most of us at least try for a modicum of consistency.

I suppose you're just emulating your sky-spook in convenient slipperiness and lack of integrity.