What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[Complexity]

Oh, and Dustin, please stop using the word 'proof' until you have some idea of what it means. I don't care what it means to the average person - it is a term of art and deserves to be used with care.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Quit relying on inadequate dictionaries for technical terminology.

Proof and evidence are not the same thing. Proof is a different kind than is evidence - it is not a matter of degree.

It all depends on the context of the usage. "Proof" isn't always used in the context of pure logic. I never used in the context of pure logic.

No. Do your own work.

You made the claim partner. 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:

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.

Read it again - figure out "suggestive" and "conclusive". That dictionary may be of some use here.

You say...

Logic is used as a tool in science and philosophy. The result of using logic in these domains is suggestive rather than conclusive.

Tell me how sciences use of logic "suggestively" rather than conclusively. What isn't conclusive about my previous logical proof?

No. Use a dictionary and give it some thought.

You dispute dictionary definitions so I thought I'd get it from the horses mouth.

No. It is impossible for anything to prove evolution or any other scientific theory.

To: There is an extraordinary amount of strong and persuasive evidence for evolution.

Explain how ERV's don't prove evolution then.

No, strong and persuasive evidence is not proof.

By definition it is. In the context I'm using it, it is. For someone who acts like they know so much about logic you don't seem to realize that you're committing the fallacy of Equivocation!

To: There is no strong or persuasive evidence that a god exists.

That you know of at least...

To me, of course.

But hypothetically, What could persuade you?

To: There are things that could persuade me that there is a god, though I have a very high threshold for persuasion these days. I've been religious in the past. I am an atheist now. I have no idea what will happen in the future.

Example?

Nah - there's no point.

That's the point of this thread.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

None that I know of.

Sorry, but its not. There are some good books out there on the loss of certainty in mathematics - read.

Give me a short example showing how 1+1=2 isn't certainly true.

Russell and Whitehead spent a great deal of work establishing that 1+2=2, publishing their masterpiece just after Godel pulled the rug out from under them.

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.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It all depends on the context of the usage. "Proof" isn't always used in the context of pure logic. I never used in the context of pure logic.

Is pure logic as intoxicating as pure grain alcohol? I bet you can't start fires with it, unless it is written down.

Does it come with a complimentary kilt?

DR

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, yes to the first part, and 'huh?' to the 2nd part. Yes because that was my point about it at least being outside the universe. Entering our universe: I have no problem with. But a part of it would definitely have to be outside our universe. This sets up the next part: my inability to properly recognize something outside our universe.

So how isn't this an argument from incredulity?

Well, since you're asking me a question about how I'm different than him, I'd say it's because I recognize my inability to recognize the evidence, evidence of a particular being outside our universe. The evidence that the creationist is denying is all evidence inside our universe. Not only that, evidence all here on earth. Processes that are actually going on right now.

Don't creationists frequently say they are unable to see how what is being presented is evidence for Evolution? It's an argument from incredibility either way you cut it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This whole thread is really a waste of time because it's backwards.

When someone puts forth a claim they must provide proof for its existence.
We are being asked to give a criteria for "proof" of god's existence. It's not my claim, or my theory or belief. I don't have give anything to this argument.

The question is, If you don't know what proof for a God would be how can you POSSIBLY deny the proof that is ever offered to you? Are you actually contending that you know what proof for God isn't but don't know what proof of God is?

Dustin whatever needs to put forth the following.
1) a definition of god
2) proofs for his existence

I already defined "God" in my O.P. I don't need to prove God because I haven't claimed God (Yet).

We can then set about falsifying his claim. If there is a compelling "proof" then that will go into the "evidence for god" column.

This argument is old and cliche. Any criteria for proof could easily apply to god or the flying spaghetti monster.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you can't tell me what you would accept for proof of a God how can I or anyone else even begin to dictate any proof to you? If you can't determine what WOULD be proof how can you possibly determine what would NOT be proof?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, a message encoded in a mathematical constant would be a lot more than "a message from far away." It would be a message etched into the fabric of reality itself. The author of the message must be, if not the actual creator of the universe, at least someone who had control over how it came to be -- the architect, you might say, even if he wasn't on the actual construction crew.

I don't follow. How would sending a mathematical constant mean the sender had a part in it's creation?

And the author of any such message would also have to be outside the universe, since the values of mathematical constants are, well, constant from our point of view.

I'm still not following. How would the originator of a mathematical constant have to exist outside of the universe? Humans can't send messages encrypted with mathematical constants? I can't send you the Golden ratio via radio wave? Or electrical communication?

Look: 1.6180339887!

Am I God now?

There would be no way you could fake such a message, and there's no way such a message could be written by anyone currently within our universe.

Why not?

At the very least it would be proof of what we might call a "transcendent extradimensional intelligence" -- close enough to God for government work. I can tell you one thing: it would sure get me interested in what the message said.

Why must it be a 'transcendent being'? Why not just some intelligent being inside of the universe? Or a powerful being inside of the universe?

Okay, since you acknowledge that your informal use of the word "proof" is synonynous with "evidence," I'll just go ahead and use the word "evidence" instead. Yes, something like this would indeed be very strong evidence of God -- particularly if the content of the message confirmed that idea.

But if there are alternative explanations how can it be evidence for a God?

Er, I think you need a refresher course for your Latin. Cogito (inf. cogitare) does indeed mean "I think." First conjugation.

cogito : to think, ruminate, ponder, consider, plan.

http://sunsite.ubc.ca/LatinDictionary/HyperText/latin-dict-full.html#C

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cogitare

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Well, I've read through the whole thread. I didn't post after my initial post here (#2) because I wanted to see what Dustin said, and whether or not he'd post these new arguments of his proving that a god of some sort exists.

I've got a few critiques I want to list here, and add them into the discussion:

1) Dustin's definition of a "god" is very nebulous. It allows for such beings as Ptah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah), Raven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_(mythology)) or any number of other deities and creationistic myths. For us to fully discuss the pathology of this particular deity, we need a much tighter definition.

2) As pointed out by Loss Leader and Complexity, Dustin is incorrect when he equates Proof to Evidence. I'll go further than those two, and point out that there is no Proof in science. What does that actually mean? Well, it means that a scientist, regardless of how much evidence he/she gathers, never - never - states that something is "100% true", which is what proof basically is.

In science, NOTHING is ever 100% true. There is always the slightest possibility that someone, somewhere is wrong. This is not the same as legalistic proof, where something can be proven by the preponderance of evidence. In science, if there is even a 1 x 10^-infinity chance of being wrong, then the possibility that you are wrong exists, and you've proved nothing.

Please note that this doesn't automatically discount the various mountains of evidence which exist for common scientific theories such as the Periodic Table, Gravity, Sexual Reproduction, Evolution, Heliocentralism, etc., etc. The evidence is there, it's solid and it exists. However, it might just be wrong. Thus these Theories are never Proofs.

Finally, I'd really like for Dustin to put his hand on the table and show his cards. He's been pussyfooting around his claim that he has some "new arguments" which prove that a god of some sort actually exist. Well, Dustin, show us these arguments.

Please.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Darn right they're not.

Depends on context.

To some extent, Dustin's goalpost relocation is a trick that he is playing by equivocating on the concept of sufficiency. He initially asked us what proof we would each individually accept of God - in essence asking us what evidence we would subjectively consider sufficient. He then slapped several people down by arguing that their tests were, in fact, insufficient. At that point, he appeared to have switched from subjective sufficiency (the lowest standard of proof in the universe) to logical sufficiency (the highest standard of proof in the universe). If he considers himself intelligent in his analysis, he is wrong. Equivocation is neither honest nor productive.

Actually in my O.P. I asked what they would accept as evidence for a God and I haven't changed that fact. I have however been pointing out that the evidence they presented wouldn't meet the criteria for actual evidence. The O.P. question was leading to the point about what would suffice for evidence that would convince you and I haven't changed that question despite the fact I attack them for their credulity.

There are many levels of proof. In law, for example, we sometimes ask for proof by a preponderence of the evidence. We sometimes ask for clear and convincing evidence; we sometimes demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All are "proof," all are different. And none of these standards of evidence approach what would be termed scientific proof. And no scientific proof is sufficient to establish logical proof.

You seem to be mixing things up here. Scientific proof (if we accept specific axioms) can be used as premises to come to logical proofs just the same as any field requiring proof for anything including law.

For example, a person may be found liable for damages for a fight even though there is massive amounts of contradictory evidence in the form of his own testimony blaming the other guy for starting it.

How is that 'evidence'?

However, Dustin seems deaf to all of these differences which makes this an utterly maddening and sophomoric thread. Literally. This is like arguments I used to have when I was a sophomore. "Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong." Utter nonsense.

The differences you bring up have been considered already, Moreover
I don't see any problems in asking peoples opinions and then pointing out how they are wrong.

 

[jsfisher]

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:

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.

Whoa!!! You don't see any problem with the line of reasoning?

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.

Just a nit: Gödel proved that any mathematical system large enough to include arithmetic was either incomplete or contradictory.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes--"cogito" definitely does translate exactly to "I think". It is in the first person singular form. Since Latin is inflected, personal pronouns aren't needed. Pretty much the only time you'd use "Ego cogito" is in poetry when you need to fit a certain scansion.

It's not really relevant and simply means Descartes should have phrased it better. However the phrase "Thought, Therefore existence." is what we'll use.

All the "proofs" proffered can be nixed (as Dustin has been doing). The right answer is there can be no proof of a concept that is not operationally defined.

Incorrect. The definition of "controlling the laws of the universe at will" would be operational.

I would also add, the concept of God as originator of the universe is logically contradictory--if God originated everything, then God is NOT part of everything. If the "universe" is a subset of everything, then we're just not using the same language.

Perhaps "God" exists outside of everything we consider to be the universe or as as far as the observable universe goes. Perhaps he is an inherent aspect of the universe and exists sort of like a flight controller who is an inherent aspect of an airport.

The concept of God the originator is sort of an empty marker. Ultimately, it's meaningless. For instance, if the need for an originator of the universe is imperative, why isn't there a need for an originator of God?

Who says there isn't?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Therefore rocks are nothing, or rocks don't exist?

Rocks exist. Rocks don't hallucinate.

Once again we're back to what would prove something to you. That's not the question.

What was the question exactly?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"Cogito, ergo sum" = Latin for "I think, therefore I am". If you want to throw out phrases in a foreign language without translation than "I" does not exist- period.

(Actually there is necessarily an 'I'. If you try to write "Cognito" without an "I" then you have 'Cogto)

The dictionaries I've seen disagree. But it's not really relevant.

 

[bignickel]

So how isn't this an argument from incredulity?

It's not an argument at all; it's merely a setup to my second point. Which is the second time I've said that.

Don't creationists frequently say they are unable to see how what is being presented is evidence for Evolution? It's an argument from incredibility either way you cut it.

You asked me how my position was different from a creationist. I explained how it was different. You then asked me if creationists say a particular thing. I have no idea; I suggest you go ask them. I suspect that Creationists say 'evolution didn't happen because it's impossible to go from A to B.' While you or I might see this as an inability, they do not.

If you have a different question about my beliefs, you can ask it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wow!

If there were some sort of being who actually claimed to be the creator and ruler of the whole universe, then that being would have to (among other things) provide objective evidence as to:
1) What occurred during the pre-creation period?
2) What happened during the transition from pre-creation to post-creation?
3) What has this being been doing since the universe has come into existence (which is about 13.7 billion years)?

How could it prove such a thing?

I expect that providing enough objective evidence to adequately answer these three questions would be impossible.

Impossible?

Therefore, the being would have to accept that his claim as creator of the universe as being a matter of faith as opposed to a matter of fact.

So why demand proof from people who believe in a God if you admit there's no possible conceivable way to prove God in the first place even if he existed? Not that I'm saying it's impossible to prove a God, Mind you.

 

[jsfisher]

It's not really relevant and simply means Descartes should have phrased it better. However the phrase "Thought, Therefore existence." is what we'll use.

Rene Descartes didn't say "Cognito, ergo sum." He said (well, wrote, actually) "Je pense, donc je suis."

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Are you claiming that you don't know what evidence is?

I know what 'evidence' is. However I'm asking you for an example of what you would accept as evidence for a God. Specifically as I defined him in my O.P.

If you claimed that your god was a eighty foot tall purple donkey that lived at the bottom of the ocean, we could search the ocean and find him. If you claimed that anyone could pray to your god and your god would answer them, anyone would be able to pray to your god and receive an answer from him. If you claimed that your god was the epitome of goodness, we would be able to judge your god's actions and see if they were good or evil. If you claimed that if we built a shrine to your god and that would cure diseases, we could build a shrine to your god and find someone with a disease and cure him with the shrine. If you claimed that your god created the earth six thousand years ago, we would expect for there not to be any historical evidence of anything happening more than six thousand years ago.

Except I made no such claims.

Is that enough examples? Do you still have questions?

Yes. What would you accept as evidence for God as I defined him in my O.P.?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If so, you must admit the possibility that god is unprovable.

Assuming he's transcendent. Which if he has enough power, He can fix.

And we won't be "able to understand or comprehend his proof".

That's only if he doesn't want to.

 

[jsfisher]

I am struck by two thoughts:

1. Dustin Kesselberg is merely waiting for someone to say, "There is nothing I'd accept as proof of god." Then, he'll bounce.
2. I cannot shake the image of Lucy holding the football and baiting Charlie Brown to come kick it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

1) Dustin's definition of a "god" is very nebulous. It allows for such beings as Ptah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah), Raven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_(mythology)) or any number of other deities and creationistic myths. For us to fully discuss the pathology of this particular deity, we need a much tighter definition.

Maybe there is no tighter definition. You can't discuss it as it's defined?

2) As pointed out by Loss Leader and Complexity, Dustin is incorrect when he equates Proof to Evidence. I'll go further than those two, and point out that there is no Proof in science. What does that actually mean? Well, it means that a scientist, regardless of how much evidence he/she gathers, never - never - states that something is "100% true", which is what proof basically is.

It all depends on the context of the usage of the word. As stated in any reputable dictionary "Proof" can be synonymous with 'evidence' when used in specific contexts.

In science, NOTHING is ever 100% true. There is always the slightest possibility that someone, somewhere is wrong.

Gravity as experienced by humans on earth isn't 100% true for humans as experienced on earth?

This is not the same as legalistic proof, where something can be proven by the preponderance of evidence. In science, if there is even a 1 x 10^-infinity chance of being wrong, then the possibility that you are wrong exists, and you've proved nothing.

Can you tell me the statistical chance that gravity as experienced by humans on earth isn't 100% true for humans as experienced on earth?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Whoa!!! You don't see any problem with the line of reasoning?

Be a doll and point it out for me.

Just a nit: Gödel proved that any mathematical system large enough to include arithmetic was either incomplete or contradictory.

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.